Outraged by TSA
Comments
-
Thought I'd report in, too. I flew earlier today and had a patdown. I found the experience quite distressing. I'm not a modest person and when I was patted down once before, it really didn't bother me. But this time, the TSA agent seemed hostile--very alienated. I explained politely that I wanted to opt out of the machine since I wore prostheses and would almost certainly require a pat-down anyway. I said I didn't need to be in a private place. She still seemed quite annoyed at the "imposition."
She felt rather roughly up and down my back, along my sides, inside the waistband of my jeans, and up the insides of my legs to my groin. Surprisingly, she was more gentle around my breast forms and didn't attempt to go behind the forms. Still, I came away from the experience feeling rather brutalized. I think it was the agent's hostility that got to me.
Ironically, my DH, who was right behind me in line, was chosen for the old machine, while I had to go through the whole rigmarole.
-
Erica,
IMHO, I'd go to the TSA site and send a complaint. It sounds like that is an agent anger issue and not a policy issue and I'd report them. It takes a few days, but, I've found they do respond and answer questions or problems sent from there. I've taken the time to send compliments and complaints. Figure if I'm complaining, I owe them the time of telling them when things went well
-
kmmd- I agree that if we put in kudos and complaints, the personnel will get better.
-
I know many of us get MedPage Today and today there is an article on the body scanners in question. Frankly, I think we have more to worry about in our environment than scanner exposure.
Airport body scanners pose no significant radiation threat, even to frequent flyers, who are exposed to far more radiation during travel at high altitudes, authors of a review concluded.
The scanners expose people to less than 1% of the radiation associated with cosmic rays at typical flight altitudes. A single exposure to a backscatter x-ray scanner is equivalent to three to nine minutes of radiation encountered in normal daily living.
Nonetheless, deployment of whole-body scanners at airports should not proceed in the absence of definitive studies to determine more precisely the risks and benefits, according to an article published online in Archives of Internal Medicine."In medicine, we try to balance risks and benefits of everything we do, and thus while the risks are indeed exceedingly small, the scanners should not be deployed unless they provide benefit-improved national security and safety -- and consideration of these issues is outside the scope of our expertise," Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, and Pratik Mehta, of the University of California San Francisco, wrote in conclusion.
"Issues have been raised regarding the efficacy of scanners, and if the scanners are not deemed efficacious, they should not be used."
On Dec. 25, 2009, a Detroit-bound passenger smuggled plastic explosives aboard an airliner, revealing a limitation of current airport screening devices. Since then the Transportation Security Administration has installed almost 500 whole-body scanners at 78 U.S. airports, and twice that many devices are expected to be in operation by the end of 2011, the authors wrote in their introduction.
Two types of scanners are in use. The millimeter-wave scanner emits low-energy waves estimated as a fraction of the energy emitted by a cell phone. The more commonly used backscatter x-ray scanner emits low-dose x-rays, which are absorbed entirely by the most superficial layers of the skin, the authors continued.
Although the detailed images generated by both types of scanners have raised privacy issues, the potential health risks center on the x-ray scanners, which employ ionizing radiation.
But the radiation doses emitted by the scanners are so low that the potential risks are unknown and difficult to quantify, the authors wrote.
Individuals in the U.S. are exposed to an estimated 6.2 millisieverts of ionizing radiation each year, an amount equivalent to 0.1 microsievert (µSv) per minute, according to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. The two most common sources of radiation are medical procedures and environmental background radiation.
Backscatter whole-body scanners expose individuals to 0.03 to 0.1 µSv per scan, the equivalent of three to nine minutes of radiation from natural sources.
Levels of naturally occurring radiation are increased at higher altitudes, such as those used by airliners. Although the levels change with altitude, radiation exposure during a flight averages about 0.04 µSv per minute of flight time. Thus, backscatter x-ray scanners deliver an amount of radiation equivalent to one to three minutes of flight time.
"Put into context of the entire flight, if a woman embarks on a six-hour flight, she will be exposed to approximately 14.3 µSv of radiation from the flight and 0.03 to 0.1 µSv from passing through the scanner at the airport," the authors wrote. "Thus, the scan will increase her exposure by less than 1%."
