Doctors on why they avoid naked body scanners at airports

Ethan A. Huff
NaturalNews
April 3, 2011

For those still contemplating whether or not the radiation emitted from airport naked body scanners is serious enough to avoid, you may be interested to know that many doctors routinely “opt out” and choose the full-body pat down instead because they recognize the inherent dangers associated with any level of radiation exposure. A recent CNN piece explains that for many doctors, avoiding all sources of radiation whenever possible is just the smart thing to do.

Throughout the past year, NaturalNews has covered many stories related to the US Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) controversial naked body scanners, which are now installed and in use at nearly 80 US airports (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ai…). Besides representing an unconstitutional invasion of privacy (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ai…), the scanners blast passengers with full-body doses of health-destroying radiation (http://www.naturalnews.com/naked_bo…).

So what do medical doctors who fly have to say about the machines? Well, according to CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen who recently conducted her own small investigation, many are concerned about the radiation these scanners emit. In fact, Cohen quotes several doctors who express concern about the cumulative effects of repeated radiation exposure, even if such exposure is supposedly miniscule and below established thresholds for causing harm.

“I do whatever I can to avoid the scanner. This is a total body scan — not a dental or chest X-ray,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfield to Cohen in an email. “Total body radiation is not something I find very comforting based on my medical knowledge.”

Another doctor explained that there is “no absolutely safe dose of radiation,” and that “each exposure is additive.” So even if the supposedly low radiation doses emitted from the naked body scanners are as low as TSA and the machines’ manufacturers claim they are, habitual exposure will still cause bodily harm.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Even Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) expressed concern about whether the safety of them machines, and whether or not TSA is properly maintaining and testing them for safety. After all, TSA refused to release safety reports for quite some time, and when they did, the bungled reports explained nothing more than TSA’s high level of incompetence (http://www.naturalnews.com/031792_a…).

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Back in December, radiation scientists admitted that naked body scanners are fully capable of causing both sperm mutations and cancer, despite insistence by authorities to the contrary (http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_n…). Other reports suggest that nobody really knows how much radiation is actually emitted from naked body scanners due to flawed and inconclusive safety tests (http://www.naturalnews.com/031792_a…)

Sources for this story include:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/3…

View the original article here

Doctors on why they avoid naked body scanners at airports

Ethan A. Huff
NaturalNews
April 3, 2011

For those still contemplating whether or not the radiation emitted from airport naked body scanners is serious enough to avoid, you may be interested to know that many doctors routinely “opt out” and choose the full-body pat down instead because they recognize the inherent dangers associated with any level of radiation exposure. A recent CNN piece explains that for many doctors, avoiding all sources of radiation whenever possible is just the smart thing to do.

Throughout the past year, NaturalNews has covered many stories related to the US Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) controversial naked body scanners, which are now installed and in use at nearly 80 US airports (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ai…). Besides representing an unconstitutional invasion of privacy (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ai…), the scanners blast passengers with full-body doses of health-destroying radiation (http://www.naturalnews.com/naked_bo…).

So what do medical doctors who fly have to say about the machines? Well, according to CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen who recently conducted her own small investigation, many are concerned about the radiation these scanners emit. In fact, Cohen quotes several doctors who express concern about the cumulative effects of repeated radiation exposure, even if such exposure is supposedly miniscule and below established thresholds for causing harm.

“I do whatever I can to avoid the scanner. This is a total body scan — not a dental or chest X-ray,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfield to Cohen in an email. “Total body radiation is not something I find very comforting based on my medical knowledge.”

Another doctor explained that there is “no absolutely safe dose of radiation,” and that “each exposure is additive.” So even if the supposedly low radiation doses emitted from the naked body scanners are as low as TSA and the machines’ manufacturers claim they are, habitual exposure will still cause bodily harm.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Even Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) expressed concern about whether the safety of them machines, and whether or not TSA is properly maintaining and testing them for safety. After all, TSA refused to release safety reports for quite some time, and when they did, the bungled reports explained nothing more than TSA’s high level of incompetence (http://www.naturalnews.com/031792_a…).

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Back in December, radiation scientists admitted that naked body scanners are fully capable of causing both sperm mutations and cancer, despite insistence by authorities to the contrary (http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_n…). Other reports suggest that nobody really knows how much radiation is actually emitted from naked body scanners due to flawed and inconclusive safety tests (http://www.naturalnews.com/031792_a…)

Sources for this story include:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/3…

View the original article here

Avoid Financial Disasters With Trailing Stops

By Chuck LeBeau, SmartStops.net Director of Analytics  (originally published Jan. 2009)

In less than a year six widely held financial stocks (Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM)’ Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE), Lehman Brothers (LEH),

American International Group (NYSE:AIG), Washington Mutual (NYSE:WM) and Bear Stearns (BSC) have cost Buy and Hold investors more than $840 billion dollars.  That’s billions more than the controversial government bailout that has the entire country up in arms.  If we add in the losses in the rest of the market we are talking about recent losses measured in trillions of dollars.  (I’m certain that many of the Lehman and Bear Stearns account executives advised their clients that the best way to invest was to Buy and Hold.)

