Naked Body Scanners: Should You Have To Give Up The Right To Privacy Or Risk Your Health?
by Dr. Elaina GeorgeDoes the government have the right to potentially risk the health of men, women and children who travel in the name of national security? Now that the body scanners have been deployed in many US airports, it is time to take a second look. We were told by the government that they were necessary to secure our safety after the attempt by the underwear bomber. Some have theorized that the scans can damage the DNA. Unfortunately, very little is known about the effects on the human body because no long term studies have been done. Therefore, it is hard to say with certainty that the benefits out weigh the risks.
Now that they have been deployed in many airports throughout the country, it is time to ask whether they are safe. Do the facts jibe with what we have been told?
1. The pictures can not be saved.
FACT: That turned out not to be true. The pictures can be saved and there have been instances of abuse.
In the UK where the scans are mandatory, children are not allowed to go through them because of the fear that the saved pictures can be hacked, and will therefore breach child pornography laws.
2. There are no health risks.
FACT: No one knows. Presumably even low dose radiation can have a harmful effect. Conservative estimates state that there will be one additional death for every 200 million people exposed to the body scanners. There will be even more people who develop cancer from the exposure. Although we are exposed to background radiation on a daily basis, it is not the same as placing our bodies in a field of focused radiation.
3. It will make us safer
FACT: The body scanner technology would not have been able to identify the underwear bomber because it cannot see powder, nor can it see anything placed in a body cavity. It can see liquids and ceramics and fine intimate detail of an individual, but it is no better at picking up metal objects than the metal detector.
Studies have pointed to the willingness of over 75% of people to go through the naked body scanners. This is the biggest reason why these machines have been deployed. If we believe that the risks outweigh the benefits, then it is time to know what our rights are and to exercise them. In the name of national security and because of fear, we as citizens have given up our right to be considered innocent before being proven guilty.
-Know your rights: Going through the body scanners is Not Mandatory at airports in the US (they are mandatory in the UK). You have the right to “opt-out” and have a pat down.
See: The current list of airports with body scanners
Although, it may feel uncomfortable or strange to submit to a pat down, it beats subjecting yourself to potentially harmful radiation and the voluntary loss of your privacy. This is just the beginning of a slippery slope.
If Janet Napolitano doesn’t want to go through the body scanners why should we?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
83 Comments
Better solution: ban Muslims from airplanes. No need for this intrusive nonsense then.
What's next, cavity searches?
I've all but completely stopped flying. I'll make it a family event and enjoy the view on the way to my final destination. They've made the innocent (you and me) pay for the atrocities of a few (muslims) to the point were travel by plane is just not worth it any longer.
And add in the fact that you are treated like cattle going to slaughter by the airline companies, it's really not worth it.
Stop it. No more scanners. This nannystate nonsense has gone too far!
As much as I like to fly, I haven't since 9/11.
When it gets to the point where a little old lady and American citizens are searched like criminals, while the REAL terrorists take all our rights…..it's time to stop giving them our money.
Americans need to stand up for ourselves.
I fly all the time, personally I don't like these scanners since I heard they were storing the images.
Profiling is a must, and I really don't care about the PC BS associated with it. Get used to it Muslims, or speak out against your extremists and eliminate them.
We haven't flown in years now. Last time, we were singled out for a full body search. No privacy, really. As I'm getting patted down, I notice two women walking right past us…both in full muslim garb! Neither was detained. I'm a senior citizen and I was getting the 'treatment'! That did it! Never again. I was furious!
Holy SHIT BATMAN, thank God I'm a country girl…… and wish to remain so. If I can't drive, I ain't goin'
after seeing these pics and reading of the dangers of the low-level radiation.
Just another injustice to put on our list of CORRECTIONS that must be made when WE THE PEOPLE are
back in power once again.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!! they're walking all over OUR RIGHTS!!!
.
So it is all a pack of lies told by the government to make people feel safe.
How about we ban Muslims from airplanes until they prove they won't blow up.
Each bit of phony protection or alleged correction of some injustice chips away at our liberties…and each time we complain, WE are the problem.
I'm a retired airline pilot and I haven't flown commercial for over two years now. The tipping point for me came when I transited Heathrow with all the nonsense it entailed. I said, "No more!, and haven't flown since. As the British Airports Authority requires scanning to board any flight, without exception, I'm not going to Europe anymore.
