How Airport Security Could Reveal That The Body Lotion—Currently On Your Body—Is Explosive
Just a quick story from the annals of crazy things my coworkers say.
It’s true, I’m not generally a huge fan of the body scanner the TSA puts us through at many airports these days. And thanks to friendly advice from the comments in a post about it I now opt out of the low-level radiation if I’m not running late, and ask for the pat down instead. So far, so good. TSA employees have been super gracious when I do.
But I did have a small moment of appreciation for these X-ray machines, when a San Francisco-based coworker of mine—let’s call her Annie—told me how, on a recent work trip from SFO to LAX, she was pulled aside because her skin was, in fact, reading as explosive.
According to Annie’s retelling, the screen of the scanner was displaying red areas on her body that indicate the presence of a dangerous substance. And when they ran that special paper over her skin, and inserted it into the magic machine that detects such substances, it was no fluke: explosive again.
Since I blew the reveal in the title, you know where this is going. Turns out that the fancy cream Annie had recently bagged from a hotel room was indeed explosive enough to turn up on both of these fine testing tools.
While we had a good chuckle at this ludicrous tale of modern-world woes, it’s not really that funny (definitely a little bit, though). Imagine a more enlightened future where we recount these stories to our grandchildren: “Why, of course, we needed X-ray scanners Sonny boy, how else would we be able to detect that terrorists could be packing in their underwear, and that our skincare products may blow up. It’s not like the government was insisting they be tested for safety.” I mean, what the heck.
As for Annie, I’m hoping this was a wake-up call. You can bet I’ll be bringing copies of the book by the office on my next visit to San Francisco.
Anybody else have some crazy explosive cosmetics stories? A certain nail polish comes to mind…
@Dene and @Colin, thanks for your sharing your opinions. As an internationally known and respected researcher and writer, published in both English and Spanish, I stand by everything that I have said.
My PRIMARY concerns are the health and safety of all people and I have included a portion of the text of the proposed Safe Chemicals Act below. The information given in the text of the proposed legislation does note that illness and disease have been connected to synthetic chemicals. It certainly makes sense for chemicals to be tested prior to being used and to be monitored for new developments.
Why would anyone (especially those of us who are parents) want to allow for discomfort, illness, or disease to be caused if that could be prevented? The entire text of this bill can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112p4NfTH:e921:
American citizens can sign up to support the Safe Chemicals Act at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/900/566/320/
PARTIAL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED SAFE CHEMICALS ACT
SEC. 3. FINDINGS, POLICY, AND GOAL.
Section 2 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601) is amended–
(1) in the heading, by striking `intent’ and inserting `goal’; and
(2) by striking subsections (a) through (c) and inserting the following:
`(a) Findings- Congress finds that–
`(1) each year human beings and the environment are exposed to a large number of chemical substances;
`(2) the chemical industry, an important part of the United States economy, provides valuable products that are used in diverse manufacturing industries and other commercial, institutional, and consumer applications;
`(3) more than 3 decades after the enactment of this Act, people and the environment in the United States are still exposed to thousands of chemicals whose safety has not been adequately reviewed and may harm health and the environment;
`(4) the incidence of some diseases and disorders linked to chemical substance exposures is on the rise;
`(5) biomonitoring of chemical substances in humans reveals that people in the United States carry hundreds of hazardous chemicals in their bodies;
`(6) the concentrations of certain chemical substances that persist and accumulate are increasing in the environment and in human bodies and are found across the world, including in the remote Arctic in which Native Americans face increasing contamination of traditional foods;
`(7) differences in metabolism and physiology at certain stages of development can make infants and children more vulnerable than adults to the effects of chemical exposure, especially exposure that occurs in utero, during infancy, and during other critical periods of development;
`(8) manufacturers and processors of chemicals should supply sufficient health and environmental information before distributing products in commerce;
`(9) the Administrator must have and exercise the authority to develop sufficient information to assess chemical safety, and to act effectively when the Administrator obtains information that indicates there are risks of harmful exposure to chemical substances;
`(10) there is significant global trade in the chemical sector and many of the companies that conduct business in the United States must also comply with chemical safety regulatory programs in other countries, and the data that is generated to comply with those other regulatory programs may be useful in understanding hazards and exposures of chemical substances presented in the United States; and
`(11) a revised policy on the safety of chemical substances will assist in renewing the manufacturing sector of the United States, create new and safer jobs, spur innovations in green chemistry, restore confidence domestically and internationally in the safety of products of the United States, and ensure that products of the United States remain competitive in the global market.
