Are you really 22? Cause you sure don't act like it. Do you bash on other people because you still live with your mother? Go be a Troll on 4chan, stop ******* up peoples threads. KTHXBAI!

Back on topic.

Do you think that the loss of privacy is worth the gain in security/safety?

/discuss

Yes curley, you who was not involved in this discussion and who has no basis for what you're posting are indeed the victor in this mighty battle of wits.
I shall hail you forever as my savior and benefactor.

.. not

@Lord - That or a strip search. I know which one I'd prefer.

okay 1st thing if they bring thses in it's not that big of a deal unless your afraid of getting caught they will be able to detect drugs bombs everything and xray machines have a high Radiation out put so they will probable install radiation tags around the place to prevent you being around it more than you neeed to.

I'm pretty sure deep down we all prefer neither the scan or pat down. Some people are just living in a dream ?

The radiation is dangerous? lmao, it'd be weaker than an xray machine because the radiation doesn't even penetrate the skin. Xray machines are already completely harmless; you can potentially have an xray a day and not get radiation poisoning. It's only the radiologists that need to be careful because they get exposed to the radiation many times a day when on the job. As for the scanners from a moral point of view, I suppose it's not ideal having scans of children, but if they don't, terrorists or drug traffickers will start forcing children to be the drug mule or bomb carrier. It may seem like an invasion of privacy, but the people working on these jobs would scan hundreds of people in a day, so the novelty of looking at naked people would wear off pretty quickly. A pretty obvious thing that they could do would be to make a mens line and a womens line both with security of their corresponding gender (men for men, women for women). As for the pat downs, I reckon that if they get male security to pat down males and female security to pat down females, there shouldn't be a really big problem.

The sheer stupidity in this thread is staggering.

If they install scanners in Australia they will most likely be the millimeter wave scanners and millimeter wave radiation is not genotoxic, meaning it does not cause cancer.

Any concerns about radiation levels from backscatter x-ray scanners is founded by scare mongering groups and organizations as the level of radiation they emit is significantly less than what you are exposed to by actually taking a plane flight.

Any concerns about body scanners being a impact on freedom are asinine.

*edited for clarity.

Edited 5 times, last edited 6/12/10 - 6:26pm.

Thank you for having a clue.

"Health effects

Some people are concerned with exposure to radiation emitted by backscatter X-rays and may fear being exposed to "dangerous level of radiation if they get backscattered too often".[15] The energy being emitted by a backscatter X-ray is a type of ionizing radiation that damages chemical bonds. Ionizing radiation is considered carcinogenic even in very small doses by some groups such as the USNRC, but considered negligible at such doses by others such as the ANS.[28][29][30][31]"

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

Alot of you state it's the same or similar as the x-ray we go to at the doctor, but it's not. Why make such claims before you look first ?

Wikipedia, and I thought this thread couldn't get any worse.

Stop posting Slayer. Your contributions to this thread, if you can call them that, are idiotic.

Yet someone else could use Wiki to reconfirm something that you think, and you wouldn't say a thing.

I'm just giving people substance to draw off here. It's up for speculation. I'm not telling people to believe what I say.. ? ? ....

They're not the same, the radiation emitted in a single medical proceedure is far more dangerous than that which is emitted in a single backscatter body scan.

There is a reason the operators stand in a lead lined booth with a lead lined apron on.

An assumption, not fact.

"Ionizing radiation consists of particles or electromagnetic waves energetic enough to detach electrons from atoms or molecules, thus ionizing them. The degree and nature of such ionization depends on the energy of the individual particles or waves, and not on their number. An intense flood of particles or waves will not cause ionization if these particles or waves do not carry enough energy to be ionizing. Roughly speaking, particles or photons with energies above a few electron volts (eV) are ionizing. Ionization produces free radicals, which are atoms or molecules containing unpaired electrons, that tend to be especially chemically reactive due to their electronic structure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

Health Risks from low levels of ionizing radiation Research Paper
(Non-Profit Independent Research)

- Again, I am just putting substance into my posts

Your agenda is blantantly clear throughout this thread, stop posting ignorance to gain support for an ignorant cause.

Edited once, 6/12/10 - 7:03pm.

No one ever said they were the same.