Lawsuit challenges airport full-body scanners

[dave32]

wRpWnK6Rg3E

[TheCorinthian]

On the radio they were saying the rads are 20 to 50 times more than what you get during a normal x-ray! that's a bit much, like waaaaaaaaay to much!!!

 

I vote to pass on this nonsense.

 

 

What radio station is that? The ones we use are called Millimeter Wave Scanners. It uses high frequency radio waves to reflected off the body to see what is under clothes. (A lot like sonar seeing through water or earth.)

 

The others are called back scatter x-rays. No matter what shyguy would tell you, this tech works on normal ryas that reflect off you as they do all day long on the planet. Not x-rays that pass through you like at the Dr's office. The dose is about 100x's LESS than that you get from a flight in a jet and a lot less than is likely coming off your cell phones.

[Flashermac]

Can we trust all nations to use that system at their airports?

 

 

[TheCorinthian]

Can we trust all nations to use that system at their airports?

 

 

 

I would think so. Killing or seriously injuring everyone that passes through your airports would be devastating to trade.

[shygye]

"While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high," University of California biochemist David Agard is quoted as saying by Australia's news.com.au. "Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," he adds.

 

Maybe you will believe a manufacturer of a body scanner. Link

 

The Rapiscan Secure 1000’s patented technology is composed of an ultra low-dose X-ray source that images backscattered X-rays through to a remote operator’s workstation. Using the Secure 1000’s imaging capability your security screeners will be able to detect concealed objects without direct contact. With the built in software filter, the operator does not see the identity of the person being screened. The Raspiscan Secure 1000 provides the most effective people screening to eliminate risk from any concealed threat.

 

Of course, the body scanners can easily be defeated by a suicide bomber.

 

[TheCorinthian]

"While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high," University of California biochemist David Agard is quoted as saying by Australia's news.com.au. "Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," he adds.

 

Maybe you will believe a manufacturer of a body scanner. Link

 

The Rapiscan Secure 1000’s patented technology is composed of an ultra low-dose X-ray source that images backscattered X-rays through to a remote operator’s workstation. Using the Secure 1000’s imaging capability your security screeners will be able to detect concealed objects without direct contact. With the built in software filter, the operator does not see the identity of the person being screened. The Raspiscan Secure 1000 provides the most effective people screening to eliminate risk from any concealed threat.

 

Of course, the body scanners can easily be defeated by a suicide bomber.

 

 

Only if he blows it up!

 

 

But you proved my point that these things use such a low dose (The x-ray ones.) that you get more from a cell phone and the sun at noon.

[shygye]

I disproved your point! The Feds have miss calculated the exposure, as I showed in previous posts. The exposure is concentrated in the skin and not throughout the body.

 

A fatty can hide contraband in the folds of fat. Or it can be hid in a body cavity. Or it can be surgically implanted. Remember several terrorists are MDs.

 

Billions of dollars wasted on easily defeated machines.

[cavanami]

My vote is to NOT get scanned. Don't need any help to damage myself as I already have that handled!

 

Also, TSA is saving the images! Colorado already said that they can not scan children. Lots of bad news with these machines.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/27road.html?src=busln

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cmcginnis/detail??blogid=181&entry_id=69524#ixzz0w2WbHq8V

 

...The TSA has insisted all along that these machines cannot capture, store or transmit images of travelers’ naked bodies.

 

According to a CNET report, another federal agency, the U.S. Marshall’s service, admitted that it had actually stored over 30,000 images recorded by a full-body scanner used at a Florida courthouse...

[exit2dos]

Just tell them you want a pat down instead of the photo strip device.