Airport Body Scanner Reveals Genitals

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

blackbeastofaaaaagh

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
74
0
18,580
0
> I'm just not convinced that airport security is anything more useful than DRM, eg annoy me while not stopping the terrorists.

You can't be serious. That would mean you would like people being able to take anything on board an aircraft, so long as it's not clearly visible. It will be every terrorist's and malcontent's wish come true. Plus, the world has no shortage of morons who will bring things like camping stoves, fireworks, animals, narcotics etc.

I really can't understand what all the fuss is. I think you really have to pity the guy that has to look through pictures of naked passengers all day. It doesn't matter how hot that babe is, not after viewing countless obese, flabby, and decrepit individuals all day, nothing is going to get your passion going again.

I'm sure that celebrities are going to make a big deal out of this. No doubt they will be worried that tabloids will soon know that most of them are not so grand (or genuine) in life as they would want the public to believe. Still, if the security personnel monitoring the scanners are in a separate room, I doubt that they could recognise an individual, out of thousands of passengers in a day, using an X-ray generated scan.
 

lvlouro

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2008
62
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]djcoolmasterx[/nom]The probability of gamma radiation ionizing an atom in a cell is low in a single low exposure."The associations between ionizing radiation exposure and the development of cancer are mostly based on populations exposed to relatively high levels of ionizing radiation"[/citation]

1st a minor correction, it's not gamma rays we're talking about, it's x-rays. It really doesn't matter because they interact with tissue in the same way.

And ionization will occur, that's 100% sure.
If it didn't occur it would mean that the rays weren't absorbed and there would be no image... the image is formed because energy is absorbed differentially in each tissue.
What occurs is that the ionized atoms are mostly the ones present in the water molecule and the ions last very little time. the probability that is in fact low is that of ionizing the DNA molecule.
Of course even if the dna is mutated it doesn't mean you'll have cancer, but mutations can add to each other and eventually can cause cancer. probabilistically if you irradiate sufficient number of people some might get their DNA mutated.

"mostly based on populations exposed to relatively high levels of ionizing radiation"

in a population based view it's true, but there's been investigation of the effects of radiation in cultured cells and it can cause mutations that lead to cancer.
 

blackbeastofaaaaagh

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
74
0
18,580
0
> In my opinion the real danger is in the x-rays you're exposed to...

Well, if you do a Wiki on ionizing radiation, you will find that there are many natural sources of radiation that we are exposed to and have little control over. If you live in a weather proof dwelling then naturally occuring radon is the biggest source (55%). Then you have the naturally occuring carbon-14 that use get from the food chain (11%), followed by rocks and soil (8%) and then cosmic rays that make it to the Earth's surface (8%). For a typical person living in the developed world, medical X-rays make up only (11%). You get 3% from various consumer appliances.
 

lvlouro

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2008
62
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]djcoolmasterx[/nom]The probability of gamma radiation ionizing an atom in a cell is low in a single low exposure."The associations between ionizing radiation exposure and the development of cancer are mostly based on populations exposed to relatively high levels of ionizing radiation"[/citation]

1st a minor correction, it's not gamma rays we're talking about, it's x-rays. It really doesn't matter because they interact with tissue in the same way.

And ionization will occur, that's 100% sure.
If it didn't occur it would mean that the rays weren't absorbed and there would be no image... the image is formed because energy is absorbed differentially in each tissue.
What occurs is that the ionized atoms are mostly the ones present in the water molecule and the ions last very little time. the probability that is in fact low is that of ionizing the DNA molecule.
Of course even if the dna is mutated it doesn't mean you'll have cancer, but mutations can add to each other and eventually can cause cancer. probabilistically if you irradiate sufficient number of people some might get their DNA mutated.

"mostly based on populations exposed to relatively high levels of ionizing radiation"

in a population based view it's true, but there's been investigation of the effects of radiation in cultured cells and it can cause mutations that lead to cancer.

