Naked airport scanner

[Things change I've changed]

<waits patiently for x-ray pron sites to start appearing on the net>

Truth be told if even one of these pics get out and released on the net, especially if it's of a child I can this see whole project being shut down tbh.

And what about famous celebrities ?, how tempting would it be to leak their image/s to the press ?

 

[Knubje]

I was thinking of a new career path in airport security... this might have just swayed my decision...

 

[Basher]

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.

I take it this is using made up statistics?

 

[Greenlizard0]

I'm not bothered about this until something, as I'm sure it will, goes wrong.

I guess unlike the annoying liquid volumes security measures this is relatively painless to the passenger. So I guess go for it.

Oh and :

AL QAEDA TO RECRUIT FATTIES

AL Qaeda is expected to focus its recruitment policy on ugly, fat people following the introduction of 'naked' airport scanners, it was claimed last night.

Security experts warned the terrorist fanatics will turn their attention to fast food outlets and attempt to radicalise vulnerable individuals with leaflets about how western values lead inevitably to more exercise and less cheese.

Julian Cook, of the Institute for Studies, said: "Al Qaeda has studied our culture very closely and it did not take them long to work out that we are all physically repelled by the thought of a naked fat person."

The new scanners are designed to expose concealed weapons and explosives but, the manufacturers admit, will also produce high definition images of mountainous folds, sweat-filled gutters and greasy flaps.

Roy Hobbs, a security officer at Heathrow, said: "If some 20-stone gargoyle waddles up to the machine, I'm just going to wave it through.

"I know it could be carrying a bomb or a gun or a knife and could either blow up the plane or hijack it before flying it into Canary Wharf and killing hundreds if not thousands of people, but I've got to sleep at night."

The police said the new scanners would help in the fight against terrorism, but stressed that as soon as anyone under the age of 16 passed through the machine, the airport staff member on duty would be arrested immediately and placed on the sex offenders' register.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, airport staff are expected to ask Victoria Beckham to just really, really promise that she is not carrying a bomb.

Lets all take our clothes off and be done with it

HEY!!

 

[Zip]

"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.

What are we actually giving up by going through a scanner?


Seriously its its probably worse going into the Doctor and getting your balls checked (although i did have a woman Doctor check it and a super sexy indian woman give them an ultra sound)

 

[knowledge123]

And what about famous celebrities ?, how tempting would it be to leak their image/s to the press ?

The operator sits in a separate room and does not see the faces of the people s/he is scanning.

 

[Freefaller]

Security is a big deal. An unknown person in a room staring at a computer screen is not a big deal.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment (and agree about the, "so what if it's kids" comment too), I don't believe security is a big deal. It's been MADE into a big deal. Remember 10 years ago how relaxed flying used to be? Travelling to the states, oz, and around the world then was easy, effortless and enjoyable! Heck I used to like being in airports. We had just as many terrorists then as we do now (which just proves that we're not really addressed the root causes of why there are terrorists in the first place.)

Let's be clear, in spite of all the security checks etc... a well planned attack will always outwit the security services or cause devastation one way or the other. I'm not saying get rid of security, but all this elaboration serves absolutely nothing.

I personally feel less safe now travelling by plane than I used to. When you spend several days/weeks of your life in airports you soon see that security isn't as tight as you think and that it's only as good as the people they employ, and people are fickle, lazy and open to suggestion/distraction.

But maybe I have a slightly biased view on airports and air travel.

I don't see the problem with teh airport scanner, but I think it's daft.

I think a better solution is, everyone either goes naked (particularly women) or wears very skimpy modesty-cover wear - problem solved.

 

[Greenlizard0]

Totally agree - yet more money is being thrown toward the hype. As said, in this case it probably won't be inconvenient, but usually it is.

Unfortunetly these guys are organised, I don't think this would really do anything to those belonging to such groups.

 

[Freefaller]

Air travel now is become such a pain that I'd rather board a plane full of terrorists.

 

[Destination]

Has everyone read the article before doing the normal Daily Mail thing of "Oh my god! The children! Outcry!"?



People can refuse to be scanned and the images can't be saved or printed off. I don't see an issue really! I'd just buy foil stickers saying "The legend is this way" with an arrow pointing down and watch the guy's face who is doing the scan

This is an interesting point you make about british society.
They immediatly jump on the social-worker/bleeding heart/privacy invasion bandwagon. Having been abroad for several weeks its refreshing to come back to such a closed ignorant and lazy society. I'm proud to pay so much in tax for so many folks to do nothing.

Anyway, regarding the OP.
This will dose people with ionising radiation, as with every other radiograph that is taken, exposing people to xrays must be justified by a medically qualified person signing off on each exposure. These exposures are dosed for specific body areas, and the dose tailors for effect.

This is complete full body irridation, as a low penetration value.

It is worth noting that exposing anyone to ionising radiation is like playing the lottery. It will cause cancer in some people some of the time. You can't determine a safe level as the cancer incidents are random events, so the figures tend to be given as a 1:10000 or 1:100000000 style likelyhood of causing death from exposure. Also it is impossible to prove an inonising event caused a death or a particular cancer, one can only correlate, thus why the figures are based on mass population exposures.

There are things you can do to decrease this chance, lower the dose, lower the amount of exposures, or exclude the exposures entirely.

Have the govt published the figures for this zapping process?
How many travellers per year are liekly to die as a result of the ionising radiation exposures?
I think if I was cabin crew in Manchester I'd request a trasnfer to a different airport for the duration of this study.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Woo security theatre!

Are we any safer? I doubt it. Are several security companies a lot richer? No doubt at all.

 

[Energize]

I take it this is using made up statistics?

It's common knowledge that radiation causes cancer.

http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/abstract/176/2/289

 

[knowledge123]

It's common knowledge that radiation causes cancer.

http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/abstract/176/2/289

Yes but the figures quoted by rapidscan put the dosage of radiation of the machine lower the the flight itself. So the chance of the machine giving you cancer is next to null.

The Environmental Protection Agency advocates a standard for all radiation exposure from a single source or site at 15 millirem a year, with no more than 4 coming from ground water. A standard chest X-ray, in comparison, gives about 10 millirem to the chest, which is equivalent to 1 or 2 millirem to the whole body. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets its acceptable level of radiation exposure from any one source at 25 millirem a year. In contrast, the natural level of background radiation in the United States, on average, is about 350 millirem a year, and in some areas of the country it is many times higher than that.

In New York, for example, people absorb about 100 millirem of radiation each year from cosmic rays alone, said Dr. John Boice Jr., a radiation expert, who is the scientific director of the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Md. In Denver, exposure from cosmic rays averages 200 millirem a year, he said, and natural variation in radiation exposure is many times the amounts of radiation that are being disputed by regulatory agencies.

source

Rapiscan Secure 1000

Less than 10 microRem per exam

 

[Basher]

It's common knowledge that radiation causes cancer.

http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/abstract/176/2/289

I'm not disputing that ...

Care to back up your actual argument?

 

[Energize]

I'm not disputing that ...

Care to back up your actual argument?

Read the journal article.

 

[chrisd]

Read the journal article.

That report concerns the risks associated with paediatric CT scans.

 

[Energize]

That report concerns the risks associated with paediatric CT scans.

In response to the comment about routine medical scans...

 

[chrisd]

In response to the comment about routine medical scans...

That's still a completely irrelevant study to quote.

 

[Energize]

That's still a completely irrelevant study to quote.

No it isn't, it shows that the cancer risk from scans is not negligible and can be significant.

 

[Narziss]

The last thing we need is terrorists like this!