`(b) Policy- It is the policy of the United States–
`(1) to protect the health of children, workers, consumers, and the public, and to protect the environment from harmful exposures to chemical substances;
`(2) to promote the use of safer alternatives and other actions that reduce the use of and exposure to hazardous chemical substances and reward innovation toward safer chemicals, processes, and products;
`(3) to require that chemicals in commerce meet a risk-based safety standard that protects vulnerable and affected populations and the environment;
`(4) to require companies to provide sufficient health and environmental information for the chemical substances that the companies manufacture, process, or import as a condition of allowing those companies to distribute chemical substances in commerce;
`(5) to improve the quality of information on chemical safety and use;
`(6) to guarantee the right of the public and workers to know about the hazards and uses of chemical substances that the public and workers may be exposed to by maximizing public access to information on chemical safety and use; and
`(7) to strengthen cooperation between and among the Federal Government and State, municipal, tribal, and foreign governments.
`(c) Goal- It is the goal of the United States to address the harmful exposure of vulnerable or affected populations to chemical substances caused by the distribution of chemical substances in commerce by–
`(1) reviewing all chemical substances for safety and identifying the highest priority chemical substances for expedited review;
`(2) determining whether chemical substances in commerce meet the safety standard under this title;
`(3) applying appropriate restrictions to the use of a chemical substance, where warranted; and
`(4) encouraging the replacement of harmful chemicals and processes with safer alternatives.’.
Apologies for the timeout on the full text of the Safe Chemicals Act. It can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c11203KN8g::
All righty, then! Full text of the Safe Chemicals Act should be at any of the websites below (which hopefully do not timeout). If all else fails, just google “Text of S.847″
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s847/text
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s847/text
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/SafeChem.pdf
http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.847:
Now I’m off to the gym! Regards to all!
And, hey, whaddya know, I found the 84,000 number cited by the EPA (scientifically-oriented governmental agency) on page 7 of the report “Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges,” published by the Congressional Research Service (governmental) dated July 28, 2009.
As stated in the report:
“As of November 2008, EPA estimated that there were 84,000 chemical substances on the inventory, meaning that they had, at least for a while, been in U.S. commerce after 1976. Included in this number were roughly 50,000 organic substances that are not polymers, 30,000 polymers, and 3,000 inorganic chemical substances.”
You can check out the report at https://portal.acs.org/preview/fileFetch/C/CNBP_023612/pdf/CNBP_023612.pdf
Given that, as noted in my previous post of the proposed Safe Chemicals Act (S.847), that exposure to these chemicals involves the following aspects, it would seem that further attention is certainly necessary:
“`(4) the incidence of some diseases and disorders linked to chemical substance exposures is on the rise;
`(5) biomonitoring of chemical substances in humans reveals that people in the United States carry hundreds of hazardous chemicals in their bodies;
`(6) the concentrations of certain chemical substances that persist and accumulate are increasing in the environment and in human bodies and are found across the world, including in the remote Arctic in which Native Americans face increasing contamination of traditional foods;”
As regards the issue of testing humans (let alone animals) for more than a few hundred chemicals, I do not see how this would be feasible, either financially or in practical terms. But, then again, given the current political climate in the U.S., I’m surprised that this Safe Chemicals Act has gotten as far as it has. So, we’ll see!
