Pete C. wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>> On 1/14/2010 8:14 AM, --Bryan wrote:
>>
>>> Any person who has modesty issues with full body scans at airports
>>> should realize that:
>>> A. the screeners never see who it is they're getting the image from,
>>> and
>>> B. you can easily find pix of *attractive* nude people on the net for
>>> free, and the idea that anyone would particularly want to look at a
>>> grainy, grayscale version of *your* body is close to absurd.
>>>
>>> --Bryan
>>>
>> IMHO, the whole "privacy" uproar is just a smoke screen to divert
>> attention away from the safety issues of the low-level ionizing
>> radiation used by the devices. The dosage is low, and a background
>> level of radiation is unavoidable, but there is no safe dosage and the
>> effects are cumulative. (and I really doubt that they'll let you wear a
>> lead apron.)
>>
>> Ten to 20 years from now we may see a big increase in cancer, cataracts,
>> and birth defects among frequent fliers. I'm sure we'll just blame it
>> on CO2...
>>
>> Bob
>
> That argument is BS plain and simple, and there are several different
> types of devices most of which use non ionizing radiation.
>

The "back-scatter" scanners use X-rays, which are ionizing. The dose
is low, but it's not zero.

Bob