dosxuk Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 So you are saying the image of the woman with the belt buckle that has simply had its colours inverted is acceptable to you? The image in question is a hoax, with the source material being from a photographic library and inverted to create the "scanner" image. (I'm struggling to find a source to link to which doesn't break the forum's family friendly rules, but just google for "body scanner hoax" and the first link to tatumba.com has the photos, along with the originals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 It violates one right or another, privacy or travel, take your pick after paying for an expensive holiday, and god help those with metal implants, it could discriminate against them by pulling them out of the queue every time some over excited gimp hears a beep. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/bollywood/7203872/Airport-denies-body-scanner-photo-claim-by-Bollywood-star-Shahrukh-Khan.html I don't know whether Shahrukh Khan was having a larf or telling the truth but the following story (and vid) don't surprise me one bit. http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans Or for those who like to read crap:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330327/Airport-security-breach-naked-body-scanner-images-leaked-online.html Lets come back in 5 years and see how many terrorists (or more than likely drug, money smugglers) they have prevented from boarding a plane, out of how many people they've scammed erm I mean scanned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Odds of cancer from TSA scanners about the same as terrorist blowing up your plane. Arizona State University physics professor Peter Rez calculated the amount of radiation exposure a human is likely to receive in one of these newfangled Rapiscan porno-scanners and determined that exposure to be roughly one-fiftieth to one-hundredth the amount of a standard chest X-ray. He calculated the risk of getting cancer from a single scan at about 1 in 30 million, "which puts it somewhat less than being killed by being struck by lightning in any one year". "While the risk of getting a fatal cancer from the screening is minuscule, it's about equal to the probability that an airplane will get blown up by a terrorist. So my view is there is not a case to be made for deploying them to prevent such a low probability event." http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/19/odds-of-cancer-from.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevski35 Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 So you are saying the image of the woman with the belt buckle that has simply had its colours inverted is acceptable to you? What about children too? You have also not answered my questions either .... as you seem to think these are to fight terrorism, "Can you name one plane that has been brought down by a device that would be detected by these scanners in recent history?" What are you suggesting, wait until a few planes have been blown out of the sky, a few hundred lives lost before saying we best have them scanners after all then. If the technology is there use it. Me personnally, I would rather sit on a plane knowing the authorities have done everything possible to make sure it gets to its destination in one piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Odds of cancer from TSA scanners about the same as terrorist blowing up your plane. Arizona State University physics professor Peter Rez calculated the amount of radiation exposure a human is likely to receive in one of these newfangled Rapiscan porno-scanners and determined that exposure to be roughly one-fiftieth to one-hundredth the amount of a standard chest X-ray. He calculated the risk of getting cancer from a single scan at about 1 in 30 million, "which puts it somewhat less than being killed by being struck by lightning in any one year". "While the risk of getting a fatal cancer from the screening is minuscule, it's about equal to the probability that an airplane will get blown up by a terrorist. So my view is there is not a case to be made for deploying them to prevent such a low probability event." http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/19/odds-of-cancer-from.html I wonder if the increased risk from the X-rays is similar to the increased risk from the extra radiation that flyers are subjected to from the Sun and other cosmic rays? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/557340.stm http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005/0907-flying_and_radiation_risk.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 I wonder if the increased risk from the X-rays is similar to the increased risk from the extra radiation that flyers are subjected to from the Sun and other cosmic rays? No it's a lot less, but the US pilots union are advising its members not to go through the machines as they pose an unnecessary risk, ie: one that can be avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84th foot Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 We flew from Manchester airport in September and found out that it`s now compulsory to go through the scanners which basically give an image of you with no clothes on. Apart from the fact it wasn`t compulsory when they first came out (when did it become so ? ) we were amazed to hear that it could be an "operative" of either sex looking at the images, i.e. a man viewing a woman, or vice versa. I`ve seen some of these images and they reveal enough so I`d feel embarrased if it was cold, if you know what I mean ! Every person, especially the women, we`ve spoken to about this is shocked to hear it could be someone of the opposite sex seeing these images, does anyone actually think this compulsory invasion of ones privacy is justified ? How have they got away with this ? better the scan, than sitting on a jet with a nutter and bomb on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 better the scan, than sitting on a jet with a nutter and bomb on it. These scanners would not have stopped ANY bombers to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 This image is very apt: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/500x_land-of-the-free.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84th foot Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 This image is very apt: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/500x_land-of-the-free.jpg so is this http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=9+11+photos&rlz=1I7DKUK_en&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=Ko3qTO7qHsqKhQfXs8UP&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CC0QsAQwAA&biw=1259&bih=600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.