Full body scanners break child porn laws....

[SMG]

Well, at the end of the day, you don't have to have the scan. So, if your not bothered about your child's welfare, & your morals stop you allowing the scan, the child may die. Your choice.

Unless of course someone wants some compensation from the NHS!

Which I have no doubt will arise.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by SMG

Well, at the end of the day, you don't have to have the scan. So, if your not bothered about your child's welfare, & your morals stop you allowing the scan, the child may die. Your choice.

Unless of course someone wants some compensation from the NHS!

Which I have no doubt will arise.

?

[Tarantella]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

?

Nothing in forum rules that says you have to read a thread before posting.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Tarantella

Nothing in forum rules that says you have to read a thread before posting.

...not even the first post apparently

If i am honest i don't really know enough about the technology to really oppose it or support it. But if any group are exempt from it then the whole scheme should be binned rather then wasting millions implementing a system that would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Originally Posted by Tarantella

Nothing in forum rules that says you have to read a thread before posting.

Yes but there are rules about posting on topic..

[Dude111]

These things are definetly NOT SAFE!!

I would advise everyone to demand a MANUAL SEARCH instead of going thru this!!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Dude111

These things are definetly NOT SAFE!!

Is that a personal belief, or a fact? If it's a fact, do you have a link to back it up?

Just interested. I personally don't think these scanners are a good thing. Not so much because of what they do (after all I don't consider them to be any more intrusive than xrays), but what they represent. They represent a system that , with the apparent aim of protecting us, is increasingly monitoring us, and increasingly reducing our civil liberties. In the process, causing us far more inconvenience than any terrorist and, IMO, achieving the terrorist's aims far better than any act of terrorism has or will do..

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Dude111

These things are definetly NOT SAFE!!

I would advise everyone to demand a MANUAL SEARCH instead of going thru this!!

Are these statements based on a career in airport security? Or a review of the medical literature?

Or a "busy" Saturday night?

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

.... They represent a system ...

Part of that system is politicians thinking they have the answer to everything, newspapers wanting a good headline, and companies wishing to promote their latest gadget.

Oh, and a public willing to lap it all up without engaging many of their brain cells.

Dude111 as others have said link to something other then your opinion or i will happily dismiss your statement. Agree totally with Stuart on this and i hope the british people wake up from their twelve ten year slumber soon and realise what sacrifices we have made for so called safety.

[Dude111]

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

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Dude111

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.

Phew i was worried for a minute then so if i win the lottery and become a frequent flyer i must remember to stop at trip 4,999 good to know . Seriously do you refuse an xray because of the same reason or are you sitting at home with many bone deformaties because you don't go near an xray. I am sure there are many legitimate reasons and debates to be had for and against these scanner's but health grounds i suspect is not one of them.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Phew i was worried for a minute then so if i win the lottery and become a frequent flyer i must remember to stop at trip 4,999 good to know . Seriously do you refuse an xray because of the same reason or are you sitting at home with many bone deformaties because you don't go near an xray. I am sure there are many legitimate reasons and debates to be had for and against these scanner's but health grounds i suspect is not one of them.

I wasn't saying that either these scanners or x-rays are dangerous for us. The staff, maybe.

I also wasn't arguing against the scanners on health grounds..

Lol i wasn't replying to you Stuart but Dude i have agreed with what you have said so far but completely fail to understand Dude's position. I am getting on a bit but no that far gone yet that i would reply to you with what i said give me a few more years .