Slim 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 You're unbelievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casino Crazy Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Reminds me of the film Total Recall with the full body scanner. Haha. I was thinking exactly the same thing. "How long do you plan to stay?" "Two weeks" Edit: Holy crap, what happen there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Personally, I agree to the idea due to the increasing supply of illegal bits and bobs that cannot be found using a hands on search. I would hope however, that to avoid peoples embarrassment, that those looking at the scans, are not able to see what the person looks like in normal view, before, after or at the same time the scans are done. I would also suggest that there should be male staff who scan male people and female staff who scan female people. I think it's a good idea though, especially in these turbulent times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 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? Ringwraith - when you are flying at altitude your body recieves increased cosmic ray radiation as the rays don't have as much atmosphere to get through. When flying you get about 4 MicroREMs per minute - Link. IE if your flight is delayed for one minute you will get more exposure from that, than from these scanners. The radiation these scanners expose you to is de minimus compared to the natural background you are exposed to every single day. A point most people are missing is that the scanners aren't body penetrating, they are nothing like a medical X-ray which delivers about a years worth of standard exposure. You are massively exaggerating the risks - they do not cause any massive increase to environmental EMF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Doesn't bother me, so long as I have a copy of the picture of my youthful body to post on my interweb dating site as the rays bypass my long-cultivated cellulite. I much prefer this idea than having a dumpy lady of indeterminate sexuality patting over my bits, while another well formed, young male of very definite sexuality looks on. You know, the one with the perfect physique, hair carelessly coiffed to one side, with eyes that have seen everything, but witnessed nothing, the one who is best placed in your memory as lying spreadeagled and spent on your satin sheets, not so much a husk as a Phoenix waiting to rise, the one who would .... Perhaps I read too much into these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 patting over my bits, while another well formed, young male of very definite sexuality looks on. You know, the one with the perfect physique, hair carelessly coiffed to one side, with eyes that have seen everything, but witnessed nothing, the one who is best placed in your memory as lying spreadeagled and spent on your satin sheets, not so much a husk as a Phoenix waiting to rise, the one who would .... You are Barbara Cartland and I claim my £5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I would hope however, that to avoid peoples embarrassment, that those looking at the scans, are not able to see what the person looks like in normal view, before, after or at the same time the scans are done. I would also suggest that there should be male staff who scan male people and female staff who scan female people. Yes, that's exactly how it's set up, the feed is to someone in a different room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Doesn't bother me, so long as I have a copy of the picture of my youthful body to post on my interweb dating site as the rays bypass my long-cultivated cellulite. I much prefer this idea than having a dumpy lady of indeterminate sexuality patting over my bits, while another well formed, young male of very definite sexuality looks on. You know, the one with the perfect physique, hair carelessly coiffed to one side, with eyes that have seen everything, but witnessed nothing, the one who is best placed in your memory as lying spreadeagled and spent on your satin sheets, not so much a husk as a Phoenix waiting to rise, the one who would .... Perhaps I read too much into these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Heard on the radio that they can't use the scanner on anyone under 16, as it would consitute making an indecent image of a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Ringwraith - when you are flying at altitude your body recieves increased cosmic ray radiation as the rays don't have as much atmosphere to get through. When flying you get about 4 MicroREMs per minute - Link. IE if your flight is delayed for one minute you will get more exposure from that, than from these scanners. The radiation these scanners expose you to is de minimus compared to the natural background you are exposed to every single day. A point most people are missing is that the scanners aren't body penetrating, they are nothing like a medical X-ray which delivers about a years worth of standard exposure. You are massively exaggerating the risks - they do not cause any massive increase to environmental EMF. Another well highlighted radiation exposure China Hand, thanks. I think you may have misunderstood my post, the massive increase in exposure to EMF is not from the x-ray scanners, it is from the general increase in EMF radiation devices that now surround us on an almost constant basis. The scanners will in their own way add to this, as well as the humiliation factor. Whether seen by a lone operator in a secluded room or not the person being scanned will know they are being scrutinised at the most intimate level and I think that is outrageous. Machines can go wrong, and who's to say that in a busy airport they won't be checked as often as they should be and could deliver a more harmful dose of radiation. If people want the process of travelling through airport security speeded up then maybe the airports should employ more security staff, there are plenty of people looking for work at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Heard on the radio that they can't use the scanner on anyone under 16, as it would consitute making an indecent image of a child. Sounds unlikely, the images can't be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Worse? It's better. It's far less intrusive and humiliating than being pat searched or having to take your shoes, coat and belt off and shuffle through security. This way, you walk through the xray, someone somewhere see's your gories, which I couldn't give a damn about, and move on.Ok, but this is your opinion. We live in a society where nakedness in public places is something we are rather uncomfortable about and where we would feel humiliated to have to display our unclothed bodies. It is something that a lot of people may be quite protective and very concerned about. It is very intrusive. And in my opinion, far more so than a few pats on my body and the removal of some articles of clothing. The other problem is that you would have no choice but go through with it if you wanted to leave the country. Very wrong in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Ok, but this is your opinion. We live in a society where nakedness in public places is something we are rather uncomfortable about and where we would feel humiliated to have to display our unclothed bodies. It is something that a lot of people may be quite protective and very concerned about. It is very intrusive. And in my opinion, far more so than a few pats on my body and the removal of some articles of clothing. The other problem is that you would have no choice but go through with it if you wanted to leave the country. Very wrong in my mind. Sure, it's a personal preference thing, but people seeing my body doesn't really bother me that much. This isn't that much different from what other swimmers get to see of me for example. I get far more frustrated by pointless inconvenience like the existing security checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 patting over my bits, while another well formed, young male of very definite sexuality looks on. You know, the one with the perfect physique, hair carelessly coiffed to one side, with eyes that have seen everything, but witnessed nothing, the one who is best placed in your memory as lying spreadeagled and spent on your satin sheets, not so much a husk as a Phoenix waiting to rise, the one who would .... You are Barbara Cartland and I claim my £5. Damn, found out, despite my clever avoidance of 'powerless to resist'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenie Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Ok, but this is your opinion. We live in a society where nakedness in public places is something we are rather uncomfortable about and where we would feel humiliated to have to display our unclothed bodies. It is something that a lot of people may be quite protective and very concerned about. It is very intrusive. And in my opinion, far more so than a few pats on my body and the removal of some articles of clothing. The other problem is that you would have no choice but go through with it if you wanted to leave the country. Very wrong in my mind. Sure, it's a personal preference thing, but people seeing my body doesn't really bother me that much. This isn't that much different from what other swimmers get to see of me for example. I get far more frustrated by pointless inconvenience like the existing security checks. We are not being asked to undress in public, one person gets to see an 'image' of our bodies, not really a problem IMO, they are welcome to see my lumps and bumps. Preferable to the existing shoe & belt removal which can lead to embarrassing public clothing gapes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.