Slashdot Mirror


How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA

KentuckyFC writes "Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and the infrared. Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials such as clothes, paper, wood and brick and so cameras sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into living rooms and 'frisk' people at distance. That's not to mention the great potential they have in medical imaging. Because terahertz photons are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or ionize electrons, it's easy to dismiss fears over their health effects. And yet the evidence is mixed: some studies have reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, have reported none. Now a team led by Los Alamos National Labs thinks it knows why. They say that although the forces that terahertz waves exert on double-stranded DNA are tiny, in certain circumstances resonant effects can unzip the DNA strands, tearing them apart. This creates bubbles in the strands that can significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals, the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe."

22 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. The airport scanners are passive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you follow the link provided about the airport scanners you find that they are passive devices meaning they don't emit terahertz waves they only recieve the waves coming off of everything around us.
    There are some devices out there that using terahertz radiation to inspect packages much like x-ray today.

    1. Re:The airport scanners are passive by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 4, Informative

      For now. But the last paragraph of the MIT article indicates newer cameras will have their own emitters.

      --
      "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
    2. Re:The airport scanners are passive by Shrike82 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you follow the link provided about the airport scanners you find that they are passive devices meaning they don't emit terahertz waves they only recieve the waves coming off of everything around us. There are some devices out there that using terahertz radiation to inspect packages much like x-ray today.

      Thankyou. The summary implies that scanning using T-waves in airports might cause you to have your DNA scrambled, which is just plain wrong. Passive scanning (which we are told is what the airport scanners are) don't expose you to any more radiation than you get in a normal day.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    3. Re:The airport scanners are passive by natehoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The MIT article has no citations to any models coming out that use active scanning. Meanwhile, the article summary clearly implies, no, actually STATES, that they are being introduced already into airports. Which is patently false. Active scanners ARE being introduced, but they are milliwave body scanners, and these passive t-wave scanners appear to be a more effective and safer alternative.

      "With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals, the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe."

      The "terahertz scanners already appearing in airports", like the cited ThruVision T5000, are passive units. There is no discussion about "what level of exposure is safe" because there is no exposure to terahertz radiation. It's detecting what your body and possessions are already emitting.

      The t-band scanners are being tested for two reasons that seem to make sense to me, at least:

      1. Their imagery can detect materials more accurately whilst simultaneously not getting as accurate a picture of the actual body. This is better scanning with better privacy.
      2. The new scanners are passive t-ray detectors as opposed to active milliwave detector.

      Better scanning, less violation of privacy, no active emitter. If true, this sounds like a trifecta to me. I'd much rather pass through one of these than a milliwave unit.

      If and when ACTIVE t-band scanners start being introduced into general airport use, I'll share your concern and be right there with you in the pat-down line.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:The airport scanners are passive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disclaimer: I am an expert in millimeter-wave and terahertz imaging systems.

      I wanted to emphasize to everyone reading this is that the parent is exactly right. ThruVision (the only commercial terahertz imaging system currently in airports) is passive, in that it detects the blackbody radiation being emitted by your body, clothes, and other objects, and compares it to the blackbody radiation of the background. The apparent difference in radiometric temperature is what constitutes the final image. There is no emission of terahertz radiation by this system.

      On the other hand, the active microwave systems, which operate around 35 GHz (there are variations on this, of course) are essentially an active radar system. You are exposed to some non-ionizing radiation, and its reflection from your body, clothes, and other objects is received and compiled to create an image. In terms of radiation, then, the active microwave systems are irradiating you, but at a level far below your cell phone. I can give citations if you like (or refer to the SPIE conference publications by the Pacific Northwest National Lab group who pioneered the system that is currently in airports.)

      Or we can talk about privacy. The active microwave systems have far better spatial resolution than the passive terahertz systems, since they take full advantage of phase in the imaging, and have a great SNR due to transmitting their own microwave power. (the passive systems mostly use direct detectors, which are really only sensitive to the magnitude of the radiation. ThruVision's, though, uses a heterodyne receiver, and thus is quite sensitive, but since it is very narrow-band [340 GHz, +/- 5 GHz], its sensitivity is similar to a direct detector) Fancy radar algorithms give you spatial resolution far better than the diffraction-limited optics definition you are probably used to hearing about. On the other hand, the passive terahertz systems are limited by the diffraction limit, and thus their operational wavelength gives you a good idea of their spatial resolution.

