Naked airport scanner

Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Personally I'd rather not get blasted by any more radiation than I already recieve every year. I can imagine these causing delays at the airport with the huge number of people who will refuse to do it for various reasons and the number of people who get cancer will probably be greater than the number of people who would ever be killed by terrorist attacks anyway.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
4 Nov 2004
Posts
4,220
Location
Seattle area, USA
Personally I'd rather not get blasted by any more radiation than I already recieve every year. I can imagine these causing delays at the airport with the huge number of people who will refuse to do it for various reasons and the number of people who get cancer will probably be greater than the number of people who would ever be killed by terrorist attacks anyway.

Medical

CT (CAT Scan):
Up to 1,000,000 microRem
Chest, Mammography:
Up to 10,000 microRem

Background Radiation

Denver (5000 ft): Up to 600 microRem per day Miami (sea level): Up to 300 microRem per day Inside vs. outside a building: Up to 25 microRem per day

Airline Passenger Dose


One hour flight: Up to 500 microRem per hour

Rapiscan Secure 1000


Less than 10 microRem per exam


http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000.html :)
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Taking those figures into account, at least one person is likely to get cancer, which is greater than the number of people who would have died from a terrorist attack that year.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,158
Taking those figures into account, at least one person is likely to get cancer, which is greater than the number of people who would have died from a terrorist attack that year.

Are you serious? Are you suggesting we shouldn't have scanners as they are more dangerous that the potential of terrorists?
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Are you serious? Are you suggesting we shouldn't have scanners as they are more dangerous that the potential of terrorists?

If they cause more people to die than terrorists obviously, that's why scans that involve radiation aren't given routinely to the whole population, they result in more cancer deaths than they prevent.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Nov 2004
Posts
4,220
Location
Seattle area, USA
Taking those figures into account, at least one person is likely to get cancer, which is greater than the number of people who would have died from a terrorist attack that year.

Only if you pass through it 5000+ times a year

Q: What about exposure levels for individuals who are frequent flyers or for employees in companies or high security facilities who have to be screened each day?

A: Under current international guidelines (such as the ANSI 43.17 Standard) up to 5000 scans per year can be conducted safely.

http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html#7

By comparison you are much, much more likely to get cancer from flying :p
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
How can you possibly say you'd rather be blown up than go through a nudiscan?

I don't buy into that line of fearmongering. I've survived many years of trips through airports and on planes without being blown up, without these RF scanners. The probability is so low that I couldn't care less about "terror alerts". I do however pay attention to the road traffic in front of me, since that is far more likely to injure or kill me.

Chill winston, it was a tongue in cheek comment - no need to get all defensive.

Sorry, I forgot this was GD :rolleyes::p
 
Associate
Joined
6 Nov 2006
Posts
63
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1775

Face it, some bad people do bad things, the only solution is to give up all of our liberties and stop anyone doing ANYTHING.

The police are doing a good job at finding the bad people before they try and do bad things, that is enough.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2002
Posts
7,101
Location
Inverness
If it was a woman viewing womens scans and a man viewing mans scans then I would do it. I'd be very uncomfortable doing it and I'd rather not if I'm honest, but if it improves saftey then I'd do it. If it was someone of the opposite sex doing the scans then I wouldn't.

I know loads of people will say that I'm stupid, I really don't care. It's not about how I look or anything like that either. I'm just very private about my nekkidness :p moreso than the average I guess. I personally don't think it's that unreasonable to ask for it to be someone of the same sex viewing the scans. I also think if this were the case you would have far less people refusing.
 
Back
Top Bottom