Given those calculations, concerns that vulnerable individuals should avoid the scanners are unwarranted, they added.
Offering other common examples for context, Smith-Bindman and Mehta noted that a person would have to pass through an airport scanner 50 times to get the same radiation exposure associated with a single dental x-ray, 1,000 times to equal the exposure of a chest x-ray, 4,000 times to equal the exposure of a mammogram, and 200,000 times to equal the exposure of a single combination abdominal-pelvic CT scan.
Estimating the cancer risk associated with airport scanners is even more difficult than quantifying the exposure, the authors continued.
Risk estimates normally rely on extrapolation from published studies of higher-dose exposures. Such extrapolation from the scanners' exceedingly small radiation doses is questionable and perhaps inappropriate.
Radiation exposure from the scanners is concentrated in the skin. No accepted mathematical models exist for determining the relationship between skin exposure and the risk of skin cancer. Moreover, the distribution of exposure differs from that of the whole-body exposure assumed by available mathematical models.
Noting that 100 million people have a total of 750 million flights per year, Smith-Bindman and Mehta estimated that radiation exposure from airport scanners would cause six excess cancers.
In contrast, 40 million cancers would be expected over the same individuals' lifetimes.
Frequent flyers represent one population potentially vulnerable to radiation exposure from airport scanners. Assuming one million of these passengers take 10 six-hour trips per week for a year, airport scanners would cause four cancers.
That compared with an estimated 600 excess cancers from radiation exposure during the flights and 400,000 cancers over the passengers' lifetimes.
Young children who fly frequently are another potentially vulnerable population. Using a five-year-old girl as an example, the authors estimated that two million girls flying once a week would have one excess breast cancer. In contrast, 250,000 of the girls will develop breast cancer over their lifetimes owing to the 12% lifetime risk of the disease.
"Based on what is known about the scanners, passengers should not fear going through the scans for health reasons, as the risks are truly trivial," the authors wrote in conclusion.
"If individuals feel vulnerable and are worried about the radiation emitted by the scans, they might reconsider flying altogether since most of the small, but real, radiation risk they will receive will come from the flight and not from the exceedingly small exposures from the scans."
The authors had no relevant disclosures.
Primary source: Archives of Internal Medicine
Source reference:
Mehta P, Smith-Bindman R "Airport full-body scanning. What is the risk?" Arch Intern Med; 2011; DOI:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.105. -
I just returned from a trip to Boston from Kansas City and thought I would relay my experience. In KCI, the back scatter machine was not being used. They have a couple of them, I think they are in the SWA area. I was flying Frontier. Yesterday at Logan in the B terminal, they were using both types of machines. Then just before we got to the front of the line, they announced that everyone was going to have to go through the back scatter machine and they were essentially shutting down the regular scanner, except for airline crewmembers who were told they could "choose" which line they preferred. When it was my turn, I politely told the TSA agent that I would prefer the regular scanner as I was a BC patient and wanted to avoid additional radiation. No problem, he directed me to that line. And my daughter (who had used the Cancer Card to be able to accompany me to my gate) told the agent she didn't want the back scatter machine and he also directed her to the regular scanner. They did not perform any additional patdowns. It was all very discreet and simple.
Kudos to those specific TSA agents!
Michelle
-
Michelle,
Thanks for sharing your story. When I flew out of Logan they were also using both kinds of machines. Next time I fly, if that's the case, I'll specifically ask to go through the older machine. Last time, when I was pointed toward the backscatter machine, I then told the TSA agent that I wore prosthetics and wanted to opt out. Maybe I should have spoken up sooner...
-
I am personally outraged that there IS a TSA AT ALL!!!!!!
What I have never been able to understand why ANYBODY -- anybody who is not willing to give up their personal liberty/privacy, that is, flies at ALL anymore since this TSA crap even started.
There is no effin' way I'll even go near an airport now, much less try to get on a plane. But apparently, it seems most people ARE willing to put up with it because they DO think it makes flying safer.