      You would then say that a passive terahertz system operating at 1 THz would give you much better images than a passive system at 340 GHz, and in terms of spatial resolution you are right. However, it is commonly known that clothing transmittance drops off quickly as frequency increases from 100 to 1000 GHz (and of course even more at higher frequencies, which is why you don't see thermal IR cameras being used to detect ceramic knives under your clothes). So, somewhere between 100 and 1000 GHz is a happy medium in terms of spatial resolution AND being able to see through multiple layers of clothing.

      And yes the parent was also right that the passive terahertz systems are very bad at gathering an image of the body, since it is essentially isothermal. No radiometric temperature contrast? No image.

      One thing that everyone has missed is the amount of power needed to "unzip" DNA with terahertz frequencies. (TFS poses this question, actually. The answer is in the arxiv article.) It's actually quite high, and it is very difficult to find a source that can emit this level of power. Yes, there are terahertz lasers (at the several microwatt level), but you should be more afraid of a 10 micron CO2 laser that will punch a hole through your chest, and is also quite invisible.

    5. Re:The airport scanners are passive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I replied to the parent as AC also, just so you get an idea of who this is.

      I wanted to clarify again: the microwave systems are NOT passive. If it looks like this, it is an active microwave system, basically a radar. (I have to question their sanity in that the URL contains "xray"... real smart guys, real smart.) These systems produce images like this.

      Passive narrowband terahertz systems produce images like this. (this is actually one of ThruVision's... it's in an SPIE conference paper from a few years back.) Passive broadband terahertz systems produce images like this. As the parent said, passive terahertz is the way to go, but IMHO, only broadband actually works very well.

  2. Re:Ethical use of panic... by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hasn't it always been the case that you have the option to decline to use "the machine" and be hand-searched instead?

    Until this issue gets resolved, that's what I plan to do anyhow.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  3. In most cases, airport scanners are still optional by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The times I've encountered the terahertz scanners at airports, they've always been optional (although they don't make it clear to you that it is). If directed to one, I've always simply asked if I must use it or if I had a choice of a "normal" metal detector. EVERY time they've allowed me to choose (and I travel a LOT). Most times they take a note of it or ask me to sign a sheet to indicate my declination - I assume so they can figure out if people object or not.

    Asking the quesiton never hurts. It also sends the message that this intrusion isn't accepted by the public. Don't surrender to these things willingly.

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  4. Translation by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

    "This creates bubbles in the strands that can significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication." i.e. The birth of cancer cells. Terahertz waves are carcinogens.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Translation by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would depend on the degree. Your DNA's a mess at the best of times from exposure to the normal background of crap, and would be a mess in isolation by its very nature. The body has coping mechanisms: the question is, is this significant enough to pose them problems? The answer, according to this paper's lit review, is "sometimes, at a high enough or sufficiently prolonged level of exposure or at a particular frequency".

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  5. there was a little old lady in the UK who turned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    out to be one of the biggest spies for the soviet union during the cold war.

    dont mess with little old ladies.

  6. Structural explanation by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Informative

    The summary mentions that the terahertz waves "tear apart" strands of DNA. For those who might not remember their undergraduate biology, DNA strands are held together by hydrogen bonds - not covalent bonds. So the total amount of force to "tear apart" two strands is not as great as you might imagine. For that matter, strands have to be "torn apart" in order to be replicated for cell division.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Structural explanation by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

      The authors aren't concerned about it unzipping the entire DNA strand like string cheese. The process creates local regions of unzipping, which your DNA gains and loses as a matter of course. These unexpectedly-open regions interfere with replication and translation, but your DNA can cope with the the "normal amount", so the question is whether these additional regions are enough to be a problem.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  7. Not just peeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They produce a 3-dimensional model of your body that is accurate down to the pores of your skin. They can also see a bit beyond the skin.

    The publicly-released zoomed-out pictures of blue people only show one way of rendering the data that these machines gather. They could just as easily render a full-color image that looks like a photograph, with a fancy zoom feature that will give them intricate detail of any body part they choose to examine.

    1. Re:Not just peeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They produce a 3-dimensional model of your body that is accurate down to the pores of your skin.

      Ha! No, they don't. In theory you could do this, but not quickly. The data volume alone should make it obvious they aren't doing this. The model you describe would be terabytes in size. On top of that, creating the model would require a huge amount of supercomputer time. There's just no way they are doing this quickly in a line at an airport. I *wish* it was that easy, since my job involves radar imaging.