It was nice while it lasted.
oh it's coming
The Nazi's assured the Jews that "it's only a shower", too. Not buying this safety assurance crap.
The terrorists have succeeded in their campaign of fear and this is just one blatent example of it and it must be reversed.
We must be presumed innocent, if authorities have specific information about an immiment threat – that should be the only exception and with a warrant that would permit this.
the best part is, I bet that Muslim women can't be made to go through these scanners, since they can see through clothing. so they put senior citizens and hot women through these abusive searches while letting the people who are the most likely to be terrorists waltz right through without even a glance.
Hidee back at ya Cowboy, how ya been? I've missed you too, kind sir.
Early and late is about all I can muster for the BIG's recently. I'm knee-deep in paperwork and year-
end financial planning from now till Dec 31, 2010. Can't wait to coast awhile and enjoy y'alls
company too!
.
"· 8 minutes ago
the best part is, I bet that Muslim women can't be made to go through these scanners,"
Of course not! That would be racial profiling. Heaven forbid! (sarc)
Sorry, but I'll opt for the pat-down. A majority of our knowledge on radiation effects is based on "history"……There's enough litigation invitations out there to prove the "guinea pig" theory……
I have a Right to choose not to fly…and I'm exercising that right for the rest of my life. The Feds can stick it up their bums.
It's just another expensive prop for the TSA's security theater in the airports. It won't do anything to make flying any more safe. We need to dispense with the political correctness nonsense and do things that actually promote security, like behavioral profiling.
NEED AN INCENTIVE TO VOTE?
Health Care – The Alarming Truth
If this video doesn't chill you to the bone I don't know what will. This is only a small portion of Dr. David Janda's speech on the Health Care Bill in Ann Arbor on October 10. He is really angry, I don't blame him. Dr. David Janda is a prominent surgeon who testified before a committee at the Capitol in Washington DC.
It doesn't take long to watch. Check it out. Then start taking better care of your health. If you're still alive in 2013, this may be your future. Form your own opinion of what the future will bring…
Health Care – The Alarming Truth… http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=26370649
Nobody can be made to go through these scanners (at least in the US). You have the right to “opt-out” and have a pat down.
Without our suicidal immigration policy and far too permissive travel allowances in to the country, the government can use the excuse of this threat, which they encourage, to gain more power. Tell them to do this to the foreigners, not Americans. How would they retort?
If God wants me to die in an airplane crash, He's going to have to land one on top of me! I have no desire to go anywhere I can not access by land or sea (with the notable exception of Heaven, and we don't need planes for that either).
I agree L4S.
I don't see what difference it makes anyways. They never do anything to terrorists once they find them.
They hand them a lollipop and throw them back out in our country and give them a house, welfare, voting rights, etc. and build a nice huge outhouse for them to "worship" in…..and chant all day and night on the many different ways to kill an American. All in the name of allah….on our tax dollars.
It's all part of a long term mass desensitization program. The jihadists lit the match and now our own "big fat government" (ie: the statists et al.) sees a way to use it to benefit their own agenda.
Even if you choose not to participate, you're still exposed to the idea and the principle. Somewhere down the road, they're going to point back to this as precedent for taking even more of our liberties away. Everyone is affected one way or the other.
Couldn't agree more…same with the hispanics who allow illegal aliens in their midst…root them out and rid our nation of them…
Morning, GHUA!
I fly maybe twice a year to visit my dad (he's been deployed to DC), but I panic every time. I've got an irrational fear of flying that standing in line for procedures like full-body scans makes worse since I have more time to sit there and stew over the upcoming flight. I'd rather take an extra day or two off and get a bus ticket.
Did you find the pictures as creepy as I did? The woman's body is pretty detailed but the weapons and such she was carrying are just sorta…blah. You get the shape but not any details.
At your nearest burka store. LOL.
Morning sis,
" You get the shape but not any details. "
I think the shape is all they want. ; )
I know on the bus they have security too, but I don't think it's as bad…..yet.
I used to fly all the time, it was so nice. But now…..there's no way I'm going through that mess, by the time they're through I could have made my destination by driving.
