Nothing to see here, move along

[warhed]

in the video it equals the rad does to 2 minutes of flying. now most flights are an hour or more so which do you think the pilot or even the passengers have more to worry about, the scan or the actual flight?

Flying at 35,000 actually does expose you to a significant dose of radiation.  As does tanning, both in the sun and in tanning machines.
Smaller but long term doses include, sitting infront of a tv, being at a computer, eating bananas (no joke), having granite countertops, smoking, or standing next to me (especially when I get cobalt-60 particles stuck in my skin).
The case for these scanners being unhealthy just isn't a viable threat.

[dkff49]

I see that the more they try to make things safe they are going to look deeper into things that sometimes we don't want to be seen but sometimes it is necessary.

If they just suddenly threw this in with no justification for it at all, believe me I would be right there with you but there have been issues where this may have been a help and given the way things have been going lately, I think it is a good idea.

If something happened where someone snuck something through that this thing would have caught then all that you will hear about is how the technology existed and not used. Where will the finger point then?

[allaire]

A medical x-ray penetrates the body giving a distributed dose.  The x-ray back scatter is concentrated on the skin.  Some people worry about increasing skin cancer risks.  The millimeter wave has unknown long term effects.  Draw your own conclusions on this http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/.

in the video it equals the rad does to 2 minutes of flying. now most flights are an hour or more so which do you think the pilot or even the passengers have more to worry about, the scan or the actual flight?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html

[warhed]

Do the flight staff need to enter through these security check points? I personally have never seen them go through one and just assumed that there was a separate entrance and/or simply walked around the detectors at the entrance to the gates.

If this indeed an issue for pilots it would not take much for them to get it changed as OSHA would be more than willing to point out the obvious danger to employees considering they love nothing more than to point out flaws in work practices.

The NRC allows radiation workers 5 REM a year, the industry allows 2 a year.  It takes an acute  dose one time of around 20 REM/hour to start causing any problems, of which are only temporary.
These machines are just not going to hurt anyone (minus some feelings).
Even with repeated scans, you need high acute doses (like an X-ray machine) to cause damage.  Lower doses repeated year round as with a pilot, will not only not hurt them, it may actually reduce the risk of cancer.

[CAP1]

I see that the more they try to make things safe they are going to look deeper into things that sometimes we don't want to be seen but sometimes it is necessary.

If they just suddenly threw this in with no justification for it at all, believe me I would be right there with you but there have been issues where this may have been a help and given the way things have been going lately, I think it is a good idea.

If something happened where someone snuck something through that this thing would have caught then all that you will hear about is how the technology existed and not used. Where will the finger point then?

someone will stil sneak something on, should they so desire.

[dkff49]

someone will stil sneak something on, should they so desire.

Yes but this device may still reduce the numbers that get through and again I can guarantee you that if something would happen that they would be all over these guys for not using the technology since it does exist.

There is no cure all but as attempts change so must the ways we use to stop them as someone said earlier.

[warhed]

A medical x-ray penetrates the body giving a distributed dose.  The x-ray back scatter is concentrated on the skin.  Some people worry about increasing skin cancer risks.  The millimeter wave has unknown long term effects.  Draw your own conclusions on this http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html

I believe X-ray machines will give you a 200-500 millirem dose.  
If I were to receive an acute dose of that level at the nuclear  plant, the NRC would likely go on a firing spree.  
The first article you linked gives absolutely no details or numbers, it simply says possible threat.  

[warhed]

I would much rather my skin deflect the radiation in these machines than X-rays travel through my skin AND organs.

[allaire]

All it would take to get anything past security and onto a plane is the same way prisoners have been doing it for the longest time.

The first article isn't about radiation exposure it's about the possibility of terahertz millimeter waves unzipping sections of DNA strands.  The second article states that the exposure may be higher than generally known.

[warhed]

All it would take to get anything past security and onto a plane is the same way prisoners have been doing it for the longest time.

The first article isn't about radiation exposure it's about the possibility of terahertz millimeter waves unzipping sections of DNA strands.  The second article states that the exposure may be higher than generally known.

So what is the dose "generally known?" 
Bananas (containing potassium) also give out doses higher than "generally known."

[allaire]

Bluntly the dose was under-reported and disinformation was given out to lead people into thinking the dose was lower.  Does that make it any better or worse? Not really. 

The article was linked in response to:

in the video it equals the rad does to 2 minutes of flying. now most flights are an hour or more so which do you think the pilot or even the passengers have more to worry about, the scan or the actual flight?

Showing that the 2 minute dose that one receives from flying at altitude is possibly misleading.

[FLOTSOM]

Bluntly the dose was under-reported and disinformation was given out to lead people into thinking the dose was lower.  Does that make it any better or worse? Not really. 

The article was linked in response to:  Showing that the 2 minute dose that one receives from flying at altitude is possibly misleading.

i will conceed to the unknown for now. Agreed

[warhed]

Bluntly the dose was under-reported and disinformation was given out to lead people into thinking the dose was lower.  Does that make it any better or worse? Not really. 

The article was linked in response to:  Showing that the 2 minute dose that one receives from flying at altitude is possibly misleading.

Not without knowing the actual dose one receives from the machines.  Receiving chronic (long term) low doses of radiation does not hurt you.  
If you go through a scanner, you will be flying.  If you're flying you will receive excess doses of radiation.  If the goal is to not receive any doses of radiation, you can't fly.
Using radiation as a reason to stop the scanners is just an attempt to scare people.  Nothing more, nothing less

[allaire]

I present that as one of the concerns that seems to have merit.  Do you want some more? 

That the images cannot and would not be saved.
http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf Pages 7 and 16

Possibility of using the machines that produce higher definition images and a program to invert said image as pornography, including children.
Cannot include links as they violate forum rules.

Violations of peoples religious beliefs.

There are more concerns besides the possible and unknown long term health risks.

[warhed]

I'm not for or against the scanners.
I'm just pointing out that the health risk of these scanners is not a valid argument against them.