Naked airport scanner

[MrSix]

wouldn't bother me personally, i've got a huge wang

Snap!

 

[SkeeterUK]

Think i know what the job i want will be. Scanning all the hot girls passing through.

--

Btw tho i do have some worries about this new check. Kid scans???

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Think i know what the job i want will be. Scanning all the hot girls passing through.

--

Btw tho i do have some worries about this new check. Kid scans???

Didn't read the thread?

 

[SkeeterUK]

Nope. Expected the thread to be full of "scan of hot chicks" a lot so skipped it all hehe.

 

[Jono8]

This will simply breed a new wave of enormously breasted female terroists able to hide weapons under each nork.

i would be glad to live in such a world.

 

[Energize]

Personally I'd rather not get blasted by any more radiation than I already recieve every year. I can imagine these causing delays at the airport with the huge number of people who will refuse to do it for various reasons and the number of people who get cancer will probably be greater than the number of people who would ever be killed by terrorist attacks anyway.

 

[V4NT0M]

Was just reading this earlier, strange how the ugly fat people in the video were against it.

 

[knowledge123]

Personally I'd rather not get blasted by any more radiation than I already recieve every year. I can imagine these causing delays at the airport with the huge number of people who will refuse to do it for various reasons and the number of people who get cancer will probably be greater than the number of people who would ever be killed by terrorist attacks anyway.

Medical

CT (CAT Scan):
Up to 1,000,000 microRem
Chest, Mammography:
Up to 10,000 microRem

Background Radiation

Denver (5000 ft): Up to 600 microRem per day Miami (sea level): Up to 300 microRem per day Inside vs. outside a building: Up to 25 microRem per day

Airline Passenger Dose

One hour flight: Up to 500 microRem per hour

Rapiscan Secure 1000

Less than 10 microRem per exam

http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000.html

 

[Energize]

Taking those figures into account, at least one person is likely to get cancer, which is greater than the number of people who would have died from a terrorist attack that year.

 

[Basher]

Taking those figures into account, at least one person is likely to get cancer, which is greater than the number of people who would have died from a terrorist attack that year.

Are you serious? Are you suggesting we shouldn't have scanners as they are more dangerous that the potential of terrorists?

 

[Energize]

Are you serious? Are you suggesting we shouldn't have scanners as they are more dangerous that the potential of terrorists?

If they cause more people to die than terrorists obviously, that's why scans that involve radiation aren't given routinely to the whole population, they result in more cancer deaths than they prevent.

 

[knowledge123]

Taking those figures into account, at least one person is likely to get cancer, which is greater than the number of people who would have died from a terrorist attack that year.

Only if you pass through it 5000+ times a year

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.

http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html#7

By comparison you are much, much more likely to get cancer from flying

 

[Basher]

... they result in more cancer deaths than they prevent.

Source?

 

[Indy500]

How can you possibly say you'd rather be blown up than go through a nudiscan?

I don't buy into that line of fearmongering. I've survived many years of trips through airports and on planes without being blown up, without these RF scanners. The probability is so low that I couldn't care less about "terror alerts". I do however pay attention to the road traffic in front of me, since that is far more likely to injure or kill me.

Chill winston, it was a tongue in cheek comment - no need to get all defensive.

Sorry, I forgot this was GD

 

[pxmm]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1775

Face it, some bad people do bad things, the only solution is to give up all of our liberties and stop anyone doing ANYTHING.

The police are doing a good job at finding the bad people before they try and do bad things, that is enough.

 

[Muban]

If it was a woman viewing womens scans and a man viewing mans scans then I would do it. I'd be very uncomfortable doing it and I'd rather not if I'm honest, but if it improves saftey then I'd do it. If it was someone of the opposite sex doing the scans then I wouldn't.

I know loads of people will say that I'm stupid, I really don't care. It's not about how I look or anything like that either. I'm just very private about my nekkidness moreso than the average I guess. I personally don't think it's that unreasonable to ask for it to be someone of the same sex viewing the scans. I also think if this were the case you would have far less people refusing.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Its not as if it instantly uploads a high definition image of your genitalia to the internet or anything.

 

[mrk]

Only people with small genitalia are complaining about this

 

[J1234]

I'm not bothered by it at all and no one should be. It should be rolled out across all airports imo.

 

[qqg3]

Just because there have been attacks on planes doesn't mean there will be in the future.
It is now a very hard target and not that effective at killing.

Why do you think its now a hard target? Oh yeah, new security measures such as this....