Not to demean airlines or air travel, but let's get to the real reason for scanners. They were put there to offer a false sense of security. They don't really do the job of protecting passengers and the long term effects of radiation are unknown, especially if you are a male and wish more children. "Sniffers" can sense explosive substances only if they are not well sealed and traces of the material are exposed. But the worst threats originate with luggage, cargo aboard a pax flight, the airport itself, employees – cargo handlers, ramp personnel, etc., and the airline itself. If we really wanted complete aircraft and passenger security, Airports and airlines would adopt the procedures employed by the Israelis. The reason those procedures have not been instituted are based on cost and reasonable risk.
Airline travel today is not all that it is cracked up to be. Now one is trapped in an uncomfortable seat, squeezed, next to fellow passengers, within a long metal tube for hours without any diversion other than a book you brought along for the flight. I'd rather take a train if it were available.
"I think the shape is all they want. ; )"
Creepy creepy creepy. *shudder*
Bus stations have similar security? Well, perhaps driving myself wouldn't be so bad. Checking out an audiobook and hitting the road might be kind of nice.
I am fine with airlines doing this as a measure to protect their service if it chooses. I have a HUGE problem with GOVERNMENT forcing it on all airlines. This is a business model issue and I am so sick and tired of the socialism carp creeping into every aspect of our society ruining competition. If an airline uses this technology and the one next door doesn't I have a choice. Imposed by government, I don't. Business choosing them makes them responsible for what happens, government imposition releases them from that responsibility.
If kids are exempt – terrorists will just put bombs on the kids. This IDIOCY has got to stop!
I still fly for business fairly often. I flew with a pocket knife for many years, and never heard of any problems with that. I have had to leave my pocket knife at home for years now, and that's pretty annoying (especially with more and more evilly unopenable retail packages). I have yet to encounter one of these machines and have continued to go through the metal detector, which may result in more close secondary screening, because if I set off the metal detector, they then have PROBABLE CAUSE for secondary screening. I absolutely will not go through a body scanner. It is an UNREASONABLE SEARCH under the 4th Amendment. I have already told my business that if that becomes mandatory I will cease flying, and as of now, I will not fly to the UK or the NL, because the scans are mandatory there (and they don't have the 4th Amendment).
But from the reports I have heard, it seems like 99% plus of all people actually go through the scanners! SHEEPLE! WAKE UP! Hopefully we can make more realize that is OPTIONAL to go through the scanner. And more and people will refuse to go through. And your refusal to go through it IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE for secondary screening. Therefore a full body pat down as secondary screening in this event is UNCONSTITUTIONAL (4th Amendment). We do not yet have a court ruling on this, but we should have one pretty soon. Apparently we will have to rely on the courts, because so far, neither the legislative nor the executive branches of Government seem to care that it's unconstitutional. And apparently not many fliers seem to care either.
As for health safety of the scanners, having done some study of health physics (because I worked at a nuclear power plant) I do not accept the claim that a small amount of ionizing radiation is ever safe. If you want to go through the scanner, I would recommend you wear some kind of shielding (as if they would allow that).
As for the improvement of security, we need to apply PROFILING. TOO BAD if that's not politically correct.
I would also promote the arming of more responsible people in the air, but let's be realistic with what is generally considered acceptable risk. The absence of weapons never made anyone any safer. Having armed good guys does. Harry Callahan, anyone?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5973595.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/334013/b...
Ask and ye shall receive.
Why would they not use a body heat scanner that would be less intrusive? Problem solved.
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I can see you have little respect for the constitution.
Who's not speaking out?
How about we amend the constitution to protect everybody except…?
Agreed. I think the only thing that made us safer was locking the cockpit doors.
Well said. These scanners are examples of giving in to those bastards. We cannot sacrifice our civil liberties.
Why on earth should we have to have a pat down? Where's the presumption of innocence?
racial profiling also doesn't work.
Rubbish. Islam is not a 'religion' as contemplated by the First
Amendment. It is a political ideology, and a poisonous, hostile one at
that.
Oh great, I can "opt out" and take a "Pat down" instead and have some TSA agent touch my crotch..that is so much better!
Do you support Shariah law?
If it became good business to offer your passengers the best security possible–imagine what great strides we could make in the area of airline security.
Very good point, though security is usually common at the airport or terminal level, which presents a logistical problem with individual airlines doing it.
But yes, I would rather fly on a plane where every passenger was scanned. And I would volunteer for the scan "express line" if it were ever open. Y'all can have your privacy & fly on a different plane. I'll sleep better in my seat with a cabin full of scanned passengers. (Well that & a Bloody Mary.)
