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

Run_to_da_hills · 02-01-2010 10:29am #1

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 · 02-01-2010 10:39am

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 · 02-01-2010 10:57am

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 · 02-01-2010 12:07pm

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 · 02-01-2010 12:20pm

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 · 02-01-2010 2:10pm

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 · 02-01-2010 2:57pm

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 · 02-01-2010 4:27pm

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 · 02-01-2010 8:03pm

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 · 02-01-2010 8:08pm

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 · 02-01-2010 8:25pm

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 · 02-01-2010 8:44pm

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 · 02-01-2010 9:14pm

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 · 02-01-2010 9:47pm

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 · 02-01-2010 9:53pm

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

locum-motion · 02-01-2010 9:58pm

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 · 02-01-2010 10:09pm

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 · 03-01-2010 12:02am

adrieanne__x wrote: »

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

nor legal

Run_to_da_hills · 03-01-2010 12:51am

X Ray wrote: »

nor legal

Interesting point.

IrelandSpirit · 03-01-2010 9:32pm

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 · 03-01-2010 9:33pm

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

indough · 03-01-2010 9:33pm

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 · 03-01-2010 10:01pm

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 · 03-01-2010 10:03pm

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.

King Mob · 03-01-2010 10:04pm

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 · 03-01-2010 10:05pm

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 · 03-01-2010 10:07pm

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

indough · 03-01-2010 10:07pm

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 · 03-01-2010 10:08pm

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 · 03-01-2010 10:09pm

indough wrote: »

you did not answer the question

I did.

indough · 03-01-2010 10:09pm

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?

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

Comments