Until that changes, and as such, there comes a time when NOBODY WILL FLY UNTIL THE TSA IS DISBANDED and the airlines are all on the brink of being bankrupted to nonexistence because NO ONE will fly anymore unless the TSA goes away, there's no way we'll be rid of it. Air travelers will be subject to these nude scans and grope searches for so long as they're willing to put up with them, and they WILL -- for so long as they continue to be deluded that this makes flying safer, AND they believe that liberty and privacy are a fair price for security.
In the meantime, yes, I do know people who are more in flying than driving/bus/train distance, but I don't care. Not only do I disagree with the majority held idea that the TSA actually is currently preventing terrorism on planes, bu,t my liberty and privacy are MUCH more important to me. I will NOT willingly subject myself to being assumed guilty of terrorism for no reason until proven innocent (especially via porno scanner and/or groping in public). This is all just F---ing WRONG. WRONG WRONG *WRONG* !!!
If America really were the freedom loving nation they supposedly claim to be, there would NOT have been a Department of Homeland Security AT ALL.
If, on the other hand, the majority of Americans DO consider it a worthy exchange -- freedom and privacy for security (and the Constitution started being used for toilet paper decades before the 21st century) -- then I say stop being hypocrites by saying America is a "Free Country." It was, once, but now, the way it is now, IT IS NOT.
-
I fly because my children and grandchildren are 1500 miles away. And I fly because I love to go to Hawaii. So far, I've never had my privacy violated by a TSA agent. It happens, I know. But so far, I've been fortunate to not have a bad experience.
I don't have a problem with the normal airport scanners. I do have a problem with unknown danger from backscatter xray machines.
Michelle
-
The reality is, any of us (even those never having been diagnosed with cancer) are more at risk of dying from cancer than we are from a terrorist attack on an airplane. And our own government is now putting us at an even higher risk for disease than it is protecting us from anything. Not that I don't value privacy, but that is almost secondary to the fact that so many people are convinced that it is okay to be putting themselves in harm's way under the guise of "security." The only ones who benefit here are the manufacturers of these machines and then ultimately the "industry" that will be taking care of those who got too much radiation or develop cancer because of the machines, etc. It's also virtually guaranteed that some of these machines are going to malfunction at some point - I'd sure hate to be among those having passed though before the malfunction was discovered...When I have absolutely no choice but to travel by air (and we have cut out just about anything "optional"), I'll take my chances with the "old-fashioned" metal detector and possible humiliating pat down. I also do not feel it is necessary to tell anyone up front that I have had cancer and use prostheses. Under current rules, we all have the right to opt out of the scanner - not just cancer survivors. I think you draw more attention to yourself by bringing this up preemptively. I have had to fly a couple of times since these machines came into use and did not offer any personal medical information to anyone. Went through the metal detector just fine and needed no further examination of anything.
If someone has certain medical devices that tend to set off alarms (e.g. we have family members with artificial knees), then that can be dealt with once the alarm is set off. No need to ask for extra scrutiny ahead of time...Fact is, someone with a prosthetic breast can pass through the metal detector without setting anything off.
Diagnosis: 6/2010, IDC, 1cm, Stage I, Grade 2, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- -
Oh? This is new to me. I do not know about it. You did very well. Wish you a nice day.
_________________
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.seomediasite.com/link_building.html">link building services</a></p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.blink-seo.co.uk">London SEO Services</a><br /><br /></p>
-
I understand every ones view here but if it ever happened to me and they pulled me aside I would just look them dead in the eye and pull my shirt, bra and prosthetic off, toss them to the agent and say pat away. Modesty is not really an issue for me. It is what it is. I wonder how long the invasive procedures would continue if people started to embarrass them.
