Manchester airport security scanners, now compulsory, men see women naked !

[Mummytwo]

I can't wait to go on one. If anyone would not go abroad because of this how sad

 

Is it not sad that people lose privacy? We all have the right to it, we can choose to lose it or not, there's nothing sad about that. Some people are more comfortable than others.

[[Matt]]

Going to the doctors or in hospital can be very undignified but you accept it because of your health, well in a similar way the airport scanner may also be beneficial for your health

You have more chance dying in an airliner crash or of winning the lottery than dying at the hands of a terrorist.

 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin (smart man)

[Scozzie]

I use Manchester airport quite often and I think you are over reacting a bit.

 

If you go through the beepy things and it goes 'beep', you then go into these scanners.

 

The thing that annoyes me is that I always get stuck behind someone who leave their belt on and goes beep, has to go back in, then their watch goes beep, so they have to go back in, then the car keys go been and they have to go in yet again.

 

It was quicker whenthey ran th scanner over you.

 

If someone want to se my boobies - let them.

[Nagel]

The problem is that they use X-rays to scan you in these machines. They accept that some more people will die of cancer by going through these machines, but say that the number is very small.

 

The EU has moved to ban the devices and the ones in Manchester are the only ones left in use in the whole of the EU as they have special permission to complete their trial of these machines.

[JFKvsNixon]

The problem is that they use X-rays to scan you in these machines. They accept that some more people will die of cancer by going through these machines, but say that the number is very small.

 

The EU has moved to ban the devices and the ones in Manchester are the only ones left in use in the whole of the EU as they have special permission to complete their trial of these machines.

 

Are you sure that the machines produce X-rays?

[JFKvsNixon]

I've read a quote saying that of the two devices used, one emits thousands of times less energy than a mobile phone and the other produces the same exposure as two minutes of flying. More here.

[Nagel]

I've read a quote saying that of the two devices used, one emits thousands of times less energy than a mobile phone and the other produces the same exposure as two minutes of flying. More here.

 

The TSA is not exactly a neutral source. Would you believe The Scientific American more?

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners

 

"As a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation detailed earlier this month, X-ray body scanners use ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. Although the amount of radiation is extremely low, equivalent to the radiation a person would receive in a few minutes of flying, several research studies have concluded that a small number of cancer cases would result from scanning hundreds of millions of passengers a year."

[JFKvsNixon]

The TSA is not exactly a neutral source. Would you believe The Scientific American more?

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners

 

"As a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation detailed earlier this month, X-ray body scanners use ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. Although the amount of radiation is extremely low, equivalent to the radiation a person would receive in a few minutes of flying, several research studies have concluded that a small number of cancer cases would result from scanning hundreds of millions of passengers a year."

 

Yea, I'd believe your link as well especially where it says:

 

......the amount of radiation is extremely low, equivalent to the radiation a person would receive in a few minutes of flying.....

 

So the actual flight is far far far more hazardous in terms of cancer risk than the scan itself.

[Nagel]

So the actual flight is far far far more hazardous in terms of cancer risk than the scan itself.

 

Yes, but air crew are advised by their association not to go through these scanners as they get plenty enough radiation anyway.

 

Who would want more?

 

And also you are not comparing like with like when you compare the cosmic radiation of high altitudes with the low energy radiation from the scanners. The high energy rays pass right through the body whilst the low energy rays are stopped by the skin (and just below). Because they are stopped then this is where the damage will be.

[JFKvsNixon]

Yes, but air crew are advised by their association not to go through these scanners as they get plenty enough radiation anyway.

 

Who would want more?

 

And also you are not comparing like with like when you compare the cosmic radiation of high altitudes with the low energy radiation from the scanners. The high energy rays pass right through the body whilst the low energy rays are stopped by the skin (and just below). Because they are stopped then this is where the damage will be.

 

You are right it's impossible to compare like with like, but what you can talk about is managing risk. It is impossible to eliminate risk, what you can do is manage it. It is abundantly clear that the risk is neglable, for example, Cancer research UK states that the low levels of radiation that a passenger would experience (during a flight) are very unlikely to seriously affect their cancer risk, even if they were a frequent flyer.

 

So if that's the case, then when you consider that the scanners carry risk that can described as being far far less than the risk of flying, it is safe to describe the risk from these scanners to be negligible.