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 11-20-2011, 07:16 PM
 
Location: San Antonio/Houston/Tricity
38,145 posts, read 55,963,347 times
Reputation: 90040

Advertisements

The European Union has decided to ban all X-ray scanners from EU airports ( 11/14/2011) in order to protect the health and safety of EU citizens, yet the TSA still claims that the scanners are completely safe.
The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all the lanes by 2014.
It is quite clear that the TSA is clinging on to the X-ray scanners for dear life, while the EU is taking the appropriate steps in protecting the health of travelers. This is evidenced by how differently the two governing bodies responding to the X-ray scanner cancer issue.

The European Union, following the news that the scanners are causing a threat to public health, decided to address the threat by removing the scanners. The European Commission issued a press release on November 14th calling for members of the European Union to remove X-ray scanners from its airports to avoid risking “citizens’ health and safety.”
EUROPA - Press Releases - Aviation security: Commission adopts new rules on the use of security scanners at European airports

The United States on the other hand, went back on a promise to launch an independent safety into the machines.
The scanners admittedly use ionizing radiation, which is known to cause DNA damage as well as cancer. TSA still expects citizens to blindly accept their lack of evidence on the supposed safety of the machines in place of the real evidence highlighting the powerful dangers. Although they deliberately expose humans to radiation, the airport X-ray scanners are not medical devices, so they are not subject to the stringent regulations required for diagnostic X-ray machines. They are classified as an electronic product and FDA does not review or approve the safety of such products.
The FDA has limited authority to oversee some non-medical products and can set mandatory safety regulations. But the agency let the scanners fall under voluntary standards set by a nonprofit group heavily influenced by industry.
U.S. Glossed Over Cancer Concerns Associated with Airport X-Ray Scanners: Scientific American



There is no good reason for any person in this country to believe a single word emitted by any government agency. It is almost ludicrous at this point and I stand in awe of the fact that almost no one is doing anything about it.
__________________
.
"No Copyrighted Material"
Moderated forums:
World, Europe, Texas, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Lubbock, Tyler, Houston, San Antonio, Tallahassee, Macon, Duluth, Fish, Home Interior Design and Decorating, Science and Technology Forums
.

Need help? Click on this: >>> ToS, Mod List, Rules & FAQ's, Guide, CD Home page, How to Search
Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2011, 09:46 AM
 
2,605 posts, read 5,311,402 times
Reputation: 5221
In the linked Scientific American article

"Those tests show that the Secure 1000 delivers an extremely low dose of radiation, less than 10 microrems. The dose is roughly one-thousandth of a chest X-ray and equivalent to the cosmic radiation received in a few minutes of flying at typical cruising altitude. The TSA has used those measurements to say the machines are “safe.”'

I cannot claim to be an expert, but after all they are screening someone who is going to get in an airplane, and fly for a good bit more than a few minutes at cruising altitude. This does not seem to warrant panic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 09:33 AM
 
Location: SoCal
6,077 posts, read 9,552,853 times
Reputation: 5839
But radiation adds up, no matter how small the dose. I'm have no issues over the personal search, so I'll always elect for that over yet more radiation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 07:21 AM
 
2,605 posts, read 5,311,402 times
Reputation: 5221
Quote:
Originally Posted by oddstray View Post
But radiation adds up, no matter how small the dose. I'm have no issues over the personal search, so I'll always elect for that over yet more radiation.
This is a strong argument for never flying in a plane. Then you won't need to go to the airport, and you won't get scanned. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 09:39 AM
 
Location: SoCal
6,077 posts, read 9,552,853 times
Reputation: 5839
Quote:
Originally Posted by rational1 View Post
This is a strong argument for never flying in a plane. Then you won't need to go to the airport, and you won't get scanned. Problem solved.
If I had enough vacation time to take a cruise to the UK instead of flying, and if my work would compensate me for the time to take a train across the lower 48 instead of flying, I'd agree.

But since I don't, the problem is *not* solved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 09:41 AM
 
Location: in here, out there
3,064 posts, read 5,616,633 times
Reputation: 5109
But what about the jobs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 09:42 AM
 
14,253 posts, read 15,359,820 times
Reputation: 13682
The TSA ... diligently guarding against the last terrorist threat rather than the next one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2011, 08:46 AM
 
2,605 posts, read 5,311,402 times
Reputation: 5221
> But since I don't, the problem is *not* solved.

You're not hearing. The article (all I know about this topic) asserts that screening exposes you to the equivalent of a few minutes flying at altitude. If you get screened you're going to get in a plane and be at altitude for several hours. Exposed to radiation the whole time. If there IS a risk, the increase in risk is (fractionally) a very small increase of an already not very large risk.

Maybe we should complain if the airlines don't fly as fast as they can, but rather fly slower to reduce fuel cost, and thereby trade off profit for passengers' risk of cancer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2011, 10:22 PM
 
4,648 posts, read 5,395,341 times
Reputation: 2263
That just shows which country/countries care about their citizens' health, and which doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2011, 10:39 PM
 
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile
16,411 posts, read 26,282,342 times
Reputation: 16497
Quote:
Originally Posted by oddstray View Post
But radiation adds up, no matter how small the dose. I'm have no issues over the personal search, so I'll always elect for that over yet more radiation.

You should get off your computer, because computers emit radiation.
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