Read the forum code of contact
By: - 14th January 2010 at 12:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This causes cancer, that causes cancer.
First we're told an apple a day wards off cancer, then the next day we're told apples cause cancer.
Frankly, I'm not in the least bit surprised that they now claim the body scanner may increase cancer risk. Everything does, and everythign doesn't. It depends what you read and when.
By: - 14th January 2010 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well Xrays and UV's induce cancers , that's a proven fact. I don't know the level of radiation generated by those machines but it's a concern for me. I'm afraid that the risk generated by the use of this kind of stuff is much higher than a so-called terrorist attack.
I'm still wondering why nobody consider a massive use of sniffing dogs for this purpose. Well trained dogs are way faster and wy more efficient than any kind of machine. Business as usual??
By: - 14th January 2010 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sandy is right.
Your body is continually bombarded with 'hard' radiation - in the fom of cosmic rays - for almost the entire duration of every single flight you make.
And at far higher "dosages" than are produced by these scanners, too.
By: - 14th January 2010 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe it's true, I don't want to pretend being an expert.
I just guess that the "so-called" autorithies should focus on the security devices that are already in place before they consider to implement new gadgets.
All of this is just another paranoia IMHO.
By: - 14th January 2010 at 13:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've been scanned twice by these machines but it's ok, I eat an apple everyday.
By: - 14th January 2010 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hello,
To me it is just makes flying that little bit more mundane and troublesome. It really take the fun out of flying.
How nice it is to remember the days when flying was a significant evident, something to look forward to and savor.
Nowadays you enter a big building, wait in queues, fumble with the electronic check-in lady, wait in more queues. You might get a glimpse out of the window at a plane, in an area that you must share with many other people - crammed in and feeling just an uncomfortable. To further remove you from the event, you get to walk down a windowless tube into a tube with seats and a small window. The romance of flying...
By: - 14th January 2010 at 14:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If they are proven to work, if they are proven to prevent SOME illicit material being taken onto flights that might otherwise have been boarded (not talking about the Detroit thing in particular, but any "bad" items) then fine - I'd rather risk a dose of radiation every so often than be blown up. And I don't think that there should be exemptions either (ie. children as referred to above) - its been shown before that the bad guys are not averse to recruiting people from amongst those that might previously have been thought to be innocent.
Andy
By: - 14th January 2010 at 15:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hello,...... It really take the fun out of flying.
Yeh, I'm with you, it was always more fun when it was a lottery as to whether you'd get hijacked or blown up! I blame the litigious society that we live in :diablo:
By: - 14th January 2010 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agree. It all adds up. Cancer has rocketed since the 1960s and not just because of smoking.
I think its more to do with the fact that we have gotten better at diagnosing it.
Before, people would have died of "Natural Causes".
By: - 14th January 2010 at 18:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe he was referring to the world of aviation?
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots :D
By: - 14th January 2010 at 19:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Security should always be placed ahead od the minor risks posed by any radiation emitted by these scanners. If they are in the least bit effective then they should be used. It's one of those things which will probably never show its true effectiveness because of its deterrent effect.
As for cancer being more prevalent now, I strongly suspect that it isn't. You look at a modern death certificate for the cause of death. Take a sample of them. Then compare them to the certificates of sixty and eighty years ago. Very few cancers but an awful lot of deaths put down as simply old age or general debility, and, in the case of children and infants, failure to thrive.
Regards,
kev35
By: - 14th January 2010 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd be willing to bet that cancer deaths were probably just as common back in the day, medical science just didn't know enough about it to diagnose.
By: - 14th January 2010 at 19:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which is exactly the point I was clumsily trying to make.
Regards,
kev35
By: - 14th January 2010 at 21:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These sort of devices need to be safe beyond doubt before they are introduced. It's not just occasional or even frequent flyer's that are subject to these checks, airport staff are too. Sometimes many times during a working day.
With all the hysteria that seems to influence airport security measures I am not sure that we can rely on good judgment in this matter. I just hope the unions are on top of the safety element of these devises.
By: - 15th January 2010 at 09:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: - 15th January 2010 at 11:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These sort of devices need to be safe beyond doubt before they are introduced. It's not just occasional or even frequent flyer's that are subject to these checks, airport staff are too. Sometimes many times during a working day.200% agreed!
With all the hysteria that seems to influence airport security measures I am not sure that we can rely on good judgment in this matter. I just hope the unions are on top of the safety element of these devises.
By: - 15th January 2010 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These sort of devices need to be safe beyond doubt before they are introduced. It's not just occasional or even frequent flyer's that are subject to these checks, airport staff are too. Sometimes many times during a working day.
With all the hysteria that seems to influence airport security measures I am not sure that we can rely on good judgment in this matter. I just hope the unions are on top of the safety element of these devises.
There never is a "beyond doubt" moment when it comes to cancer causing devices. As I said in my first post.
One study will show these machines to be harmless, then next to be cancer causing. Then another will have then harmless again, and so on.
Posts: 8,846
By: Newforest - 14th January 2010 at 11:03
I am surprised that this subject has not been aired yet in the forum. If I were a frequent traveller and subject to these x-rays on a weekly or monthly basis, I would be considering a change of employment. In addition, the authorities openly admit that these new scanners would not have prevented the Christmas breach of security.
Full-Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk (January 6, 2010)
http://noworldsystem.com/2010/01/06/full-body-scanners-increase-cancer-risk/
There are two types of scanners we will have to endure at the airport; the millimeter-wave scanner and the 'backscatter' X-ray scanner. Both emit 'high-energy' radiation and are dangerous.Body scanners have revolutionized the practice of medicine and has saved many lives, but we must question the government's mandate to have people endure high-energy radiation in a non-life-threatening situation. We must protest the use of full-body scanners on children and young adults as they are at greater-risk of developing brain tumors and cancer from these machines. Cancer and tumors especially in the young will likely increase as more body scanners are being installed on a nationwide scale. There is just no "safe" dose of radiation, 50% of America's cancers are radiation-induced. People with medical implants such as pace-makers should also avoid electromagnetic pulse generating body scanners as they can significantly alter the waveform of the pacemaker pulse. CLIP
Are body scanners a scam?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html