Body Scanners: Invasion of Privacy and Health Risk


A person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 – 0.009 millirems of radiation. 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure.

You can get 200 of these scans and still fall under the 'negligeable' dose. In order to get to the upper safe limit..you'd have to be scanned 5,000 times in one year.

America Airlines must LOVE you.
 
If the scanner shows something, the person is taken aside and frisked or strip-searched. They don't need the image.
Until the day someone makes it past a scanner and suddenly they have to review what went wrong with the system. *POOF* they have the files.

You're dreaming if you don't think there will be some record kept. It has the potential to become important evidence.
 
The scanners are a joke anyhow...wouldn't have stopped the underoosbomber at all. More of a PR stunt than anything else.

That's the problem with simply reacting to what just happened instead of being proactive and actually trying to get to the source. Secure your airport terminals from passengers, but ignore all the people who work at the airports. Secure your airports, but ignore all trains, and boats. Secure all your transportation, but ignore your bridges and tunnels. Secure your travel infrastructure, but ignore your power-grids. etc..

How about working on resolving the 5 W's instead...as in,
"Why the hell are we a target?"
"Who originates the plans?"
"What do they hope to accomplish?"
"When are they likely to strike next?"
"How will the next strike differ from the last one?"
 
Radiation Safety Group Says Naked Body Scanners Increase Risk Of Cancer

Children and pregnant women should not be subject to scan says influential body, urging governments to ditch backscatter x-ray devices

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, February 5, 2010

An influential international radiation safety organization has warned that the naked body scanners currently being rolled out in airports across the world increase the risk of cancer and birth defects and should not be used on pregnant women or children.

Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.

Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”

“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reports Bloomberg.

Despite the fact that the level of radiation the passenger is exposed to is relatively low, repeated exposure for frequent flyers would undoubtedly increase cancer risks.

The report issued by the IACRS encompasses the work of the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization.

As we have highlighted, not only do the body scanners pose health risks but they also violate the fundamental human right of the innocent to be protected against strip-searches.

Despite official denials that the images produced by the devices show details of genitalia, journalists who have investigated trials of the technology have reported that details of sexual organs are “eerily visible”.

Indeed, as we have previously highlighted, when the scanners were first introduced at Australian airports in 2008 it was admitted that the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible. “It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities,” said Melbourne Airport’s Office of Transport Security manager Cheryl Johnson.

Attempts to keep this under wraps by lying about the images produced are an effort to head off challenges to the legality of the devices. Historically, civil lawsuits where an individual has been strip searched by a member of the opposite sex have proven to be successful in North America.

Courts have consistently found that strip searches are only legal when performed on a person who has already been found guilty of a crime or on arrestees pending trial where a reasonable suspicion has to exist that they are carrying a weapon. Subjecting masses of people to blanket strip searches in airports reverses the very notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Barring people from flying and essentially treating them like terrorists for refusing to be humiliated by the virtual strip search is a clear breach of the basic human right of freedom of movement.

Source
 
Here's the real question: does anyone really feel safer with all this "security"? I can answer for myself: "no".

None of these steps
  • taking my shoes off
  • scanning my carry on
  • checking me for metal
  • puffing air at me in a box
  • "scanning" my body with X-rays
are making me safer.

In fact, what it's doing is making me not want to fly anymore. I've reduced my overall flights by 75% because I absolutely dread the ordeal of going through security. I will drive 13 hours one way (and I just did last holiday season) to avoid the hassle of a flight.
 
Here's the real question: does anyone really feel safer with all this "security"? I can answer for myself: "no".

None of these steps
  • taking my shoes off
  • scanning my carry on
  • checking me for metal
  • puffing air at me in a box
  • "scanning" my body with X-rays
are making me safer.

In fact, what it's doing is making me not want to fly anymore. I've reduced my overall flights by 75% because I absolutely dread the ordeal of going through security. I will drive 13 hours one way (and I just did last holiday season) to avoid the hassle of a flight.


Those 'puffers' are also notoriously unreliable....when they're actually working at all. The best way to detect explosives is with...drumroll please...a bomb-sniffing dog. Components are harder to detect, though, as you can make explosives out of nearly anything. The 3 oz rule came about because of a plot in the UK to bring the components on-board in separate containers, and then mix them in the lavatory.

If they were truly serious about airline security, you'd have to submit to a body-cavity search and then fly nekkid with an FAA approved and inserted butt-plug to keep you from smuggling stuff up there.
 
Check this one out!

Nuthin’ like having yer teenage daughter get nekkid
for the five dollar an hour TSA guys every time
she flies the pervy skies. Hey little girl is that
a tampon or C4 you’ve got shoved up there?

I’m checkin’ out that dangerous vag!!!
 
Authorities alarmed by possibility of surgically placed explosives

LONDON – Agents for Britain's MI5 intelligence service have discovered that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals have returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery.

Similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock. Both are parts of the body that diabetics use to inject themselves with their prescribed drugs.



Takes the fruit-of-kaboom idea to a whole new level....
 
Again...body scanners are alternatives to pat-downs. If you don't get pulled out of the line for a secondary scan, you don't get to go through either a body scanner nor a pat-down.

Your 14yr old daughter is safe so long as she doesn't do anything stupid..like joke about how big the explosives up her ass is.

**
 
Git yer hands offa my Daughter

Nah she's got a nice tight tush
but they could be very suspicious
of her voluptuous double D's!
Come to think of it
them thar thangs DO look 'bout ready to explode!
 
Again...body scanners are alternatives to pat-downs. If you don't get pulled out of the line for a secondary scan, you don't get to go through either a body scanner nor a pat-down.

Your 14yr old daughter is safe so long as she doesn't do anything stupid..like joke about how big the explosives up her ass is.

**

Where does it say it will only be an alternative? I cannot find that anywhere.
 
Where does it say it will only be an alternative? I cannot find that anywhere.

It's the same as a pat-down. They cannot ask for everyone to go through a pat-down and they cannot ask everyone to go through a scanner. It's far too time consuming.

I've found numerous articles and they all basically say "After being pulled for secondary screening...voluntary alternative to a pat-down"
 
Back
Top