LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshttp://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.co...body-scanners/
Apparently due to how they present and analyse the images they are, its been suggested before you could easily smuggle in plastic by wrapping it around your body.
http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.co...body-scanners/
Apparently due to how they present and analyse the images they are, its been suggested before you could easily smuggle in plastic by wrapping it around your body.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
oh great, now they will be taking pics from more angles.
VodkaOriginally Posted by Ephesians
Have to say im not arsed about this at all
[tee hee]
Useless, inhuman, and potentially damaging.
These scanners are not there for security. They are justified by providing the illusion of security, which minimises the uproar agaist the real reason they, and TSA exist.
It's about transferring power to the federal government. It's a deliberate and calculated attempt to limit the liberties guaranteed by the constitution. We scream 'police state' when the Republicans do it, and 'Socialism' when the Liberals do, but both are working toward the same goal.
I don't have a problem with them, as always if you have nothing to hide then nothing to worry about.
As for being inhumane I do not see how, you just walk though, its no worse than getting a pat down really.
Kimbie
They come from the dark and slice your head off
Did you read what the guy is talking about?
Its not about having something to hide, its that they don't work. Period. If a scanner doesn't pick up a knife or a gun or a lot of plastic explosive, that is a problem.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Aside from being photographed naked, having medical conditions publicly exposed, possible tumours/cancers, etc., etc.
Yeah, so you've the option of being photographed naked, or physically molested. Not in any way inhumane.
And let's not forget, that they're also useless at stopping people smuggling things on board.
Traditional pre-9/11 airport security measures were plenty adequate. If reinforced flight cabin doors and flight martials were mandatory for every flight it would have been prevented it entirely. Neither of those require molesting children and adults alike, or publicly humiliate people with medical conditions.
That's all security theatre to keep the security racket going.
Simple solution: take photos from the side.
Yeah, twice the radiation for twice the fun!
Radiation!? Molestation!? Inhumane!?
Oh get a grip!
Isn't that their complaint
Myself I always request a pat down, helps keep the blood flowing, kinda like my free pre-flight massage.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I always claim to 'self-identify as female gender' to get a rub down from a female agent.... er I mean pat down...
Sorry, you're right, IONISING radiation.
As much as I hate the security theatre, the radiation isn't that much of an issue.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/body.htm
Schneier makes the interesting point that:
which I can't help feeling is deliberately twisting the statistics. If that methodology is right, then people die from flying anyway - rather, flying causes a small excess in the number of cancer victims. One (US coast - coast) flight is equal to 150 scans apparently. So actually that 16 deaths from cancer is more like noise in the signal from the number of people that get cancer from taking trips abroad.More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result.
What this is really saying is that you have a 150*16 ten millionths of a percent chance of dying of cancer because you took a flight. Getting scanned raises the odds to 151*16 ten millionths. So we should expect 2400 deaths from flights over a two year period and an extra 16 if scanners are included. I'm sorry, but no medical statistics are ever that accurate, that's within error and it would be impossible to attribute extra deaths to these scanners simply because the dosage from the flight is so high. And this only allows for US domestic flights, not long haul which are considerably longer.
It's even more insignificant if you include all the extra radiation you get from taking the journey to get to the airport, the minimal leakage from the baggage x-ray scanners, etc
If people were getting scanned and then turned away then it would be a different matter.
Again, I don't agree with the machines, but people get far too worried about radiation.
Last edited by Whiternoise; 09-03-2012 at 12:44 AM.
MaddAussie (09-03-2012),peterb (09-03-2012)
Not all radiation is equal. Flight radiation is mostly cosmic rays, which are so high-wavelength they essentially go through the body harmlessly. Dental & clinical X-Rays are designed to pass through flesh and hit bone. Rapiscan machines are designed to react to (with) flesh.
Do you want a scanner designed to react to soft tissue pointed at your balls? Especially one which has a history of being miscalibrated, whose operators are banned from wearing dosimeters, and whose manufacturers keep the specifics of radiation levels as a trade secret?
All in the name of something less effective than an old fashioned metal detector?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