I think you have provided a good example of exactly what Dene has been saying about not really understanding the information you are accessing. That there are 84,000 synthetic molecules that have been registered is a far cry from saying that there are 84,000 instances of the risk. Many will be members families of chemicals with similar properties for example. Many will be transient structures that break down quickly. If you are looking for problems you would be very ill advised indeed to try and work through the whole list – in alphabetical order presumably. I urge you to read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. It is a long way from being a flag waver for the chemical industry, but it will make clear how real problems with chemicals occur and what can be done about them. It requires a lot more thought and analysis than you realise if your blog is anything to go by, no matter how many languages it has been translated into.
@Colin, thanks for sharing your opinions (and @Dene’s). As for my blog, it is available only in English, but is accessed by people from all over the world. And if you accessed my blog only via the link provided, then you saw just a fraction of the 80 posts that are on there.
As for being published in English and Spanish, that would be my book titled “MARC Manual,” which is available in its second edition, in both print and digital, via Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/MARC-Manual-Understanding-Using-Records/dp/1563081768/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1345226739&sr=8-2&keywords=marc+manual+deborah and via other booksellers. The Spanish translation “Manual de MARC” is also available through many booksellers, including at http://www.nuevoparhadigma.com.ar/marc.htm
Thanks for recommending Rachel Carson’s book, I have indeed read it, among many other books about our environment.
I’m fortunate to have had an enjoyable and successful career as professional librarian and administrator (with a Master’s degree in Library Science and a Master’s degree in Public Administration). Both personally and professionally, I support freedom of speech and thought and believe that a diversity of ideas and opinions is most crucial at this point in the evolution of humanity and our planet. I will continue to do my part and I trust that you will do the same.
Deborah – I fully support free speech – I want to make that very clear, but this is not the issue here. The issue (or one of them) is whether or not someone is qualified to understand what they are saying – and that is very different to free speech. You are entitled to your opinions, but if those opinions are based on false or inaccurate information, your opinions are flawed. You have quoted a figure of 84,000 (thanks for the link to that), but this is entirely irrelevant to cosmetics which, after all, is the point of this blog. You have misused that factual information by taking it entirely out of context. The number of cosmetic ingedients is closer to 20,000, the vast majority of which are used in very tiny quantities. I will admit that this is a guess, but it is highly likely that 90% of the composition of all cosmetics manufactured globally (by weight) is represented by less than 1000 different ingredients. Priority is given to the safety testing of high volume ingredients (and any that are of potential concern, for whatever reason), and the CIR (in the US) and the SCCS (in the EU) have covered the use of a large percentage of these in their safety assessments. Simply to take the 84,000 substances claim and to insinuate that all are relevant to cosmetics and, additionally, are hazardous, both to human health and to the environment constitutes a gross distortion. It’s called scaremongering. There ARE substances that should be of concern amongst those 84,000, but there is no evidence that there is any significant number of these used in cosmetics.
Let’s get back to basics on this discussion – the title of the article is “How Airport Security Could Reveal That Your Body Lotion – Currently On Your Body – Is Explosive”. What this is saying – unambiguously – is that your body lotion IS explosive. Leaving aside the unlikelihood of the airport scanner actually picking up what some commentators are claiming, this is a totally nonsensical claim. How can body lotion possibly be explosive? This is indefensible pap. Again, pure scaremongering. Nothing is gained by posting this article, other than the cause of worry in the minds of those who are unable (or too lazy) to indulge in a little bit of critical analysis. When was the last report of an incident of exploding body lotion published?
After being scanned, pulled aside, rubbed with the paper, all luggage searched, and not found explosive, I was allowed to board in RNO to LAX. Staff asked if I had used hand lotion recently. As a matter of fact After showing and trimming my bald pate and having a little dry skin, I had used a good amount of the last hotels body lotion. Personally it was quiet a trip, I have never had that much attention, with the exception of my throatee.
God bless America and the TSA.