Think of all the retirement funds and college tuition money that has been needlessly lost in these few months.  It’s a very sad scenario for average investors who are not Wall Street tycoons.  However the saddest part is that the investors who lost all these billions and trillions of dollars could have avoided this disaster by simply using some logical form of trailing exit to protect their investments.

Buy and Hold is not only the riskiest possible strategy it doesn’t qualify to be called a strategy.  Buy and Hold is actually the absence of any intelligent exit strategy and is mostly adopted by default.   Buy and Hold is only recommended by unknowing pundits who are out of touch with the modern market place and are willing to advise their followers that taking unlimited risk and being in the market 100% of the time is a good idea.  Obviously that mistaken advice has proven to be very costly.

Investors should be concerned that there may be even more disaster stocks in the months ahead.  The investing climate has changed forever and Buy and Hold should no longer be the exit of choice for mainstream investors.  In the last few years many well known stocks that were once considered “blue chips” have declined 90% or more.  Volatility in the market is at an all time high and expanding.  Prudent investors must learn to protect their stocks with some intelligent form of exit strategy.  The days of being patient and comfortable with Buy and Hold are long gone.  The risks of Buy and Hold are now much too high and the returns over the last ten years have been less than zero.  Buy and Hold investors have been exposing their capital to unlimited risk for meager or negative returns.

One obvious exit strategy that can prevent catastrophic losses is the use of a trailing exit commonly known as a “stop loss order”.  In the past most investors have been reluctant to use trailing exits because they are afraid that after they exit the stock might recover and go back up.  The obvious solution to that problem is to simply have a plan to reinstate the position when the liquidated stock shows signs of recovery.  Selling a stock doesn’t have to mean that you have given up on its prospects for the future.  Selling is just a temporary measure necessary in today’s markets to protect your capital from the increasing probability of catastrophic losses.

If the stock you sold declines you may very well want to buy it back and you will now have the capital to buy more shares than if you held your original position.  One of the blessings in these highly volatile markets is that transaction costs are so low now that they are virtually inconsequential and measured in fractions of a cent per share.  An extra $10 or $20 in transaction costs is a small price to pay to protect hundreds of thousands of dollars from permanent loss.

Here are three suggestions on how to implement an effective trailing exit strategy

1)       Identify the direction of the current trend.  If the trend is Up you will want to set the trailing exit a safe distance away from prices so that you do not exit while the stock is trending up.  You want to let profits run.  If the trend is Down set the exit closer to prices to cut losses and preserve capital.

2)      Keep an eye on volatility and adjust the exits farther away if volatility increases and then move them closer if volatility decreases.  The exits need to be kept outside of normal up and down price action which changes with volatility.  Volatility is presently at record levels so give the upward trending stocks plenty of room.

3)      Before you exit, make sure you have a plan to reenter the stock if the uptrend resumes.  The trailing exit provides a very valuable yet inexpensive form of loss insurance.  The price of that insurance is that your exit may occasionally get you out at a point where the stock stops going down and turns up.  Rather than miss the uptrend and blame the protective exit for the lost opportunity, simply buy the shares back.  Worst case, you will have paid a small price for protection from a possibly catastrophic loss.  Your exit did its job.

This simple advice would have saved investors trillions of dollars over the last twelve months and I’m confident that it will save investors trillions of dollars in the future.  Buy and Hold is dead.  Most investors are not going to miss it; may it rest in peace.

View the original article here

Avoid Financial Disasters With Trailing Stops

By Chuck LeBeau, SmartStops.net Director of Analytics  (originally published Jan. 2009)

In less than a year six widely held financial stocks (Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM)’ Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE), Lehman Brothers (LEH),

American International Group (NYSE:AIG), Washington Mutual (NYSE:WM) and Bear Stearns (BSC) have cost Buy and Hold investors more than $840 billion dollars.  That’s billions more than the controversial government bailout that has the entire country up in arms.  If we add in the losses in the rest of the market we are talking about recent losses measured in trillions of dollars.  (I’m certain that many of the Lehman and Bear Stearns account executives advised their clients that the best way to invest was to Buy and Hold.)

Think of all the retirement funds and college tuition money that has been needlessly lost in these few months.  It’s a very sad scenario for average investors who are not Wall Street tycoons.  However the saddest part is that the investors who lost all these billions and trillions of dollars could have avoided this disaster by simply using some logical form of trailing exit to protect their investments.