About the radiation, technology is never final. Why don't they use infrared for this instead? It's cheap, safe, established technology (most consumer digital cameras can take prurient 'x-ray' photos when hacked to remove or disable the IR filter). Oh wait… who buys these things? Yeah, the government – cheap, safe & effective are contractually prohibited. Guess I answered my own question.
Used to Fly from Houston to Dallas. It's now cheaper and quicker to drive the 300+ miles.
As moreso do you. Doesn't the Constitution describe limits to unreasonable search and seizure? Whatever happened to the liberal Courts' creation of a "right to privacy"? Or does that only exist if you want to abort a baby? Oh, wait! I forgot that it was only the Bush Administration that wanted to use the powers vested in the Patriot Act to violate the Constitution as it monitors what books people were checking out in the library. You trolls are such sophist morons!
If we don't use body scanners, the terrorists win. You tea baggers don't want bin Laden to win, do you?
Nice to see Dr. George write this piece, confirming what I'd already shared yesterday in my comments on a Big Hollywood piece, written by Joseph C. Phillips, about the TSA http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jphillips/2010/...
As I'd shared in those comments, I reiterate that the only way the Fed is going to stop using these machines is if enough people PEACEFULLY refuse to submit to them. But even one or two who opt for the extended pat-downs wouldn't be sufficient to make the Fed pull them from airports. It would require hundreds of people doing so, at the same time. I think it's about time. I also think the Israelis should be solicited for their expert advice on procedures for everything related to air travel, including profiling (yes, profiling) of passengers.
If children can't legally go through them, because they violate anti-child pornography laws, why should adults be subjected to them? I guess body scanners now constitute "adult entertainment?" This is unreasonable search, period.
Just a thought. What is there to stop a terrorist from simply setting off a device while standing in line to go through the scanner, Or at passenger pick up/baggage claim. I could go on and on; malls, churches, weddings, funerals, schools, etc etc. The only method shown effective at preventing attack is intelligence followed by action. There is no way to make your self impervious to attack. If a terrorist wants to kill you the only way to stop them is to learn of their plan and kill them first. All of the security in the world will not stop them. It will however cost you more and more of your freedom, which is the real goal of the terrorist anyway.
is that the new pin up picture of our main gal Janet byker Nappyheadatuna???? I want a 8×10 and a wallet size pleeeeze…
How about we allow people their full rights on aircraft and even suggest that all passengers should arm themselves? Whining scaredy cat liberals can just sit down, shut up and enjoy the flight knowing that the rest of us will deal with any trouble making terrorist types.
A further consideration on this topic: According to the list of airports provided by Big Brother Watch, from the link offered by Dr. George above, a great many of the devices are already installed at the major airports in the U.S., doubtless with more planned.
If we don't want these things being so ubiquitous that removal of them proves next-to-impossible, like the illegal aliens here, a concerted, unified effort by the people to remove them needs to be instituted NOW. These things can also be installed at malls, stadiums, concert halls, subways, etc. Is this what we want?
Body scanners cannot see contraband hidden in a person's body. A combination of metal-detector wand and pat-down can discover the vast majority of hidden weapons just as easily, and faster, than a scanner, too. Since these devices aren't able to provide any better security than an Israeli-level pat down, why are we using them? Two words: control and intimidation.
Please don't make me even imagine a full body scan of Ms. Napolitano.
I agree but I don't agree with the travel restrictions or irrational border regulations. Instead, every single incident on a plane was handled by passengers. Empower the passengers to defend the plane. Let people carry guns on the plane. Plenty of studies show a gun discharge will not bring down an airplane, even Myth Busters showed this.
Heck have a special license someone has to earn. I'm sure plenty of gun users would apply and get a license.
The fact is TSA and these absurd regulations do not work and the gov is just using this crisis as an excuse to destroy our liberty. I'm tired of being cattle.
Folks, youre being x-rayed / scanned in your house, & street. With a mobile/truck installed device having one mile remote ctrl cuz it otherwise would burn the operator on the spot… by private 'enterprises' and law enforcement – no-one knows by whom or why or where or when – and surely wont tell.
Walk by and be fried: the officer 'explaining' in the fox video is a sorry poor guy who cant figure out any tech issues… remote ctrl is there b/c the system radiation kills (when turned on full power).