-
Interesting article on CNN today, re: doctors and airport scanners:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/31/ep.airport.scanners/index.html?hpt=Sbin
-
I've been following this thread since it started and wanted to report on my trip this weekend from New Orleans to Chicago on Southwest Airlines. I'd been dreading the experience and it actually wasn't that bad. In New Orleans all of the imaging machines are the millimeter wave type, so I wasn't worried about radiation. Every line in this particular TSA checkpoint seemed to pass through an imaging machine. As I stepped into the machine the TSA agent asked if I had emptied my pockets completely, including slips of paper. I said yes, but I have a total knee replacement and a prosthesis because I am a breast cancer survivor. She very kindly said that it might trigger a check, but not to worry because she would take care of it herself. I then walked through without incident. As I was leaving, the agent shared with me that a close friend had just been diagnosed with BC, so that may have factored in. But the New Orleans experience was very easy. When I left Chicago from MIdway, it was more complicated. There were many lanes at the checkpoint and I couldn't see far enough ahead to determine which ones might end in which kind of machine. Turns out the body imaging machine was over to the far right - not sure which type it was. My lane, like most of them, just went through a metal detector. BUT my total knee replacement of course triggers the metal detector. I always tell the agent before I walk through, and I carry a card with an xray of my knee, but none of that avoids the pat down. I've been experiencing this when for four years now (since the replacement) but this pat down was definitely more invasive than in the past. They called for a female agent and asked whether I wanted a private area, which I refused. The agent was polite, wore gloves (who knows if they were clean) and was not hostile. She felt inside the waistband of my pants, and felt the inside of my legs all the way up to my groin. It wasn't fun, but not too bad. I chatted with her some as she patted. She went nowhere near my prosthesis, because of course it was the knee that had triggered the patdown. She didn't know about the prosthesis, and I didn't point it out. When it was over, I felt slightly shaken but nothing a Ben & Jerry's cone wasn't able to fix! All in all, I feel a little better about flying in the future, but certainly not complacent. I think that the whole experience varies so much depending on the individual airport and the individual agent. Luck of the draw.
-
When I flew out of Logan on Sunday, they only had the backscatter machines in service. My husband went through without any problem. But of course I was stopped for a "body anomaly". While the person who did the pat down was very polite, I still would prefer to avoid this embarrassment on future flights. Does anyone know of any company that makes prostheses that are not silicon and that are made of a fabric so that they will not set off the scanners? Or does merely having a mastectomy set them off? I decided that I would take the train on my next trip to Boston, but I have to go to the UK in May so I will definitely be flying.
-
www.tlcdirect.org is one site that sells inexpensive non-silicone forms. I'm not sure if non-silicone/cloth ones would also show up or not. It may also depend who's watching the images from the machine also. I have an implant and also wear a partial silicone prosthesis and didn't get stopped when I went through the backscatter machine at Logan AP a few weeks ago. I was surprised as I figured, especially with both the implant and prosthesis I'd have to get the pat down.
-
Thanks for your suggestion ps123. I really appreciate it.
-
http://ihatebreastcancer.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/
A TSA story from a unilateral woman going thru tampa...
-
I read somewhere that if you put your silicon gel prosthesis in a carry on bag that it will require a search since it shows up as a liquid. Does anyone know if that is true? How embarrassing it would be to have TSA personnel taking out a prosthesis for all to see. Maybe some of you would not mind, but some would. So there appears to be no way around it other than to be "lop sided" for your trip. Even women who contacted me and have worn non gel prostheses, have written that they take them out to go through security and put them in afterwards. If this was a male issue, I would bet that the TSA screening would be different.
Thanks for posting the article English Major/
-
I've had silicone forms in my carry-on many times and it has never been searched. Well, once it was searched and I thought it was because of the breast forms but it turned out that what triggered it was a little jar of babyfood I had in the bag for my toy poodle.
-
Mandy, I don't know the answer to your question about prostheses that wouldn't be flagged as "body anomalies" by the screeners.
I'm not surprised that a screener would mistake a silicon implant for a "normal" breast and allow that person to go through without further screening. The scanners are supposed to penetrate through clothing, but they aren't supposed to go any deeper than the outermost skin. They're designed to "see" things concealed on the body -- not in it. (That would take a whole different technology, as some critics have noted.) If a screener did stop someone with an implant because the machine or its viewer detected a "body anomaly" where the implant was located, that tells me the X-rays or millimeter waves are penetrating a lot deeper than we've been told.
