Full body scanners

[quote]Yes, the government must be watched for abuses, and must establish its own oversight, but that does not mitigate the government’s responsibility to do what it can to prevent further murders, and being in public by choice in a targeted location means everyone needs to be checked, then so be it. Just like they do federal buildings, just like they do at random checkpoints on the roads. And yes, there is a viewing by a trained screener (again with the training) of outlines of body parts, but no one else sees it - you’re not stripped in public, for example - and personal shyness on one person who can see an outline doesn’t seem like a good enough reason not to use the better scanners if they have enough of a technical benefit.

[/quote]

But that’s the thing. Where is the proof - the evidence, that these scanners are better or more effective than a pat down? If there was conclusive evidence that they were more effective - that they will cut down security clearance times and that they could enhance airport security, then I’d be all for them. But the fact is, there is not enough evidence to justify bringing these expensive machines in.

And then what’s going to happen when a terrorist sneaks a bomb onto an aircraft which is hidden down his throat, or in his rectal cavity? One thing leads to another, and before we know it, you mark my words, we will be told of the need to be x-rayed before we board a flight.

In my opinion, there is no substitute for dogs - it’s almost impossible to get trace gunpowder past their noses, let alone explosives.

This really is getting beyond the ridicuous.

Whether these scanners are brought in or not, we will see another terrorist atrocity involving aircraft unless the world’s pollitical situation suddenly improves. This is now a fact of life.

What most people don’t seem to realise is that it is the general public who are losing out again. The terrorists win because they have succeeded in installing fear into the travelling population and causing chaos, largely through our own governments and media institutions. The governments win because they make money. War = money - it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book.
The losers are the endless lines of people who gradually have their rights to travel curbed, their free time taken up and their civil liberties violated.

It’s not that I really care about being the act of being screened - it’s the principles that this is based upon which irks me.

I have not read all 5 pages, so i apologise if i am repeating what someone else has already said. But my main concern would be the dose of radiation. It will be low, but there is no safe limit for x-rays and even one exposure can cause cancer, which is why they are so regulated in hospitals.

I forgot to add, pregnant women in their first trimester should have concerns about the whole body scans too.

These scanners use millimeter wave (high radio frequency) technology which is not ionising. The only radiation which has enough energy to ionise is the likes of UV, X-rays and Gamma rays. Microwaves from your phone for example, cannot ionise however much power is output. A very high energy microwave might make you feel a little warm inside however.
These scanners are not x-ray.

These scanners use millimeter wave (high radio frequency) technology which is not ionising. The only radiation which has enough energy to ionise is the likes of UV, X-rays and Gamma rays. Microwaves from your phone for example, cannot ionise however much power is output. A very high energy microwave might make you feel a little warm inside however.
These scanners are not x-ray.[/quote]

The millimeter wave scanners have been shown to cause damage to links in double strand DNA. UK airports are looking to use X-Ray scanners as they can show internal devices, which would prevent drug mules and explosive devices getting through.

The health risks from the millimeter wave scanners will not be known for about a decade, once they have been used for some time on a wide range of people. People initially thought MRI scanners posed no health risks, now we are finding that may not be the case. Ultrasound ditto. Neither of them use ionising radiation.

Well, there you go then. If they are looking at using x-ray and they currently use millimeter, the health risks are obvious.

[quote=“TwoTongues”]BTW the Dutch claim to have overcome any privacy problems:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BR22120091228

They use a little different technology that gives the outline but not the obvious sex of the individual being scanned.[/quote]

There was a demo of a full body scanner model on German TV last week. Not sure what the model is, or how it differs (if any) from the model the Dutch are using or US are purchasing. I don’t speak German, but they found the guy’s cell phone, microphone, and a Swiss army knife. They couldn’t detect the bomb though.

Full-body scanner catches cell phone, misses bomb on German TV [video]

Here is a funny take on all of this (may be considered nsfw):