Radiation Concerns About Airport X-ray Scanners

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pico_w

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2006
14
0
18,560
0
I don't think I can trust them to handle the photos properly. They can't even control luggages and items! It's really sad how there are still so many reports of lost items in this day and age.
 

irish_adam

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2010
69
0
18,580
0
i know that they've blurred the faces but i doubt you could even tell who it was anyway so who cares what they do with the pictures? even if one did leak out i doubt very much it could be identified easily so who cares? no ones going ot jack off to those pics are they?
 

sandrah

Distinguished
Jun 22, 2007
9
0
18,510
0
One more example of people in the media talking out their rears without knowing what they are talking about, seeing as i've worked for two companies that build x-ray security equipment I know what is true about them, and the backscatter x-ray systems that they do use to scan people do cause the low radiation exposure the manufacturers stated, and if someone did in fact have a sensitivity to x-ray radiation then it wouldn't be the body scanner that would cause the problems but the airplane flight itself as you are exposed to significantly higher amounts of radiation from the sun having less atmosphere to protect you when flying as high up as aircrafts do.
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
651
0
18,930
0
Well would you rather a X-Ray or a hand search? which one is less embarrassing and please if you reply to this directly or quote it, consider that both options will be public (as the X-ray is, the hand would be as well)
 
G

Guest

Guest
1. Any radiation can cause cancer, even a medical x-ray. That is why x-rays are only by Dr's orders, not over the counter.
2. If Megan Fox went through one of these images and it was leaked you bet people would pay good money to get their hands on it.
3. You only need a GED or equivalent to work for TSA.
4. A study by the German government found that explosives and weapons can be concealed by someone walking through a naked scanner.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
297
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]sandrah[/nom]One more example of people in the media talking out their rears without knowing what they are talking about, seeing as i've worked for two companies that build x-ray security equipment I know what is true about them, and the backscatter x-ray systems that they do use to scan people do cause the low radiation exposure the manufacturers stated, and if someone did in fact have a sensitivity to x-ray radiation then it wouldn't be the body scanner that would cause the problems but the airplane flight itself as you are exposed to significantly higher amounts of radiation from the sun having less atmosphere to protect you when flying as high up as aircrafts do.[/citation]

You're really quite confused for someone in the X-Ray industry.

The ozone layer is in the higher end of the atmosphere, not lower. Also, X-Rays are not blocked very well by the atmosphere, and UVA and UVB rays are not nearly as dangerous. But, of course, in an airplane, you have the airplane blocking the rays. People don't generally walk out on the wings, so are better protected in flight than being outside in their yards.

So, it's a bogus argument. Ionizing radiation is very bad, and can cause cancer, that's a fact. Any changes caused by it are bad, and can lead to health problems. Considering how many people have died from security issues, and how many people will be exposed to this nonsense every year, the cure is probably worse than the disease.
 
G

Guest

Guest
sandrah - airplanes have UV reflective paint and windows. Even parachuters use UV goggles and sunscreen. Solar wavelengths are much longer than x-ray radiation and therefore exponentially less likely to cause DNA degradation in a cell. Even if you make the completely inaccurate assumption that solar and x-ray radiation are similar in their carcinogenicity you are still way off.

Why don't you describe the situation where the 5% of the population that is radiation sensitive is going to be OUTSIDE OF THE AIRPLANE at 35,000 feet. Lets hear it.
 

skit75

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
243
0
18,860
20
Why are these even being used on people if there are so many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of this technology? I'm sure the dosage is smaller in these but every other time I have had an X-ray done, I've been given a lead blanket for protecting sensitive areas and the technician(s) leave the room entirely which does little to comfort me in what is to be widespread use of these machines.
 

twisted politiks

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2008
68
0
18,580
0
That is definitely a concern, as I am not one for radiation. But as far as the "pictures". GROW THE F**K up people. everybody in the entire world either has a penis, or boobs and a vagina. Not that I would back our government in this, but if I need to be scanned, even completely naked, so that I know the plane I'm getting on won't blow up, kill me, and many other passengers, including children, then I'm all for it. Who care's if they can see my genitalia.
 

pharge

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2009
290
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]sandrah[/nom] airplane flight itself as you are exposed to significantly higher amounts of radiation from the sun having less atmosphere to protect you when flying as high up as aircrafts do.[/citation]

While it is true that we do get more background radiation during the flight (specially those long flights (>5hrs)), but that dose not give us or anybody excuse to have more does/exposure of radiation before the flight.


