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 bigger issue is that the devices provide little to no security
benefit as they only see through clothes. As we should all be aware, the
terrorists ranks include doctors, and they could quite easily implant
probably 5# of plastic explosives in a bomber along with a minimal metal
detonator control, fake medical documents and X-rays to show a hip
replacement to account for the metal detector going off, and none of the
current security screening methods will detect it.

It is as they say "Security Theater".