View Single Post
Old 10-01-2010, 19:37   #42
Stuart
-
 
Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Somewhere
Services: Virgin for TV and Internet, BT for phone
Posts: 26,546
Stuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver bling
Stuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver blingStuart has a lot of silver bling
Re: Full body scanners break child porn laws....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
Well its like getting an x-ray,these things produce RADIATION!!

Its not good to be exposed to them.. (@ least i wouldnt want to be)

Heres one article

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/articl...rt-scanners.do
The thing is, the human body is actually rather good at dealing with small doses of radiation. It does so every day (sunlight, artificial light, heat, electricity, radiowaves are some examples).

That article says that people need to be exposed to 5,000 scans a year before it is dangerous. This is unlikely for a passenger. Hell, one of my friends travels so often for work that his annual travel expenses are three times his annual salary (and that is a considerable sum), but I suspect even he doesn't fly anywhere near 1,000 times a year.

It's interesting that the examples they pick are staff, who could well be exposed to more than 5,000 scans a year. The staff who use these should be protected. Why do you think that despite the fact that Xrays are safe for patients, the staff operate the machine from within a booth? It's because while a few doses of radiation may be safe, several thousand wouldn't be.
Stuart is offline   Reply With Quote