View Poll Results: Would you willingly submit to full body scanning, should it be introduced?
Yes
82
10.12%
No
685
84.57%
Undecided
43
5.31%
Voters: 810. This poll is closed
Body Scanners: Will you go for the genital feel up or the nude photos and a cancer?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess which study the authorities will be quoting...
From todays Australian:
AIRPORT body-scanners pose little radiation risk | The Australian
AIRPORT body-scanners pose little radiation risk, emitting less than 1 per cent of the dose a person would get from cosmic rays while flying at high altitudes, according to a report from the University of California. Travellers would have to undergo 50 airport body scans to equal the amount of radiation received from a single dental X-ray or 4000 scans to match the radiation exposure from a mammogram, it says. Full-body scanners, which generate detailed and personally revealing images of those screened, are expected to begin being installed at Australian airports later this year.
Suddenly I feel so safe..
From todays Australian:
AIRPORT body-scanners pose little radiation risk | The Australian
AIRPORT body-scanners pose little radiation risk, emitting less than 1 per cent of the dose a person would get from cosmic rays while flying at high altitudes, according to a report from the University of California. Travellers would have to undergo 50 airport body scans to equal the amount of radiation received from a single dental X-ray or 4000 scans to match the radiation exposure from a mammogram, it says. Full-body scanners, which generate detailed and personally revealing images of those screened, are expected to begin being installed at Australian airports later this year.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything effects you
What is it with these "safe levels". No-one bloody well knows for sure - they are just using their best guess.
Have a read of "Bad Medicine" by John Archer.
He reports on how inaccurate many radiation machines are, their lack of maintenance, poor calibration and operators who aren't even aware of the dose that you will be receiving.
As he says, "All ionising radiation damages human chromosomes. There is no safe level. The lower the dose the less likelihood of damage. All xray examinations, whether they are dental or medical, are cumulative and each exam increases the risk of several types of cancer"
So who will be maintaining the detectors? The same ones looking after the medical equipment?
I'll cop a known grope over an unknown level of radiation exposure any day.
Everything your body is exposed to either contributes to your health or harms it.
Have a read of "Bad Medicine" by John Archer.
He reports on how inaccurate many radiation machines are, their lack of maintenance, poor calibration and operators who aren't even aware of the dose that you will be receiving.
As he says, "All ionising radiation damages human chromosomes. There is no safe level. The lower the dose the less likelihood of damage. All xray examinations, whether they are dental or medical, are cumulative and each exam increases the risk of several types of cancer"
So who will be maintaining the detectors? The same ones looking after the medical equipment?
I'll cop a known grope over an unknown level of radiation exposure any day.
Everything your body is exposed to either contributes to your health or harms it.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It still doesn't adress the invasion of people's privacy with no reasonable grounds by private contractors. Obviously they're going to hammer the 'they don't hurt you' mantra and hope everyone forgets about the other issues.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As he says, "All ionising radiation damages human chromosomes. There is no safe level. The lower the dose the less likelihood of damage. All xray examinations, whether they are dental or medical, are cumulative and each exam increases the risk of several types of cancer"
Ionising radiation damages DNA in cells - that's a cold hard scientific fact. Our bodies do their best to repair that damage. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. The risks are greater when you are younger.
The very latest high quality studies on x-ray risks have led to some hospitals in Australia requiring informed consent for even a single CT scan for children, for example.
Of course, everything is a balance of risks. You absolutely need an x-ray if you have suspected broken bones or any of a number of other medical conditions. But do x-ray body scans seriously/significantly reduce the terror risk? I doubt it very much.
And yes, Ann Coulter is a moron, and has severely misinterpreted what the studies say. But then again, she thinks the current scientific evidence proves the earth is 6000 years old too.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It still doesn't adress the invasion of people's privacy
Body scanners to respect privacy: concerns over radiation still have not been settled | The Australian
Suspicious objects would be automatically identified and their location shown on a stylised human figure on an adjacent screen.
Suspicious objects would be automatically identified and their location shown on a stylised human figure on an adjacent screen.
Body scanners or anything else for that matter are only there for the honest terrorists. Like doors/window locks with thieves if they really want to get in they will pick the weakest link in any security system & it ain't the silly body scanners at airports either!
Trouble is the terrorists main aim is to create fear & panic, that's exactly what they have achieved especially since 9/11. Killing all those 9/11 people wasn't their main aim I reckon although utterly tragic for sure it was the shear terror that we saw live on peoples faces on CNN etc, that was what they wanted too achieve.
I personally don't have a problem with having such devices (scanners) 'cause if it stops just one total idiot whom could bring a plane down then they are worth it as we live in an insane world these days but for crying out loud I see no point in scanning flight crew, that's the dumbest thing about all this, the rule makers are as stupid as the idiots that try to get thru
A bit off trk I know but it's all related.
Wmk2
Trouble is the terrorists main aim is to create fear & panic, that's exactly what they have achieved especially since 9/11. Killing all those 9/11 people wasn't their main aim I reckon although utterly tragic for sure it was the shear terror that we saw live on peoples faces on CNN etc, that was what they wanted too achieve.
I personally don't have a problem with having such devices (scanners) 'cause if it stops just one total idiot whom could bring a plane down then they are worth it as we live in an insane world these days but for crying out loud I see no point in scanning flight crew, that's the dumbest thing about all this, the rule makers are as stupid as the idiots that try to get thru
A bit off trk I know but it's all related.
Wmk2
I see no point in scanning flight crew, that's the dumbest thing about all this,
The single most important security check on flight crew should be to make sure we are who we say we are i.e have a look at ASIC cards. How often is this done? I have never had anyone check my ASIC, security is to busy checking my bags for everything that I wouldn't need if I wanted to kill everyone.
F.Nose, agreed mate but for some reason, the pilot groups seem to be under represented when decisions on aviation security are made. Instead, the airlines send along their band of retired cops and defence people now masquerading as security experts.
