U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2011, 12:49 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,757,415 times
Reputation: 4774

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk View Post
Do you really want to be irradiated on a weekly basis? That's how often I fly.
You get irradiated flying at that altitude anyway, so doesn't seem like it bothers you too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2011, 03:34 PM
 
26,590 posts, read 54,824,158 times
Reputation: 13027
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
You get irradiated flying at that altitude anyway, so doesn't seem like it bothers you too much.
The point is, don't you want to prevent as much as you can?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2011, 05:41 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,757,415 times
Reputation: 4774
If it is significant enough to worry about then sure, otherwise might as well put away the cell phone too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2011, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Out West
22,970 posts, read 17,011,841 times
Reputation: 26579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febtober View Post
Millimeter wave body scanners aren't much of a concern to anyone, it's the backscatter technology that produces a clearer image, but also is the subject to the concerns with radiation. I'm not a radiologist, and there seems to be a lot of propaganda on both sides of the issue, so I'll reseve judgement on that for now.

Personally, I don't mind if someone that can't see me physically views the image produced, but I can recognize that others will take issue with it and that's fine. It's another good point of debate (tests have been done using a generic model of a human instead of your actual body, but so far it's returned about an 80% false positive rate.)



Here's a pretty decent list for starters.
Ugh! Wikipedia...

Nonetheless, let's take that list and use it. Now, please show me how many flights take off daily, around the world so that we may do a little bit of math and come up with percentages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2011, 05:53 PM
 
26,590 posts, read 54,824,158 times
Reputation: 13027
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
If it is significant enough to worry about then sure, otherwise might as well put away the cell phone too.
Actually no need to put it away, just use a hands free device and keep it away from your body.

Anything that is enough to see the bones in your body (which the backscatters do) is an x-ray. That's a lot of radiation to be exposed to for no good reason when there are other safer screening methods that don't require sexual molestation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 05:22 AM
 
Location: NYPD"s 30th Precinct
2,457 posts, read 4,472,010 times
Reputation: 2467
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorMama View Post
Ugh! Wikipedia...

Nonetheless, let's take that list and use it. Now, please show me how many flights take off daily, around the world so that we may do a little bit of math and come up with percentages.
I know it's a fun kneejerk reaction to discredit something simply from being from Wikipedia, but that's actually a fairly well compiled list. So did you have an actual factual problem with it or were you just spewing empty phrases?

And regardless, what's your point? I've never been in a serious car wreck but I still buckle up every time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 08:46 AM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,757,415 times
Reputation: 4774
Quote:
Anything that is enough to see the bones in your body (which the backscatters do) is an x-ray. That's a lot of radiation to be exposed to for no good reason when there are other safer screening methods that don't require sexual molestation.
I understand what an x-ray is, thanks. What I don't agree with is that it this type of x-ray application is a lot of radiation.

You also don't understand what sexual molestation is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 09:41 AM
 
26,590 posts, read 54,824,158 times
Reputation: 13027
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
I understand what an x-ray is, thanks. What I don't agree with is that it this type of x-ray application is a lot of radiation.

You also don't understand what sexual molestation is.
Having a stranger touch your sexual organs outside of for medical reasons or unless based on probable cause is molestation. Wanting to get on an airplane and being passenger #18 that day is not probable cause. Do you want your 12 year old daughter groped in her privates?

These days the medical community is asking women with clean mammograms to cut back to every other year due to concerns about radiation. And you think that adding any extra radiation that can see your bones is OK?

Do you fly weekly? Are you OK with getting hit with an unnecessary x-ray twice a week? What if it was your wife who was pregnant? Do you think it's OK for your unborn child to be x-rayed twice a week?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:20 AM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,757,415 times
Reputation: 4774
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk View Post
Having a stranger touch your sexual organs outside of for medical reasons or unless based on probable cause is molestation.
Like I said, you don't understand the definition of sexual molestation.

Quote:
These days the medical community is asking women with clean mammograms to cut back to every other year due to concerns about radiation. And you think that adding any extra radiation that can see your bones is OK?
Do you know how much radiation comes from a medical x-ray versus an airport scanner? You are eating a giant chocolate sunday then worrying about the weight gain from the additional cherry on top.


Dr. Joseph Mercola: Airport Scanners: Radiation Is Not the Only Health-Hazard

"Screening at an airport X-ray scanner produces .02 microsieverts of radiation. But remember, you are only getting them because you are going on a flight. Nearly everyone forgets that when you fly, there is also ionizing radiation exposure. In fact, on a typical transcontinental flight at 30,000 feet you will be exposed to 20 microsieverts of radiation. That is 1,000 times the dose you receive from the scanner.
[...]
The amount of background radiation a person is exposed to in a normal day is the equivalent of 85 screenings in a TSA scanner," Gould said. Another scientist, Professor Fergus Coakley, chief of the abdominal imaging section at the UCSF radiology department agreed. "Being worried about the scan on the way to the plane ride where you're getting extra radiation is bogus," he said.
"



Also = mammogram is between 700 and 3000 microsieverts, depending on your source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:32 AM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,757,415 times
Reputation: 4774
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk View Post
Do you fly weekly? Are you OK with getting hit with an unnecessary x-ray twice a week? What if it was your wife who was pregnant? Do you think it's OK for your unborn child to be x-rayed twice a week?
1. Sometimes, depending on work
2. Yes, because I don't believe it is a significant amount
3. Yes, because I don't believe it is a significant amount
4. Yes, because I don't believe it is a significant amount

Are you okay with flying at all? Watching TV? Using a cell phone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top