On the other hand, it's not surprising (IMHO) that the person viewing the scanner image would flag a prosthesis as a "body anomaly"... because it is. Whether the prosthesis is filled with silicon, foam, fiberfil, or microbeads, it isn't a part of the body. Its surface is not continuous with the skin on the chest -- it's not underneath the skin. So the rays ought to penetrate at least partway through the prosthesis, but there won't be a breast under there. The backscatter X-rays are being reflected (bounced off) the skin; and they won't bounce off the same way from a prosthesis as they would from a real breast. I think that would be true no matter what type of prosthesis we're wearing. I do wonder, though, whether a "contact" prosthesis that's adhered to the skin would look more like a real breast to the screener than one slipped inside a bra pocket.
I really can't imagine what the scanner image would look like if someone was wearing a breast prosthesis. (I wish I knew.) As for whether a silicon foob in a carry-on bag would trigger a search... I don't think so. In the old days when gels and liquids were first restricted, silicon prostheses fell in a questionable category because, technicaly, they were "gels". But, I think the public outcry was enough to make the TSA back off. I've read stories on these boards about women who packed their silicon foobs right on top in their carry-on bags, for maximum effect if the screeners decided to unzip the bags and paw through the contents.
Can you tell I still don't like any of this?
otter
-
I flew out of Tampa yesterday and had to go through the body scanner- random selection apparently. Anyhow I was detained because they saw an "abnormality" in the breast area. So i had to have a pat down and a chemical swab on my hand on the surgery side. I told them I had BC and had a lumpectomy but it didnt matter. I found the whole experience very upsetting and in my view unnecessary. My son was travelling with me and he was extremely angry about it also, but I am thankful he was there for support! I plan on writing to the TSA.
-
Thanks Erica, Otter and Link for posting in response to my questions. Link, you reminded me---I also had a swab on my surgery side to see if who knows what was there. And yes, other passengers stand and look to see what you might have done. It is unacceptable to single out women who have had breast cancer surgery. I am going to bet that if 5 per cent of all males were subject to this useless scrutiny, the procedures would be different. Instead of being busy embarrassing women who have had breast cancer surgery, they should be working on ways to actually identify those who would try to injure others. I think though that for my European flights, I will go through the scanner lop sided in loose clothing and get a microfiber foob to insert once through security. And for short trips (6 hours on the train or less), I will just substitute train for plane.
By the way, when the scanners first came into common use last fall, I wrote to my congressman, my senators, my governor, and the president, expressing my concern at this discriminatory practice against women who have had breast cancer surgery. Not one answer addressed the issue.
-
Last February, Rep. Sharon Cissna (Alaska) made a dramatic and public protest regarding the patdown. She's been active on this topic ever since. I email'd her in Feb to voice my support and today got this email from her (as you will see in the text, she's specifically asking everyone to share this info):
-------------------------------------
Thank you for your communication after my incident with TSA at SeaTac Airport, February 20. The news of my refusal of the "pat down" resonated with many across the country. The emails, letters and phone calls have made it clear that this treatment of our citizens is unacceptable, not just to me, but to people all over America. It is very personal to so many. My staff have also become very dedicated to make sure we keep working to open the subject across the Nation, in every State Legislature, to every Legislator, as well as to Congress in Washington DC, who will ultimately be who must fix this problem!
Life has been very busy since my ferry trip back to Juneau. Our legislative session in Alaska was in full swing at the time which meant there was much to be done prior to the April 17 ending. Also, as many of you are aware, I was invited to testify about my experience before an Oversight Committee in Washington, DC March 16. (I got out of Alaska by air because we have metal detectors still, not the full body scan. That helped on security ‘pat downs' for me. That does no good for those who have any metal that's been required for injuries or other operations.)
The same thing applies at every airport that is the hub for small planes. So getting back from D.C., my husband arranged a flight from a small airport north of New York City, that way we had a metal detector again. We flew to Chicago, then transferred within the security area to a plane going to Alaska. Those methods appear to be disappearing as airports are given the full-body scanners.
During this time I was also contacted by legislators from two different states and became aware of six other states that were considering action. With your encouragement, support and offers of help I realized that we have an opportunity to make a difference. Through your stories, I realized we can't afford not to.
A step toward the return of dignity and humanity in American travel will take place this week with a teleconference co-sponsored by Senator Val Stevens of Washington State and myself. Fourteen legislators from nine states plan to participate. This meeting will be available for viewing. Please see details below.