Buy and Hold is not only the riskiest possible strategy it doesn’t qualify to be called a strategy.  Buy and Hold is actually the absence of any intelligent exit strategy and is mostly adopted by default.   Buy and Hold is only recommended by unknowing pundits who are out of touch with the modern market place and are willing to advise their followers that taking unlimited risk and being in the market 100% of the time is a good idea.  Obviously that mistaken advice has proven to be very costly.

Investors should be concerned that there may be even more disaster stocks in the months ahead.  The investing climate has changed forever and Buy and Hold should no longer be the exit of choice for mainstream investors.  In the last few years many well known stocks that were once considered “blue chips” have declined 90% or more.  Volatility in the market is at an all time high and expanding.  Prudent investors must learn to protect their stocks with some intelligent form of exit strategy.  The days of being patient and comfortable with Buy and Hold are long gone.  The risks of Buy and Hold are now much too high and the returns over the last ten years have been less than zero.  Buy and Hold investors have been exposing their capital to unlimited risk for meager or negative returns.

One obvious exit strategy that can prevent catastrophic losses is the use of a trailing exit commonly known as a “stop loss order”.  In the past most investors have been reluctant to use trailing exits because they are afraid that after they exit the stock might recover and go back up.  The obvious solution to that problem is to simply have a plan to reinstate the position when the liquidated stock shows signs of recovery.  Selling a stock doesn’t have to mean that you have given up on its prospects for the future.  Selling is just a temporary measure necessary in today’s markets to protect your capital from the increasing probability of catastrophic losses.

If the stock you sold declines you may very well want to buy it back and you will now have the capital to buy more shares than if you held your original position.  One of the blessings in these highly volatile markets is that transaction costs are so low now that they are virtually inconsequential and measured in fractions of a cent per share.  An extra $10 or $20 in transaction costs is a small price to pay to protect hundreds of thousands of dollars from permanent loss.

Here are three suggestions on how to implement an effective trailing exit strategy

1)       Identify the direction of the current trend.  If the trend is Up you will want to set the trailing exit a safe distance away from prices so that you do not exit while the stock is trending up.  You want to let profits run.  If the trend is Down set the exit closer to prices to cut losses and preserve capital.

2)      Keep an eye on volatility and adjust the exits farther away if volatility increases and then move them closer if volatility decreases.  The exits need to be kept outside of normal up and down price action which changes with volatility.  Volatility is presently at record levels so give the upward trending stocks plenty of room.

3)      Before you exit, make sure you have a plan to reenter the stock if the uptrend resumes.  The trailing exit provides a very valuable yet inexpensive form of loss insurance.  The price of that insurance is that your exit may occasionally get you out at a point where the stock stops going down and turns up.  Rather than miss the uptrend and blame the protective exit for the lost opportunity, simply buy the shares back.  Worst case, you will have paid a small price for protection from a possibly catastrophic loss.  Your exit did its job.

This simple advice would have saved investors trillions of dollars over the last twelve months and I’m confident that it will save investors trillions of dollars in the future.  Buy and Hold is dead.  Most investors are not going to miss it; may it rest in peace.

View the original article here

Avoid Financial Disasters With Trailing Stops

By Chuck LeBeau, SmartStops.net Director of Analytics  (originally published Jan. 2009)

In less than a year six widely held financial stocks (Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM)’ Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE), Lehman Brothers (LEH),

American International Group (NYSE:AIG), Washington Mutual (NYSE:WM) and Bear Stearns (BSC) have cost Buy and Hold investors more than $840 billion dollars.  That’s billions more than the controversial government bailout that has the entire country up in arms.  If we add in the losses in the rest of the market we are talking about recent losses measured in trillions of dollars.  (I’m certain that many of the Lehman and Bear Stearns account executives advised their clients that the best way to invest was to Buy and Hold.)

Think of all the retirement funds and college tuition money that has been needlessly lost in these few months.  It’s a very sad scenario for average investors who are not Wall Street tycoons.  However the saddest part is that the investors who lost all these billions and trillions of dollars could have avoided this disaster by simply using some logical form of trailing exit to protect their investments.

Buy and Hold is not only the riskiest possible strategy it doesn’t qualify to be called a strategy.  Buy and Hold is actually the absence of any intelligent exit strategy and is mostly adopted by default.   Buy and Hold is only recommended by unknowing pundits who are out of touch with the modern market place and are willing to advise their followers that taking unlimited risk and being in the market 100% of the time is a good idea.  Obviously that mistaken advice has proven to be very costly.

