I am getting ready to board my airplane…….I guess reading this article about Al-Qaida isn’t going to make anyone feel secure about flying…these fanatics are now hiding bombs inside their bodies..should we be surprise? Of course not…they are determined to continue this war on Americans…I firmly believe we must continue pressuring them into nothing less than total surrender.
Pass it on,
Dr Anthony
Yepod.com
This article titled “Al-Qaida could use hidden ‘belly bombs’ to attack passenger planes, US warns” was written by Dominic Rushe in New York, for The Guardian on Wednesday 6th July 2011 20.03 UTC
American officials have warned airlines that they believe al-Qaida is developing “belly bombs” to beat airport security and allow suicide bombers to launch terror attacks on board passenger planes.
The department of homeland security has sent a bulletin to airline executives saying it has identified a potential threat from terrorists who could “surgically implant explosives or explosive components in humans”.
Although many airports use advanced imaging technology that can “see” through people’s clothing, the technology might not pick up a bomb which is hidden inside a body.
“Due to the significant advances in global aviation security in recent years, terrorist groups have repeatedly and publicly indicated interest in pursuing ways to further conceal explosives,” said Kawika Riley, spokesman for the department’s transport security administration.
“As a precaution, passengers flying from international locations to US destinations may notice additional security measures.”
Experts say the explosives could be implanted in abdomens, buttocks and breasts allowing suicide bombers to pass undetected through airport body scanners. Explosive compounds such as pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) could be implanted, then the person’s wounds allowed to heal, making the material difficult to detect. On board the plane, the material could be detonated by injection.
US officials have been on high alert for terror attacks since US forces killed al-Qaida’s leader, Osama bin Laden in May. They say there is no intelligence about a plot, but US and international carriers are being urged to consider the threat.
The bombs are thought to be a particular risk in Europe and the Middle East where full body scanners are not as widely used as they are in the US.
Authorities told ABC News that these “belly bombs” were thought to be the work of 28-year-old Ibrahim Asiri, who became a high-profile target for the US after his failed attempt to hide bombs in printer cartridges being moved from Yemen to Chicago.
He was also believed to be behind the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on 25 December 2009 by the “underwear bomber”, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
The Nigerian had a pouch of PETN in his underwear. He tried injecting the pouch with a chemical to create a detonation but he set his clothes on fire instead and was overpowered by passengers.
Research conducted by the BBC after the underwear bombing suggests that Abdulmutallab would have failed to damage the plane’s fuselage even if the bomb had gone off.
The BBC documentary claimed that the blast would only have been strong enough to kill the bomber and the person who was sitting next to him.
Al-Qaida terrorists are known to have hidden explosives inside their bodies for suicide bombings. In August 2009 Asiri’s brother, Abdullah Hassan, died trying to kill Saudi Arabia’s deputy interior minister with a bomb hidden in his anal passage.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010
Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.
Related Websites
7 Financial and Work-Related Life Lessons I Learned From My Dad Guest Post Author Bio: Broke Professionals is a personal finance... 
Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover I am sure that many of you have seen this... 
Dr Dillner’s health dilemmas: should I be screened for breast cancer?
Everyone should take their annual check-ups or screenings seriously …it may be the difference of surviving or dying. So pick up the phone right now and ask your doctor which tests or screening you should be doing for your age group.
Pass it on,
Dr Anthony
The dilemma: You might think this is a no-brainer: of course it’s best to find out if you have breast cancer as soon as possible. Up to one in eight women get the disease, so surely you’d want to be tested, catch it early and get treatment to improve your chances of survival? But, in fact, while screening may catch the disease early, there’s no guarantee.
Screening for diseases before they become clinically apparent is only useful if you can improve the chances of survival (or improve quality of life). To do that you need to understand what the disease would do if you left it alone – and not all diseases progress. With a type of tumour called ductal carcinoma in situ, which makes up 20% of the cancers found in breast screening, the tumour is confined to the milk ducts and there is just a 50% of chance it could develop into a full-blown cancer.
A recent study from the Nordic Cochrane Centre found that a third of cancer diagnoses made as a result of screening were not cancers. And while the NHS claims that screening saves 1,347 lives a year, Dr Klim McPherson, an Oxford professor in public health epidemiology, said in a letter to the BMJ last week that research showed that the more likely number was 500 lives a year. McPherson added that to prevent one death you would need to screen 1,000 women over 10 years. To throw even more doubt on the subject of testing, a paper in this week’s BMJ says that screening hasn’t improved mortality rates. Instead, improvements in treatment and healthcare processes were responsible for falls in death rates for breast cancer, and countries experienced the same falls whether or not they had screening.
The solution: So how can you decide if screening is for you? You may feel that one life in 1,000 could be yours and that screening is worth it. Few doctors will suggest that women should not undergo the procedure. It is a common disease and any woman who gets it would naturally wonder if she should have been screened and treated earlier.
However, a letter in the Sunday Times this week from some of the greats in cancer research argues that if women knew what the clinical evidence was they might turn down the offer of screening. It is really up to you. The mammogram is uncomfortable, no one can really say it’s going to save your life if you’re found to have breast cancer, and it may cause you unnecessary worry. I know a few doctors who have refused screening for themselves. But if you feel that if you got breast cancer and hadn’t been screened you would reproach yourself, then you should take the offer.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010
Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.