See the also the fox video:
X-RAY VANS: Security Measure, or Invasion of Privacy?; By Diane Macedo
Published October 22, 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/19/x-ray-v...
If we use body scanners, Bin Laden wins since he accomplishes the goal of putting us in a police state of fear.
bin Laden won when we invaded Iraq–and elected Bush another time. I was being sarcastic about the scanners. Duh.
You have the unconditional RIGHT to opt-out.
Google "DONT SCAN ME" or go to: http://DontScan.us
for important radiological safety and privacy information and actual images from this technology, not the lame images that TSA is propagating.
Well it may show his moms panties and depends, but smeggy don't have to worry as it cant show objects in the body cavity so they will not see what he has stuck up in his bum…
Count one more that won't go through it.
I bet they can see my third nipple and my vestigial tail on these things.
Thanks for the link and info.
…and it'll be the end of commercial aviation as we know it.
—
Bomb sniffing pigs.
As someone who works in the technology sector, this is just another example of the insanity that is Progressive Government. I get requests all the time for the technology I support to do something (usually some kind of forcing the employee to do something) and my answer has and always will be "technology will not fix what is a human resources problem".
I have had the opportunity to travel to Tel Aviv on business. Both at the "secondary" screening before bording on the U.S. side and the departure screening on the Tel Aviv side are very straightforward, simple and non-invasive. In the U.S. it was a hand inspection of my carryon items, and a sweep with a handheld metal detector.
In Tel Aviv it was a very sensitive walk through metal detector (signifigantly more than the U.S. ones) and all carry on and check bags are x-rayed before reaching the ticket counter, with the carry on bags x-rayed again at the check point. A swab of all articles for explosives completes the screening. During the explosives check, some questions are asked about my travels, bags etc. Nothing sensitive, just "routine" things. It's probably the safest I've ever felt in an airport.
I wouldn't submit to one of these period. (Aside from the privacy issues which are enough to stop it, there is a health concern as well.)
I can already see lawsuits occurring from this anyway. I mean, we've all been there. The big fat ugly TSA person wanting to "scan" us again. Yeah, right…. Given the general intelligence level of the average TSA agent, how long till a calendar of "Scanned Hotties" shows up online? *shakes head*
Find a better way. The radiation causes cells to mutate into cancer cells.
Oh Come on, let's cut down on the FUD.
I'm not going to argue the other points, pro or con, but let's not fall for PSEUDO-SCIENCE scare tactics.
"Radiation" is a leftist scare word and it's use in the terms of this debate is FRAUDULENT.
"In physics, radiation describes a process in which energetic particles or waves travel through a medium or space. There are two distinct types of radiation; ionizing and non-ionizing. The word radiation is commonly used in reference to ionizing radiation only (i.e., having sufficient energy to ionize an atom), but it may also refer to non-ionizing radiation (e.g., radio waves or visible light)."
Your light bulbs, your cell phones, AM and FM radio towers, your cordless house phone, TV stations, your wireless mouse, your car and garage door remote, DC power supplies all put out 'radiation'.
But when people think 'radiation' they're really worried about the ionizing style, which would include X-rays, nuclear power, cosmic rays, etc.
These body scanners are *NOT* 'ionizing' forms of radiation, so the same crackpots that cry "We don't know the risks" are in the same category of people who claim wifi or your cell phone or bluetooth earpiece will give you brain tumours.
To put this in perspective while this machine does NOT dose you with ionizing radiation, FLYING IN A JET DOES!
Radiation exposure during air travel: Guidance provided by the FAA for air carrier crews. Health Phys 79(5):591-5; 2000.
* Seattle to Portland: 3 mrem per 100 block hours
* New York to Chicago: 39 mrem per 100 block hours
* Los Angeles to Honolulu: 26 mrem per 100 block hours
* London to New York: 51 mrem per 100 block hours
* Athens to New York: 63 mrem per 100 block hours
* Tokyo to New York: 55 mrem per 100 block hours
Now, even flight crew are not at serious risk of this kind of dosage, but the point stands you get ACTUAL ionizing radiation dosage FROM FLYING, and people are worried about NON-IONIZING radiaiton from a scanner?
Seriously, complain about the privacy or hassle all you want, but let's not dreg up fake health scares.
