Slim Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Yet another intrusion on privacy and another health risk due to increased exposure to EMF.This is of course far more intrusive than a pat down search, quicker maybe but in a pat down search you are not stripped naked. How people can find this acceptable I really don't understand, whatever next? How has this got past human rights legislation? You're safely wrapped up in tinfoil Ringie, you'll be fine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Yet another intrusion on privacy and another health risk due to increased exposure to EMF.This is of course far more intrusive than a pat down search, quicker maybe but in a pat down search you are not stripped naked. How people can find this acceptable I really don't understand, whatever next? How has this got past human rights legislation? You're safely wrapped up in tinfoil Ringie, you'll be fine! You think so Slimy, I think lead would have a better chance of working. So you really think this additional, unecessary exposure to EMF is good for your health as well do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Oh dear.... If a good majority of people thinks like you: we're fucked! You keep making these statements without justifying them. Why are we fucked? How is this any worse than the existing security checks? I don't get it Amadeus, would you rather have someone ferreting around your privates, take shoes and belt and coats off, rather than walk through an xray? I really don't mind one little bit, much less hassle and quicker. Bring it on. edit for typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 You think so Slimy, I think lead would have a better chance of working. So you really think this additional, unecessary exposure to EMF is good for your health as well do you? Is it additional? It's instead of an existing metal detector, which would expose the users to EMF also. And if it reduces stress going through airport security checks then yes, I think it'd be good for my health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Is it additional? It's instead of an existing metal detector, which would expose the users to EMF also.And if it reduces stress going through airport security checks then yes, I think it'd be good for my health. Unbelievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Tin foil hats for everyone!!!!!! My lord, you lot are worse than the nutters who thought we had a UFO hidden in the bunker at Neatishead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 That man clearly has no idea how to protect his children properly from Government Mind Control Rays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 That man clearly has no idea how to protect his children properly from Government Mind Control Rays. His protection is lacking in the groin area. Cleary inviting crotch cancer from x-ray scanners and mobile phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Lead underpants might be an option then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 So you really think this additional, unecessary exposure to EMF is good for your health as well do you? Always check the specs - Q: How much radiant energy is a person exposed to? A: Each full body scan of the Secure 1000 produces approximately 3 microREMs of emission. This is equivalent to the exposure every person receives each five minutes from naturally occurring background environmental radioactivity. Q: Is background radiation exposure really a good comparison? A: Yes, because Secure 1000 scanning and background radiation both expose a large portion of the body to a very low level of X-rays. The only difference is that background radiation has slightly higher X-ray energy resulting in deeper penetration. Q: What about exposure levels for individuals who are frequent flyers or for employees in companies or high security facilities who have to be screened each day? A: Under current international guidelines (such as the ANSI 43.17 Standard) up to 5000 scans per year can be conducted safely. I presume Ringwraith won't believe it, and will say its all propoganda. I'm still on the fence about this one - I think there are some issues with this system - people must always be offered the alternative - but think the idea that its radiation level is an issue simply isn't true. As Slim says your more likely to damage yourself slipping over in the airport in your sock grasping your beltless trousers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Q: How much radiant energy is a person exposed to? A: Each full body scan of the Secure 1000 produces approximately 3 microREMs of emission. This is equivalent to the exposure every person receives each five minutes from naturally occurring background environmental radioactivity. Q: Is background radiation exposure really a good comparison? A: Yes, because Secure 1000 scanning and background radiation both expose a large portion of the body to a very low level of X-rays. The only difference is that background radiation has slightly higher X-ray energy resulting in deeper penetration. Q: What about exposure levels for individuals who are frequent flyers or for employees in companies or high security facilities who have to be screened each day? A: Under current international guidelines (such as the ANSI 43.17 Standard) up to 5000 scans per year can be conducted safely. I presume Ringwraith won't believe it, and will say its all propoganda. I'm still on the fence about this one - I think there are some issues with this system - people must always be offered the alternative - but think the idea that its radiation level is an issue simply isn't true. As Slim says your more likely to damage yourself slipping over in the airport in your sock grasping your beltless trousers. As I've mentioned before it's all about increased exposure. Of course going through a single scan isn't going to kill you but this kind of technology is everywhere now. From the childs bedroom with baby listeners to your home cordless phone, mobile phone, game box, school and work wi-fi, mobile phone masts, airport and cafe wi-fi hot spots, and this is an extra additional burden and exposure to EMF. The amount of regular x-rays you have in your life from broken bones and dental visits all adds up too, and this massive increase in exposure to environmental EMF's is going to have an impact. Surely you can see that can't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Ringwraith, as mentioned in another thread, I worked on alot ultra high RF equipment in the RAF. As did many of my fellow tradesmen. This means we were on a daily basis exposed to much higher levels of radiation than average person. No-one I knew in the RAF suffered from cancer. So the risk to the average person on a day-to-day basis in their normal environments is minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Back in the late 80s I suffered severe nausea because of EMF on a number of occasions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I worked on alot ultra high RF equipment in the RAF. As did many of my fellow tradesmen. This means we were on a daily basis exposed to much higher levels of radiation than average person. Exposure of high levels of radiation to the brain can cause personality disorders often resulting in the patient being unable to accept rational conversations and appearing arrogant and small minded. Who would have thunked it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Ringwraith, as mentioned in another thread, I worked on alot ultra high RF equipment in the RAF. As did many of my fellow tradesmen. This means we were on a daily basis exposed to much higher levels of radiation than average person. No-one I knew in the RAF suffered from cancer. So the risk to the average person on a day-to-day basis in their normal environments is minimal. When was that, if you don't mind me asking? Let's hope you were a lucky one, or were well protected, but I'm pretty sure that there have been studies that have proven links between cancer deaths and radar published in the medical literature. I'm also fairly sure that soldiers have sued because of this. Some cancers can take years to develop, so I hope you were well protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.