Investors should be concerned that there may be even more disaster stocks in the months ahead.  The investing climate has changed forever and Buy and Hold should no longer be the exit of choice for mainstream investors.  In the last few years many well known stocks that were once considered “blue chips” have declined 90% or more.  Volatility in the market is at an all time high and expanding.  Prudent investors must learn to protect their stocks with some intelligent form of exit strategy.  The days of being patient and comfortable with Buy and Hold are long gone.  The risks of Buy and Hold are now much too high and the returns over the last ten years have been less than zero.  Buy and Hold investors have been exposing their capital to unlimited risk for meager or negative returns.

One obvious exit strategy that can prevent catastrophic losses is the use of a trailing exit commonly known as a “stop loss order”.  In the past most investors have been reluctant to use trailing exits because they are afraid that after they exit the stock might recover and go back up.  The obvious solution to that problem is to simply have a plan to reinstate the position when the liquidated stock shows signs of recovery.  Selling a stock doesn’t have to mean that you have given up on its prospects for the future.  Selling is just a temporary measure necessary in today’s markets to protect your capital from the increasing probability of catastrophic losses.

If the stock you sold declines you may very well want to buy it back and you will now have the capital to buy more shares than if you held your original position.  One of the blessings in these highly volatile markets is that transaction costs are so low now that they are virtually inconsequential and measured in fractions of a cent per share.  An extra $10 or $20 in transaction costs is a small price to pay to protect hundreds of thousands of dollars from permanent loss.

Here are three suggestions on how to implement an effective trailing exit strategy

1)       Identify the direction of the current trend.  If the trend is Up you will want to set the trailing exit a safe distance away from prices so that you do not exit while the stock is trending up.  You want to let profits run.  If the trend is Down set the exit closer to prices to cut losses and preserve capital.

2)      Keep an eye on volatility and adjust the exits farther away if volatility increases and then move them closer if volatility decreases.  The exits need to be kept outside of normal up and down price action which changes with volatility.  Volatility is presently at record levels so give the upward trending stocks plenty of room.

3)      Before you exit, make sure you have a plan to reenter the stock if the uptrend resumes.  The trailing exit provides a very valuable yet inexpensive form of loss insurance.  The price of that insurance is that your exit may occasionally get you out at a point where the stock stops going down and turns up.  Rather than miss the uptrend and blame the protective exit for the lost opportunity, simply buy the shares back.  Worst case, you will have paid a small price for protection from a possibly catastrophic loss.  Your exit did its job.

This simple advice would have saved investors trillions of dollars over the last twelve months and I’m confident that it will save investors trillions of dollars in the future.  Buy and Hold is dead.  Most investors are not going to miss it; may it rest in peace.

View the original article here

Nuclear Expert: "Fukushima Has 24 Hours To Avoid A Core Meltdown Scenario"

Asked how long Japanese scientists have to correct the problem to avoid a core meltdown, Hibbs tells Newsmax that it depends on system design, adding, “it could be a day, plus or minus 10 hours.”

“After a while, with the heat building up in there, and lack of coolant, you’re going to see damage in your fuel, the cladding, the metal container around the nuclear material, begins to buckle or balloon or break, and after a little while you’ll get a situation where the fuel falls apart, melts, and falls into the core, and then you’ve got a classical core melt accident like you had in Three Mile Island that you had in the United States in '79.”

Hibbs spoke with Japanese government officials who told him the force of the tsunami was so severe that the water may have flooded the reactors,  power generators, and cooling mechanisms, disabling the equipment. "Which means they have to resort to basically a military-type exercise, to rush in to the devastated site equipment that they can quickly hook up to the reactor to get power in there and start this emergency equipment, to get cooling water into that core and prevent that fuel from overheating.

“And if they can’t do that,” he told Newsmax, “then you’re going to have this meltdown.”

They have 24 hours or so to avoid a core meltdown, he says. But if one occurs, two scenarios could follow: The good outcome would mirror what happened at Three Mile Island, while the bad one could involve what he called a “Chernobyl scenario, where the damage to the reactor was such that the integrity of the structures were damaged.

“There was an explosion and other things happened in there, that opened up the reactor so the inventory of radioactive material . . . went into the atmosphere and generated this deadly plume that we know happened in Chernobyl.

“So that is the ultimate worst-case scenario. Nobody is saying that’s going to happen. Nobody is even saying we’re going to have a core meltdown. But we have a window of time now. We don’t know how much is left — but the Japanese authorities and the government and all the agencies that they can muster are working overtime to get cooling systems on that site powered and working.”

The April 1986 Chernobyl disaster cost an estimated 4,000 lives. More than 330,000 Russians had to be relocated because of contamination.

But Hibbs says, “A lot of worst-case things would have to happen for us to get that far.”

Hibbs said the Japanese right now are fighting the clock to contain the heating.

View the original article here