Originally Posted by
bocastephen
Radiation is radiation - and exposure to any type of penetrating radiation is a health risk. If it's strong enough to penetrate clothing, then it's likely strong enough to touch and even penetrate at least some layers of skin, especially exposed skin.
If I want to sit out in the sun and get burned to increase my risk of health problems, that's a personal decision - the government cannot order me to go sit out in the sun and burn myself. Hence, the government cannot order me to enter a device, whose only source of consumer information is a government contracted laboratory, which emits any type of penetrating radiation, regardless of the power level. Truth be told, no one really knows the details of this device, except what has been released by the government, its contractor and Sandia Labs - none of which should be considered trustworthy sources of information.
I have to be honest, this is bordering on fear-mongering (nothing personal though) in my opinion. Radiation is not just radiation; as posted above, there are many different spectrums ranging from harmless radio waves on one end, to extremely harmful and energetic gamma rays on the other end. Visible light is radiation also; I assume most people do not actively avoid visible light for fear of it causing cancer? Sitting in the sun causes exposure to ultraviolet radiation (which can, in the long run, cause cancer), a totally different part of the spectrum.
Radiation that penetrates clothing certainly
does not have to penetrate skin. That's an irresponsible assumption to make.
Further, being honest, refusing to use this scanner technology based on unfounded "health" fears is basically like shooting yourself in the foot. It discredits any arguments against the implementation of the device, because it creates the impression that the opponents have not done their research and are basing their opinions more on scare tactics and vague assumptions about the "unknown" than what is actually known.
As I have said, a far more relevant argument that holds its own water would be from a privacy and legal point-of-view, and whether or not the government has the right to essentially "undress" us without giving us a choice. Now, that we can argue about seriously. Not arguments about "radiation" that bring up more emotion than reasoned debate, and would fit better in sensational news reporting than sober examination/debate.
Originally Posted by
bocastephen
There are plenty of people who refuse x-rays and other body scans unless medically necessary, due to cumulative exposure to the same.
The fact of the matter is, other technology is available which can do the same thing without using radiation waves - ultrasound, even at higher doses due to a lack of skin contact, is safer than penetrating light radiation.
There is no evidence of medical risk due to "cumulative exposure" to infrared radiation.
Ultrasound would be even worse, both as en effective method to detect objects as well as from a privacy point of view. Ultrasound works on principle of soundwaves, not radiation, and thuis requires direct contact with an object. Medical ultrasounds require direct contact with skin; basically, every passenger would have to get undressed (hardly an improvement over a blurry image as far as privacy concerns go). Furthermore, ultrasound over clothing would not work... it would be sticky mess.
There is no reason to fear "radiation" just because the popular imagination equates radiation with Hiroshima and Chernobyl. Indeed, those incidents involved radiation, but
not the sort of radiation we are talking about here, really very far from it.
People, correct my facts if anything is incorrect...