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

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

King Mob

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

locum-motion

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

It's illegal to create images of naked children...

It's not an image of a naked person. It's an image of a clothed person that happens to show (in not very much detail) some of what a person is carrying under their clothing.

cnocbui

adrieanne__x wrote: »

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

Not only would it not be safe for pregnant women, it would be very inadvisable for any women of child bearing age.

Think of a situation where a woman was pregnant but was not herself aware of it at the time.

The types of scanners being boosted at the moment mainly use T-Rays. Back scatter x-rays supposedly barely penetrate the skin but I think independent tests should be carried out to verify this rather than just accept the word of the manufacturers.

The T-ray scanners supposedly dose a person with microwaves the equivalent of 10,000 mobile phone conversations.

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/12/31/pregnancy-body-piercings-genitals/what-can-naked-scanners-really-see.html

Manchester airport in the UK has said it will not use these scanners on children after pressure form a civil rights group.

Action on Rights for Childen (Arch) claim the Rapiscan equipment could break the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image of a child.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8313335.stm

These scanners reveal genitals with reasonable clarity, which is why they have been working on versions that blur these portions of images. I don't see how people can argue they are far removed from naked images so it would therefore be acceptable for children to be scanned.



If you do a search for images from these scanners, there are only a couple of 'sample' images available and the resolution and size of the images is low. I think higher res and more varied samples should be made available so there can be a more balanced public debate about whether this technology is acceptable.

Undergod

Okay, that last picture is somewhat closer than the first one posted, in showing explicit nudity. I can see these concerns being pretty reasonable, but not sure I fully agree yet.
Considering our society is so insanely paranoid about paedophiles, I can expect some pretty major political objection to these.

Though the woman is clearly in a different pose, why did they have to do that?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

More airport security 'won't stop terrorists'

The article says it won't stop terrorists attempting to carry out attacks, but this kind of technology isn't just to discourage them from trying: it's also to try catch them when they do try.

King Mob

cnocbui wrote: »

The T-ray scanners supposedly dose a person with microwaves the equivalent of 10,000 mobile phone conversations.

So then harmless?

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

So then harmless?

Microwaves the equivalent of 10,000 mobile phone conversations? You think that's harmless?

Undergod

Yup. It seems that mobile phones are harmless. Non-ionising radiation. No reliable evidence to suggest otherwise.

IrelandSpirit

Undergod wrote: »

Yup. It seems that mobile phones are harmless. Non-ionising radiation. No reliable evidence to suggest otherwise.

Interesting, when did the mobile phone companies come out with that one?

IrelandSpirit

indough wrote: »

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

These scanners are not about medical xrays of skeletal structures etc, or creating renaissance-type artwork of winged cherubims, these images are about real people and are explicit. What constitutes suggestive? I dunno. Naked, hands on head and legs apart in submission? Would some pervert monitoring these airport scanners find that pornographic? I dunno, you tell me but nothing you've said has altered the fact that images of naked children are produced by these scanners. It's one thing as a consulting adult to submit yourself to that, but quite another for a child I think and that's without going into the health concerns over these scans, even if they do only emit microwaves to the equivalent of 10,000 mobile phone conversations.

indough

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

These scanners are not about medical xrays of skeletal structures etc, or creating renaissance-type artwork of winged cherubims, these images are about real people and are explicit. What constitutes suggestive? I dunno. Naked, hands on head and legs apart in submission? Would some pervert monitoring these airport scanners find that pornographic? I dunno, you tell me but nothing you've said has altered the fact that images of naked children are produced by these scanners. It's one thing as a consulting adult to submit yourself to that, but quite another for a child I think and that's without going into the health concerns over these scans, even if they do only emit microwaves to the equivalent of 10,000 mobile phone conversations.

sorry but ive already explained several times why your entire argument is a load of rubbish, im not going to do it again

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Microwaves the equivalent of 10,000 mobile phone conversations? You think that's harmless?

Yes they are.

They emit non-ionzing radition at a power too low do do anything other than heat up your ear more than a fraction of a degree.

However I get the feeling that "Microwaves the equivalent of 10,000 mobile phone conversations" isn't backed up by actual facts or numbers.