Thank you, again, for taking the time to connect. It will be important to this movement to keep the dialog going and to spread the discussion to an ever widening circle. Pass this on to any groups or people you know who are struggling with the same issues and concerns!
Representative Sharon Cissna
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
----------------------------------
Uniting States for Travel Freedom
AGENDA
April 14, 2011
Co-Hosts Senator Val Stevens in Olympia, Washington, and Representative Sharon Cissna in Juneau, Alaska will make introductions and guest Legislators will participate by telephone according to their availability during Legislative Sessions in their own states.
Introductions will include the importance of travel freedom, and steps being planned or taken by each Legislator.
The purpose and methods of organization required to insure American travel safety and freedom will be discussed.
Ongoing coordination of the united states will need a centralized location or website to share current information on the range of issues agreed upon to assure federal implementation of improved safety, security, and cost-conscious programs. Issues to be considered will be how to improve:
- Detailed information on the impact of these policies affecting the citizens of the United States of America.
- Detailed information on methods of screening and the accumulative costs of these procedures.
- Lists of people, organizations and Interest groups impacted by and working to improve American travel safety and freedom rights.
Dates and times preferable for another meeting within the next two months will be decided at the meeting.
This meeting is available for real time streaming at: http://alaskalegislature.tv/
All TSA legislation is available for download at: www.akhealthcaucus.org/TSA.php
Additional digital copies of the filmed recording of the meeting and links to other materials can be downloaded within the week from: http://www.akhealthcaucus.org/.
Representative Sharon Cissna
Juneau Office: Until Session End, April 25th: State Capitol Building Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 • Phone: (907) 465-3875
- Fax: (907) 465-4588 Toll- free year-round: 800-922-3875. After session: 716 W. 4th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
- Phone (907) 269-0190 Fax (907) 269-0193 E-mail: Representative_Sharon_Cissna@legis.state.ak.us
Senator Val Stevens
Olympia Office: 105 Irv Newhouse Building, PO Box 40439, Olympia, WA 98504-0439
- Phone: (360) 786-7676 FAX: (360) 786-7819
E-mail: stevens.val@leg.wa.gov
-
Liz,
Thanks for posting this. Really appreciate the info!
Dawn
-
Charlotte Douglas Airport has a full body scanner and doesn't understand a thing about breast cancer or breast prostethics. It seems that breast prostethics are now weapons of mass destruction. It was humiliating and degrading to say the least.
-
I flew from Boston Logan to Fort Lauderdale last saturday, I went through the new whole body scanner and I was wearing my prothetics. I also have had a total knee replacement that always sets off the older doorframe type scanner. I am very pleased to report that I had no issues about my prosthetics or my knee with the new type of scanner,they were never mentioned, infact it is one of the fasted times I have gone through security in a long time.
I flew home from Fort Lauderdale on Thursady and I had to go through the older doorframe scanner and of course my knee replacement set it off, I was given a qick pat down but was not asked about my prosthetics at all.
For anyone who has had joint replacement surgery we have had to be patted down for many years now, so it is nothing new to me. I must say I like the new whole body scanners it means less pat downs for me..
Kezzie
-
hugs nancy.
-
This NY Times column by Maureen Dowd might be of interest to some. She talks about Sharon Cissna, the Alaska congresswoman and breast cancer survivor who had two invasive pat-downs due to her mastectomy scars showing up in the scans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20dowd.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
-
Erica, thanks for that link. I found the following quote from John Pistole, the TSA chief, to be hopeful information:
He said they are trying to move past a “one-size-fits-all” program and implement a “risk-based, intelligence-driven process” by the end of the year that would have more refined targeting. If passengers are willing to share the same information they give to airline frequent-flier programs, he said, maybe some day they will be able to “keep their jacket on and their laptop in their briefcase and hang on to that unfinished bottle of water. -
So, John Pistole figures one day we can hang on to our unfinished water.
Thanks, John, but what I want is to be able to travel without being humiliated by either being groped or stripped by machine. And, yes, that's what the scanners do.
Leah
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team