[citation][nom]hixbot[/nom]People need to stop commenting on the health risks of the tiny amounts of ionizing radiation from airport scanners without first understanding the science.[/citation]

the problem is not the radiation from the x-ray scanner they're using to scan you bags, the problem is starting to do full body scans every time you fly.
 

lvlouro

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2008
62
0
18,580
0
sorry for the double post, I reloaded the page more than 5 times and nothing happened, and after i completed the post and resend it the 1st appeared, an EDIT BUTTON would come in handy, JUST SAYING!!!
 

lvlouro

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2008
62
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]blackbeastofaaaaagh[/nom]> In my opinion the real danger is in the x-rays you're exposed to... Well, if you do a Wiki on ionizing radiation, you will find that there are many natural sources of radiation that we are exposed to and have little control over. If you live in a weather proof dwelling then naturally occuring radon is the biggest source (55%). Then you have the naturally occuring carbon-14 that use get from the food chain (11%), followed by rocks and soil (8%) and then cosmic rays that make it to the Earth's surface (8%). For a typical person living in the developed world, medical X-rays make up only (11%). You get 3% from various consumer appliances.[/citation]

I really don't need to wiki to know that, i've had to study that.
Of course there are natural occurring sources of radiation, and as you've said we have little control over them.

I'm not trying to install panic here, it just seems reasonable (at least to me) that those exposures we can control are reduced to the minimal necessary...

Just because you contact with little quantities of radiation doesn't mean you can just start contacting with more...
 

sycon

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2008
3
0
18,510
0
Just remember, when a doctor fondles a little boy during his physical its okay. When an artist draws a little boy naked its okay. But when an x-ray is taken of a little boy its child pornography.
 

jellico

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
412
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]acecombat[/nom]Then you just get the terrorists use "Bum bombs" instead, in which case they use a HIGHER powered X-Ray to see everything. If your scratching your head about the Terrorist Bum Bombs just Google it.[/citation]
Actually, according to explosives and counter-terrorism experts, bum-bombs don't work very well. First, there is only a limited amount of explosives you can... conceal. Second, ignition presents its own challenges. And third, the human body actually serves to dampen the force of the explosion (think of the stories of soldiers throwing themselves on a grenade to save their buddies).
 

hixbot

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2007
186
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]lvlouro[/nom]the problem is not the radiation from the x-ray scanner they're using to scan you bags, the problem is starting to do full body scans every time you fly.[/citation]
I realize that, I never said anything about scanning bags! What I'm saying is that the radiation from body scans is insignifant compared to the radiation we recieve from natural sources.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Im reading some comments, and im shocked.
you want your privacy over your life? or your family?
wow..
I just can't wait to see a news headline '9/11 again, 10 airplanes hijacked'
Have fun shouting for privacy to a terrorist that they've violated your privacy by hijacking the plane your are in.
 

trinix

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2007
36
0
18,580
0
And how many planes have been hijacked since 9/11 or even better before 9/11. We didn't have this, the world didn't suddenly turn out worst, it turned out better.

We had the cold war and no planes crashed. You know what this is for, not for security, but to make people feel safe. The reality is, you still aren't safe, if people wanted to hijack a plane, they would be far more creative to gain access and be able to kill with their whole body.

The best weapon is the human body, no one tries to stop it, no scanner will see anything dangerous and you can kill with it if you train.

But let's just go to the back room, have everyone strip and let someone see if you really aren't carrying anything you shouldn't. Every week we will have a cop going to your house to go over your chatlogs, inspect your house for illegal firearms and illegal bombs.

Every week it's 1 step closer to the total bigbrother state. No need to worry, the government has our best interest and you aren't doing anything wrong, right?
 

lvlouro

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2008
62
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]hixbot[/nom]I realize that, I never said anything about scanning bags! What I'm saying is that the radiation from body scans is insignifant compared to the radiation we recieve from natural sources.[/citation]

maybe it's just my ignorance but i'm not aware that there are xray body scanners in aeroports. All I've seen is those ones for bags, for people the only thing I've seen is metal detectores.

I agree that that amount of radiation is insignificant but if abused of can become significant. all depends on quantity, and it seems to me that a scanner capable of 3D images of soft tissue will use more radiation
 

omnimodis78

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
326
0
18,940
2
My real concern with this one is the fact that my entire body would be bombarded with x-rays. X-rays aren't exactly good for you. I am all for tight security at air ports, etc. but to be frank I doubt terrorist are going to have bombs strapped to them, or hiding any up their rectums - so it's a little redundant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 15
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 10
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 69
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 43
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 41
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 68
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 79
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 41
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 57
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 53
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 71
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 37
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 6
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY