Health & Safety concerns with new Airport X-Ray body scanners.

Run_to_da_hills

According to [URL="[url]http://noworldsystem.com/2009/12/31/full-body-scanners-to-fry-travelers-with-radiation/[/url]"]this article [/URL]these new full body X-ray scanners "will fry you with radiation".

If this is true I am sure for someone who makes the odd holiday trip once a year would not be so bad but to be a frequent flyer fryer :eek: It would be quite worrying.



"A leading U.S. expert on the biologica effects of X-radiation is Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Gofman’s exhaustive research leads him to conclude that there is NO SAFE DOSE-LEVEL of ionizing radiation".

Time to purchase a lead suit.

Ciaran500

Most airports seem to be adopting the milimeter wave technology, not the back scatter x-ray machines. Also the backscatter x-ray machines can't see through human skin like your image implies.

Run_to_da_hills

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Most airports seem to be adopting the milimeter wave technology, not the back scatter x-ray machines. Also the backscatter x-ray machines can't see through human skin like your image implies.

Millimeter wave technology scanners may not be sufficient if you read this article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6258137/New-al-Qaeda-body-bombs-that-can-beat-airport-security-are-alarming-terror-experts.html

Vorsprung

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to this article these new full body X-ray scanners will fry you with radiation. Im sure for someone who makes the odd holiday trip once a year would not be so bad but to be a frequent flyer would be worrying.



"A leading U.S. expert on the biologica effects of X-radiation is Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Gofman’s exhaustive research leads him to conclude that there is NO SAFE DOSE-LEVEL of ionizing radiation".

Time to purchase a lead suit.

http://noworldsystem.com/2009/12/31/full-body-scanners-to-fry-travelers-with-radiation/

Any chance of a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed journal?

dvpower

Vorsprung wrote: »

Any chance of a link to a paper in a peer-reviewed journal?

Run_to_da_hills doesn't do peer-reviewed journals; they're all controlled by the Illuminati.:rolleyes:

Ciaran500

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Millimeter wave technology scanners may not be sufficient if you read this article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6258137/New-al-Qaeda-body-bombs-that-can-beat-airport-security-are-alarming-terror-experts.html

That bomb wouldn't be picked up by the back scatter x-ray machines either.

Backscatter x-ray:

Dr Galen

this is possibly an interesting topic for discussion, as these scanners are set to become much more common in the coming years.

However, OP on this forum (which is a science forum) we look for proper evidence to back up any suggestions made. Links to articles on CT websites are not acceptable forms of such evidence, sure they can be used to promote discussion, but please be aware that they cannot and will not be taken as fact.

No more links to CT/quack sites please OP, but feel free to discuss and debate the topic, based on fact

Cheers

MM

RobFowl

These may be of interest.

http://calvin.aapm.org/pubs/books/PointCounterpointCompendium.pdf#page=319

http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/wholebodyimaging.pdf

There seems to be a consencous that there are risks from increased radiation exposure but that this is out weighed by the safety benefits.
I haven't had much time but couldn't find much (any !) published primary research on the safety issues.

Run_to_da_hills

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

this is possibly an interesting topic for discussion, as these scanners are set to become much more common in the coming years.

However, OP on this forum (which is a science forum) we look for proper evidence to back up any suggestions made. Links to articles on CT websites are not acceptable forms of such evidence, sure they can be used to promote discussion, but please be aware that they cannot and will not be taken as fact.

No more links to CT/quack sites please OP, but feel free to discuss and debate the topic, based on fact

Cheers

MM

I understand but when I see a statement from a Dr. John Gofman a so called leading expert raising concerns on the matter I would like to know more about the subject.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Most airports seem to be adopting the milimeter wave technology, not the back scatter x-ray machines. Also the backscatter x-ray machines can't see through human skin like your image implies.

Not according to this press article: Backscatter x-ray machines are being deployed in US airports. "The TSA has also invested in "backscatter" machines, which use low-level X-rays to create a two-dimensional image of the body, from Rapiscan Systems, a unit of OSI Systems Inc"

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/29/magnetometers-x-rays-airport-security-technology/

My concern is that health and safety issues of these machines is not brought to light by the main stream media. Will the operatives of these Backscatter machines wear the same PPE as radiologists in your local hospital? If that is the case then that is when we should show concern.

Ciaran500

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I understand but when I see a statement from a Dr. John Gofman a so called leading expert raising concerns on the matter I would like to know more about the subject.

He's not really raising concerns on the matter, he's dead. But either way, as has been seen time and time before quotes can be very easily taken out of context on these sites, so I wouldn't trust a quote like that from them.

Run_to_da_hills

Ciaran500 wrote: »

He's not really raising concerns on the matter, he's dead. But either way, as has been seen time and time before quotes can be very easily taken out of context on these sites, so I wouldn't trust a quote like that from them.

This is why I would like to see it being discussed, incidently I see the topic being discussed on Politics.ie.

http://www.politics.ie/europe/121377-nude-body-scanners-airport-again.html

(Ive kept out of it this time )

RobFowl

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is why I would like to see it being discussed,

I agree that the health risks are being seemingly ignored by the mainstream media.

I've been very surprised by the lack of research immediately available (one way or the other).

Good topic and I'm looking forward to watching how it pans out.

Dr Galen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I understand but when I see a statement from a Dr. John Gofman a so called leading expert raising concerns on the matter I would like to know more about the subject.

i'm in broad agreement with you on this. I'd like to see original versions of what he said, along with good quality evidence on the topic. Right now, I don't know enough about the subject tbh and so would share the concerns of others regarding the real safety around this sort of tech. Thats not to say though that I can't be swayed on it, simply that I just don't know one way or another.

Run_to_da_hills

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

i'm in broad agreement with you on this. I'd like to see original versions of what he said, along with good quality evidence on the topic. Right now, I don't know enough about the subject tbh and so would share the concerns of others regarding the real safety around this sort of tech. Thats not to say though that I can't be swayed on it, simply that I just don't know one way or another.

Thread title edited.

January

This wouldn't be very safe for pregnant women would it?

locum-motion

OP,

The link you used in your original post is to a self-confessed 'alternative' news site ie. not the kind of informed source we like here on our scientific discussion forum.

The article quotes an expert who died nearly 2 1/2 years ago, but yet speaks of him in the present tense (eg his research "leads him to conclude...", " He stresses that...", "This highly credentialed nuclear physicist states..."). So, not the sort of article that we would lend much credence to.

My esteemed colleague Mystik asked you politely to back up what you were suggesting. You cam back with a link to Fox News. Fox News? I mean, come on!

Sorry. Not good enough! Off to the Conspiracy Theories forum with you!

If you want to start a rational discussion on the subject, please feel free to do so.

Run_to_da_hills

adrieanne__x wrote: »

This wouldn't be very safe for pregnant women would it?

I guess they would be better off taking the boat.

X Ray

adrieanne__x wrote: »

This wouldn't be very safe for pregnant women would it?

nor legal

Run_to_da_hills

X Ray wrote: »

nor legal

Interesting point.

IrelandSpirit

It's illegal to create images of naked children, that much is without question and children should not be made to go through these scans.

It is also illegal to expose people to any level of radiation without medical justification, even low levels of radiation can be hazardous to health... according to Dr Sarah Burnett, who's a radiologist:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397526-health-fear-over-new-airport-scanners.do

Undergod

Can it be considered pictures of nudity though? I mean bodily features aren't really distinguishable.

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

It's illegal to create images of naked children, that much is without question and children should not be made to go through these scans.

is this actually true? what if an artist paints a portrait of a naked child? surely its down to context no?

IrelandSpirit

Undergod wrote: »

Can it be considered pictures of nudity though? I mean bodily features aren't really distinguishable.

I suppose it would depend on how detailed and clear these images are, if genitalia are clearly captured, or as in the back-scatter image posted earlier, breasts and so on. And presuming that these scanners are supposed to detect concealed weapons, then you'd think they would need to be clear and detailed...

Run_to_da_hills

indough wrote: »

is this actually true? what if an artist paints a portrait of a naked child? surely its down to context no?

YOu will also get every perve in the country applying for the radiography position at airport security.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

YOu will also get every perve in the country applying for the radiography position at airport security.

And imagine without it you get very terrorist in the world into england:eek:

Who's scaremnogering do we believe?

IrelandSpirit

indough wrote: »

is this actually true? what if an artist paints a portrait of a naked child? surely its down to context no?

Are you serious??? Try going into your nearest school and get a child to pose naked for you while you paint them, see what happens.

indough

i dont think you even actually believe that yourself, sure look at the pictures youve posted, theyre hardly pornography material

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Are you serious??? Try going into your nearest school and get a child to pose naked for you while you paint them, see what happens.

you did not answer the question

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

And imagine without it you get very terrorist in the world into england:eek:

Who's scaremnogering do we believe?

It is not about scaremongering, King Mob, producing images of naked children is illegal.

IrelandSpirit

indough wrote: »

you did not answer the question

I did.

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

producing images of naked children is illegal.

do you have any links to that particular law which says this?

so is it illegal for a doctor to xray a child?

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I did.

no you didnt

wheresthebeef

I thought there is legislation in Ireland anyway regarding Ionising Radiation. It's my belief that Ionising Radiation of any kind that is applied to a human being must be prescribed by a doctor/nurse/radiographer?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

And imagine without it you get very terrorist in the world into england:eek:

Who's scaremnogering do we believe?

More airport security 'won't stop terrorists'

indough

wheresthebeef wrote: »

I thought there is legislation in Ireland anyway regarding Ionising Radiation. It's my belief that Ionising Radiation of any kind that is applied to a human being must be prescribed by a doctor/nurse/radiographer?

not sure the op is proposing it in ireland though

IrelandSpirit

indough wrote: »

no you didnt

I can't believe you would think it is not illegal - it is illegal, even with parental consent it is illegal and you will be prosecuted and righteously locked up.

IrelandSpirit

wheresthebeef wrote: »

I thought there is legislation in Ireland anyway regarding Ionising Radiation. It's my belief that Ionising Radiation of any kind that is applied to a human being must be prescribed by a doctor/nurse/radiographer?

That's my understanding too, it's standard practice, right across the board from Ireland and beyond, because it is potentially dangerous.

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I can't believe you would think it is not illegal - it is illegal, even with parental consent it is illegal and you will be prosecuted and righteously locked up.

you proposed one instance of where it would be illegal, and completely ignored the general questions asked, here are some more:

is it illegal for a doctor to make an xray of a child?
would it be illegal to paint a naked portrait of your own child?

also it would be great if you could back up the answers with evidence of it being illegal if you claim it is

IrelandSpirit

indough wrote: »

you proposed one instance of where it would be illegal, and completely ignored the general questions asked, here are some more:

is it illegal for a doctor to make an xray of a child?
would it be illegal to paint a naked portrait of your child?

also it would be great if you could back up the answers with evidence of it being illegal if you claim it is

No, it's not illegal to make an xray of a child for medical purposes, you're being ridiculous.

And I haven't got time to pour through the child protection acts for you, but if you really think it's ok, then I suggest that you go to your nearest swimming pool changing rooms, or anywhere you think you might find naked children and start taking pictures, start painting and see what happens.

indough

again you have cited one poor example rather than answering the actual question

im feeling generous though so here is the relevant legal information, perhaps you can make a case from it

indough

relevant part here:

2.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires—

[GA] "child pornography" means—

[GA] (a) any visual representation—

(i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

[GA] (ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

[GA] (iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child,

[GA] (b) any audio representation of a person who is or is represented as being a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

[GA] (c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

[GA] (d) any visual representation or description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of section 3,

[GA] irrespective of how or through what medium the representation, description or information has been produced, transmitted or conveyed and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other electronic or mechanical means but does not include—

[GA] (I) any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,

[GA] (II) any film in respect of which a general certificate or a limited certificate under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1992, is in force, or

[GA] (III) any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the Video Recordings Acts, 1989 and 1992, is in force;

[GA] "document" includes—

[GA] (a) any book, periodical or pamphlet, and

[GA] (b) where appropriate, any tape, computer disk or other thing on which data capable of conversion into any such document is stored;

[GA] "photographic representation" includes the negative as well as the positive version;

[GA] "visual representation" includes—

[GA] (a) any photographic, film or video representation, any accompanying sound or any document,

[GA] (b) any copy of any such representation or document, and

[GA] (c) any tape, computer disk or other thing on which the visual representation and any accompanying sound are recorded.

IrelandSpirit

indough wrote: »

again you have cited one poor example rather than answering the actual question

im feeling generous though so here is the relevant legal information, perhaps you can make a case from it

Uh-uh, yes and what's your point?

I found this particularly poignant in regards these scanners and the images produced:

(2) The reference in paragraph (a) of the definition of child pornography to a person shall be construed as including a reference to a figure resembling a person that has been generated or modified by computer-graphics or otherwise

IrelandSpirit

indough wrote: »

relevant part here:

2.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires—

[GA] "child pornography" means—

[GA] (a) any visual representation—

(i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

[GA] (ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

[GA] (iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child,

[GA] (b) any audio representation of a person who is or is represented as being a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

[GA] (c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

[GA] (d) any visual representation or description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of section 3,

[GA] irrespective of how or through what medium the representation, description or information has been produced, transmitted or conveyed and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other electronic or mechanical means but does not include—

[GA] (I) any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,

[GA] (II) any film in respect of which a general certificate or a limited certificate under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1992, is in force, or

[GA] (III) any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the Video Recordings Acts, 1989 and 1992, is in force;

[GA] "document" includes—

[GA] (a) any book, periodical or pamphlet, and

[GA] (b) where appropriate, any tape, computer disk or other thing on which data capable of conversion into any such document is stored;

[GA] "photographic representation" includes the negative as well as the positive version;

[GA] "visual representation" includes—

[GA] (a) any photographic, film or video representation, any accompanying sound or any document,

[GA] (b) any copy of any such representation or document, and

[GA] (c) any tape, computer disk or other thing on which the visual representation and any accompanying sound are recorded.

That's my point, it is illegal. Now answer my question, why do you think it's ok to make images of naked children?

mahamageehad

Am i missing something?? How is an xray pornographic??

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Uh-uh, yes and what's your point?

I found this particularly poignant in regards these scanners and the images produced:

(2) The reference in paragraph (a) of the definition of child pornography to a person shall be construed as including a reference to a figure resembling a person that has been generated or modified by computer-graphics or otherwise

but it would not be considered pornography by the conditions above

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That's my point, it is illegal.

i think maybe you dont understand the definitions of child pornography layed out in the law then, because its either that or youre just arguing for the sake of it

IrelandSpirit

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That's my point, it is illegal.

No it's not.

It's not depicting a minor in any sexual way and not for sexual purposes.
It's no different than a regular x-ray.

Also is there anything to suggest that this will be used on children at all or is it one of those baseless fears?

And wouldn't the same objections be raised about manual searches of children?

indough

[GA] "child pornography" means—

(a) any visual representation

(i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

does not apply

(ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons

does not apply

(iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child

does not apply

(c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment

does not apply

(d) any visual representation or description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of section 3

does not apply

IrelandSpirit

Well it's a good point what constitutes pornography, I dunno, maybe I'm just arguing for the sake of but I think that's the type of thing perverts get off on isn't it? Pictures of naked children.

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That's my point, it is illegal. Now answer my question, why do you think it's ok to make images of naked children?

because not all images of naked children are pornographic or sexually suggestive

if someone looks at a painting of a naked child which is not sexually suggestive and sees it as pornographic that says more about them than the artist

even more so with an xray, it is a ridiculous argument

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I dunno, maybe I'm just arguing for the sake of

agreed