0 votes

What's the real risk of the full-body scanners?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How about our

FREEDOM! If we accept this...what is next? Does anyone believe that this ends here? Cmon.....!

ANY risk that one is FORCED to take is too much

Now, I did quit flying, so I am not forced, but it is not right that I had to quit flying.
It is a medical procedure being performed by hacks who do not even understand the equipment they are exposing us all to.

These folks were told the "wonder gadget" of their profession was safe, too:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/02/1...

They are dead now. In twenty years, the children of TSA agents will get to read a story like this about what killed their parents, perhaps.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Important article.

Thx for posting.

I don't care about this definition of "risk"

The biggest risk IMHO is to my privacy and my liberty. No one needs to see or feel my privates for the purpose of " security."

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. ("I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude"). Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 30 January 1787.

northstar's picture

Good comments there

I especially liked the one who wrote that the scanners have no shielding on the entry/exit sides of the machine. When they hit the switch, some x-rays could escape the machine and blast the TSA workers themselves, probably hundreds or more times a day. Now the workers should really start worrying about safety in the workplace!

Real eyes realize real lies

We want our country back

Every year is a year for Ron Paul!

A null Hypothesis

I plan on testing a null hypothesis based on my knowledge of X-ray and phosphorescent highlighter ink.

My null hypothesis is: full body scan X-ray cannot detect fluorescent highlighter marked skin.

The DOE (design of experiment) will incorporate marking or writing messages on skin, shielded by clothing by using a common fluorescent book highlighter. The markings will need to have some pattern which will cause TSA workers to respond, upon visual inspection.

Markings shall be lettering 1 inch high, between the navel and groin as "DON'T TOUCH MY JUNK" with an arrow pointing downward. One each on each gluteus maximus - "I’m an engineer and wanted to know if you can see this. If you can read this, don’t you have more information than you need?.

Should my hypothesis prove successful, I will disembark as scheduled, without delay.

Should my hypothesis prove unsuccessful, legal counsel will be required to secure my release from imprisonment. Possibly report might be briefly circulated by predominantly conservative news agencies.

northstar's picture

I like your experiment idea

Report back when completed :-)

Real eyes realize real lies

We want our country back

Every year is a year for Ron Paul!

Good find Crickett.

Safer alternative?

There is another way to scan someone that could bypass the X-ray health worries:

Of the 68 airports scanning for explosives, 30 are using millimeter-wave scanners that don’t use X-rays at all; they hit the surface of the body with safer radio waves. If the TSA committed to using only this type of equipment, it could avoid the safety concerns regarding the X-ray full body scanners completely. [Ars Technica]

So why not go all-millimeter-wave? Back in May, Maurine Fanguy of the TSA’s Office of Security Technology explained TSA’s rationale: They don’t want to be dependent upon just one vendor, or to miss out on advances in X-ray technology because they use only millimeter-wave. But to quote Dr. Brenner once more:
"From the overall public health point of view, if indeed millimeter wave scanners are just as sensitive for detecting concealed explosives (which I think they are), there is a good argument that they should be being deployed in airports rather than the X-ray scanners."

And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

Y..and I do not want my image

Y..and I do not want my image stored by the government. I have no REASON for this, I just just don't.

No amount of RF is completely safe.

Even though we are constantly exposed to RF, most through cell phones, RF must be applied at unsafe levels to be an effective imaging agent.

Government is harming us. What are we going to do about it?