Reported dosage due to dental X-rays seems to vary significantly. Depending on the source, a typical dental X-ray of a human results in an exposure of perhaps, 3, 40, 300, or as many as 900 mrems.
For the record, you CAN be killed by non-ionizing radiation, a powerful enough spotlight COULD in theory kill you, but you don't really hear too much about people being murdered with a spotlight, or a bluetooth headset…
Please understand that there are 2 different scanners in use in the US
The L3 Provision uses harmless MM waves (approx 90Ghz) to scan a person through reflection of the waves, and is considered harmless, as the intensity of the non-ionizing MM waves is very, very low. The image quality is not so good, but TSA considers them sufficient and buys them anyway, as they require at least 2 vendors for an expensive product such as this.
The Rapiscan Secure 1000 however, uses a HIGH-INTENSITY FOCUSED X-RAY beam to rapidly scan the victim, using backscatter (reflected x-rays) to form out an image. This is ionizing radiation, but the total dose is very low, but not insignificant. There are several unknowns, however. As the beam is high intensity, there is a REAL DANGER should the beam stop scanning for any reason, such as scanner malfunction. This would cause the beam to irradiate a small area and the dose would be intense. Also the dose may be calculated incorrectly, as the low voltage xrays do not pass clear through, but primarily reflect off the first cm or two of tissue. Therefore the dose is concentrated on the skin, and the "total body" dose is incorrect. Scientists estimate the real dose at 20-100 times what the manufacturer and TSA is stating. Some estimates state that these scanners will probably cause 1 extra death per 200 million scans. This may be off by an order of magnitude, however, because of the methodology used for dosing. Even at this death rate, we will cause more deaths than the terrorists are likely to cause.
The Rapiscan Secure 1000 is the preferred scanner for TSA, as it has much superior image quality. The privacy concern is more pronounced, as the level of detail is truly amazing. See http://DontScan.me for actual images.
Read this letter to Obama's science advisor and form you own conclusions about the safety of the Rapiscan Secure 1000: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern...
My advise: MM Wave scanners OK, except for privacy issues. Rapiscan scanners – KEEP OUT OF THEM unless you like cancers and cataracts, and the resolution sufficient for agents to count the pimples on your Johnson..
So the Conservatives who loved these scanners when Bush allocated millions of $$$ to begin implementation of them are NOW against them? Make up our minds, sociopaths.
Well I'm glad you pointed this out, but the original author did not distinguish between these two methods, and I don't know WHY I would be modded down for pointing out FACTUAL differences between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Again, I was not arguing for or against scanners. If some scanners are using backscatter x-ray, then Obviously I am not talking about THEM, my point was simply about the mm wave ones.
Resort to name calling if you can't make your point. Priceless !
For now.
No, people have always been against the scanners. You just have too much partisan ear wax in your ears to listen.
There is no question that ionizing radiation can cause cancer. Non-ionizing radiation can also presumably cause cancer by disrupting the DNA. The point is no one has done any long term studies to find out if the terahertz radiation is safe. Just because it is a different mechanism of damage doesn't mean it should be discounted. See the link above and also feel free to read a post I wrote several months ago on the scanners (http://drelainageorge.com/?p=385)
Whether it is the backscatter technology or the millimeter wave technology I don't think it is safe, and I have no intention of submitting voluntarily. If you add that to cumulative exposure from flying plus possible medical exposures such as CT or x-ray, it may be the proverbial straw that tips someone into a mutation that can later become cancer.
Thank you for replying, I appreciate you addressing my issues with facts and a calm voice. I even voted your response up (even though people are voting mine down, yet I don't see WHY) because you took the time to address my concerns.
However I guess I'm on a bit of a short fuse when I see people throwing around the term radiation, without specifying the different TYPES. It always strikes me as a scare tactics, like the people who say they are allergic to WIFI yet are not concerned about any other 2.5GHZ "radiation"
Your response makes me feel you are NOT trying to just scare people with junk science, so I don't disagree with you in this regard, I just wish people could be more specific when making claims about 'radiation'.
Who cares what you think
"No, people have always been against the scanners." — I know. You called them Liberal terrorist sympathizers.
"Resort to name calling if you can't make your point." — Like being called a "Liberal Terrorist Sympathizer" when people complained about these body scanners?
You must be logged in to post a comment.