 
G

Guest

Guest
The bigger issue is what difference does having the most advanced scanner make when small pieces of weapons can still be hidden in carry-on luggage, to be reassembled on board? A credit-card sized device can be sharpened to the point where it becomes a very effective weapon. With the right training, you don't even NEED a weapon to be lethal. All the scanning in the world can't guarantee safety. We should be PASSING OUT weapons at boarding time, everybody gets an uzi. Anyone thinks about trying something they know every other rambo on the plane will mow them down in a heartbeat.
 

pharge

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2009
290
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]sandrah[/nom]but the airplane flight itself as you are exposed to significantly higher amounts of radiation from the sun having less atmosphere to protect you when flying as high up as aircrafts do.[/citation]

in fact, while our body do have mechanisms to handle/repair the damage due to the Ionizing radiation and the reactive oxygen produced by Ionizing radiation, it has its limits. IT may not be a good idea to overload or stress our system before we get on the plane.
 

sandrah

Distinguished
Jun 22, 2007
9
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]moar truff[/nom]sandrah - airplanes have UV reflective paint and windows. Even parachuters use UV goggles and sunscreen. Solar wavelengths are much longer than x-ray radiation and therefore exponentially less likely to cause DNA degradation in a cell. Even if you make the completely inaccurate assumption that solar and x-ray radiation are similar in their carcinogenicity you are still way off.Why don't you describe the situation where the 5% of the population that is radiation sensitive is going to be OUTSIDE OF THE AIRPLANE at 35,000 feet. Lets hear it.[/citation]

http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/

1 hour of airplane flight is .5 mrems (millirem), 1 scan in through a backscatter body scan is 10 microrems or .01 mrems, and for reference 1 chest xray is 6 mrems.

The construction of a modern aircraft will block virtually no radiation as they are made with all low weight low density materials like aluminum, no type of paint of film on the windows will block any sort of radiation, well unless you're talking lead paint and still that's not really going to stop any radiation, you need high density materials like lead to stop it. And yes atmosphere not the ozone blocks radiation, ozone blocks UV rays, the further away from sea level you are the higher cosmic radiation you get and that's the radiation you get on an aircraft.
 

burrellbuzzman

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2009
15
0
18,560
0
NPR reveals that there is another reason we should be wary of the machines two out of three of us will have to use by the end of 2011.
So what would happen if there was a terrorist about to board and had gone through other forms of security just fine... But was lucky enough to be the 1 out of 3 that didn't have to go through the scanner and managed to take the plane down...

Either everyone should have to do it, to make sure of security, or no one should have to do it, to ensure the health of people...

Absolutely ridiculous
 
G

Guest

Guest
If you're a male, make sure you masturbate good before passing the scanner, to leave a good impression with the security guard (hopefully a woman for most) :)
 

Marco925

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2008
530
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]irish_adam[/nom]i know that they've blurred the faces but i doubt you could even tell who it was anyway so who cares what they do with the pictures? even if one did leak out i doubt very much it could be identified easily so who cares? no ones going ot jack off to those pics are they?[/citation]

6 billion people, 6 billion fetishes.

after what i've seen on the internet, Nothing surprises me anymore.
 

knownalien

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2003
9
0
18,510
0
we the people had nothing to do with the underwear bomber. if anything, the usa gov't failed in a several attempts to apprehend him before he ever boarded the plane. and yet, it is you and I who have to go through more and more hoops to get on with our daily lives. What happens when the next guy puts a bomb in his anus? Are we then to submit to anal probing?? This is not what this country was built on and yet we americans appear ready to give away all of our rights. The poeple could have told the gov't to get their collective sh** together and prevent these idiots from boarding planes with the tools they already have, but instead they put the onus on us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Z Streaming Video & TVs 2
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
E Streaming Video & TVs 2
C Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
Axonn Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 59
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 17
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 7
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 23
G Streaming Video & TVs 44
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 13
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 21
G Streaming Video & TVs 23
G Streaming Video & TVs 23
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 77
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 45
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 31
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 25
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 64

ASK THE COMMUNITY