  8. Grossly simplified, but... by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

    Single-stranded DNA has its information-encoding side exposed and flops around kind of pathetically. Double-stranded DNA sticks the two information-encoding sides together so that they're hidden and inactive, and helps you wind up and store the DNA. However the double strand can "unzip" along a small part of its length to expose two single strands which can go to work.

    You can get triple-stranded DNA, but it's not traditionally been thought of as important. Normally the groove for the third strand would be occupied by proteins involved in the function and maintainence of the DNA instead. However it now seems that forming a triple strand in some regions might be important in DNA's control mechanisms too.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  9. Re:Remember citizen by cerberusss · · Score: 2, Informative

    continuity of the state and its power structures is far more important than petty things like individual freedoms or human lives.

    Yep, and things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are only for people like us, not sub-human towelheads, Jews, Christians, Arabs, Catholics, Scots, Buddhists, dissidents or other noisemakers.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  10. Re:Ethical use of panic... by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not sure which airports you go to, but the ones I go to, about half the people searched opt not to use the scanner, and the TSA agents clearly don't give a damn which route you take.

  11. Re:Who cares... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

    My citation is admittedly anecdotal. But her surgeries weren't. They were damn painful.

    Anecdotal, yet really painful. Well, that clinches it!
    Just like that guy accused of being a child rapist and murderer, it was a horrible fate for the kid, therefore that slimeball is guilty as sin.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  12. Re:Remember it's resonance by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's no particular reason a continuous input at a given frequency can't cause oscillations which increase until something breaks.

    Yes, there is. It's called "dissipation".

    As something wiggles, it tends to leak energy into its mounting points or the medium surrounding it. In some cases, like Tacoma Narrows, energy can't dissipate as quickly as it accumulates, and that's when you get structural failure. Engineers strive to predict these vibrational modes and design their structures so that dissipation will always exceed accumulation before the resonance causes damage.

  13. Re:Shoe-Fitting Flouroscope by painandgreed · · Score: 2, Informative

    The exposure rate is thought to have been approximately 0.005 Gy to 0.058 Gy per second. If children tried on several pairs of shoes per visit it was posited that they could be exposed to as much as 0.1 Gy to 1.16 Gy. In fact, experiments indicated that radiation could exceed 1 microGy per hour as far as 10 feet away from the machine.

    To put this into context, the Gy (gray), is the amount of absorbed radiation. One gray is typically the point where physical effects are felt, usually in a burn to the skin. 5 Gy over the entire body is considered a lethal dose.

  14. Re:NOT BEING CRYOGENICALLY FROZEN TEARS APART DNA! by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a physician, I agree with you. Even sunlight can disrupt some of the bonds in your skin's DNA. And unless you are genetically susceptible due to lack of an enzyme (eg xeroderma pigmentosum , you should be fine if you lead a normal life. However there is a positive correlation between excessive sunlight exposure (and thus DNA damage), pale skin, and skin cancer. No biological system is perfect - that's why disease and aging exist. So if you play roulette with your enzymes, you will eventually cause a problem that they won't be able to fix, and end up with disease. The "repair mechanisms" are NOT flawless or foolproof. That's also why we have genetic mutation and evolution. Not being "foolproof" has a plus side, too. But if you end up with melanoma, you won't be too happy.

          Now with a new technology it's hard to put the brakes on and say "stop! we need 20 years of testing!". Even regular ultrasound machines - which operate in the MHz range - have not been tested conclusively. We assume that they're safe, in theory. Often the benefits of using them FAR outweigh the risk - especially since they've been around for a while and no cases of harm have been reported or linked to the machines. But it's logical to try and limit exposure to what's absolutely necessary, so we don't repeat what we were doing with "harmless" x-ray machines and coincidentally were killing all our radiologists with leukemia...

          Unleashing a "scanner" to be used on the general population, without their consent, possibly even covertly, and without any followup or documentation to ensure that there is really zero risk is a large gamble on the part of the government. Only if "frequent travelers" start developing strange tumors at significantly increased statistical rates will we know there's a problem. I'd hate to be one of those travelers, and I'd hate to be the owner of the company that makes these machines, if it ever happens. I hope it doesn't, but we simply don't know.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.