Turn on thread page Beta

'No scan, no flight' at Heathrow and Manchester! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Do you actually think this is going to make a difference?
    It will surely make flight a little safer?
    I just don't see the point in all the complaints about it when it's not really that bad, I mean, it's not like the pictures go anywhere, hardly anyone sees them, so what's so wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by algérie_mon_amour)
    I don't do Physics and hence may not have any knowledge on the strenght of the radiation, but I didn't claim they are definitely dangerous, but may be found to be so in the future.
    There's already talk of mobile phones being dangerous for us due to radiation but I doubt any of us have any problem with using them.

    I personally have no problem with the use of scanners, especially if they make us safer
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Privacy.
    How have they removed your right to privacy? You can fully exercise your right to privacy by travelling by other means, or in an airport where they do not have these scanners.

    You CHOOSE to travel with these people, they are private organisations and you are effectively volunteering to have the scan. In what way are your rights being violated?

    In other news, I can just see iamges like this being sold on the internet for huge sums of money;



    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Do people ITT have a problem with the metal detectors and pat-down searches that we have had for the last two decades? Unless you are paranoid about a security guard seeing some some of bizarre picture he can't identify you from anyway, then I don't see the difference.

    (Original post by kevin_123)
    1 scan? You're obviously one of these people that "go on holiday" once every three years to spain.. You know there are people that need/want to fly several times a month which 2 scans per "trip" 3 trips a month = 3 trips = 6 scans a month. 6 scans a month = 72 scans a year.. in ten years you would of had 720 scans.
    I bet these people love the scanners more than anybody else. Queues in security, usually caused by people who can't follow instructions like taking off their belt before going through a metal detector, are a pain in the ****.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    i've been scanned in a full body scanner before. i dont really see the problem with them.

    you also get bumped to the front of the security queue (unless of course they're making everyone have them).

    and they are hardly strong rays. and you cant really say they penetrate you're body. they quite obviously reflect off your skin

    this
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by _lauren)
    it's not exactly detailed imagery of them now, is it.
    would you rather be quickly scanned, or get blown up on your flight?
    Of course I wouldn't want to be blown up; but the thing is that even with advanced technology and security measures, we can see that attacks still happen. Extremely strict measures have been imposed and still we've seen an attempt recently, which means that the probability that such scanners will decrease the chance of a plane being blown up is very small, especially as mentioned before, these scanners do not show what is inside the body.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhys~)
    I dont see the problem, flying isnt a right. If you dont like it stop flying.

    If it speeds up my time getting through security im all for it. For people complaining about it be dangerous it is the same amount of radiation as you are exposed to for 2 minutes crusing at 30,000 feet so you really shouldnt be flying if your that worried.....
    There has been several times in history where they were completely and utterly convinced that things have been safe but later on (when it is too late) they discover that it's not.. I can just imagine in twenty years time it will begin "Investigation on flight x-rays due to large number of businessmen have been diagnosed with cancer" :p:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Peoples say these are for safety but it's another attempt by the govt. to control people, similar to ID cards. Interestingly we are also fighting 2 wars to bring peace. Makes you wonder if George Orwell was right.

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm concerned about the health impact not so much as privacy - nobody can say that they're 100% safe, because that had been said of CT scans for decades, and last year we find out that they "deliver far more radiation than previously believed and may contribute to 29000 new cancers each year, along with 14500 deaths."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Scan people, or get blown up?
    Which one will do most harm?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    Peoples say these are for safety but it's another attempt by the govt. to control people, similar to ID cards.

    nobodies making you fly...

    and if you wanted to fly without going through security, go buy a private jet.

    its hardly the government trying to control people. its simply the government trying to stop idiots blowing up planes
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TommyWannabe)
    How have they removed your right to privacy? You can fully exercise your right to privacy by travelling by other means, or in an airport where they do not have these scanners.

    You CHOOSE to travel with these people, they are private organisations and you are effectively volunteering to have the scan. In what way are your rights being violated?

    In other news, I can just see iamges like this being sold on the internet for huge sums of money;



    I was under the impression that it was the Government installing these scanners, not private firms?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    they're pointless.

    in order to avoid being sued for discrimination, the airports will avoid scanning anybody from the muslim population.

    (yes i know that not all terrorists are muslim, but seriously when the next attack happens the attacker is almost definitely going to be one. And yes, i know that you cant always tell who is muslim by looking at them, but 99.9999% you can.)

    And, they cant see powders, plastics , liquids or up your jacksy.
    A Chinese Muslim looks like a Nigerian Muslim?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by damos92)
    Imagine how you would feel though if you were opposed to these scans, they didn't exist and a terrorist blew up a plane and killed someone you love because they had snuck explosives onto the plane. Then hearing 'If full body scanners had scanned the terrorist, this atrocity would have been prevented'.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_433286.html
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _lauren)
    It will surely make flight a little safer?
    I just don't see the point in all the complaints about it when it's not really that bad, I mean, it's not like the pictures go anywhere, hardly anyone sees them, so what's so wrong?
    It's the principle of it. I don't think it will make it any safer, either, despite costing apparently billions and billions of pounds.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should retaliate like the German's did :holmes: http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20100111-24493.html
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shadowplay)
    I'm concerned about the health impact not so much as privacy - nobody can say that they're 100% safe, because that had been said of CT scans for decades, and last year we find out that they "deliver far more radiation than previously believed and may contribute to 29000 new cancers each year, along with 14500 deaths."
    I would quite like the source for this and if it's a newspaper it can be safely ignored.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shadowplay)
    I'm concerned about the health impact not so much as privacy - nobody can say that they're 100% safe, because that had been said of CT scans for decades, and last year we find out that they "deliver far more radiation than previously believed and may contribute to 29000 new cancers each year, along with 14500 deaths."
    We've known since its invention that CT scanners give a fairly signifiance radiation dose.

    We also know that the airport scanners give out less radiation than your mobile phone.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by algérie_mon_amour)
    Well, your 'private parts' can in fact be seen! look at the pictures in the link.
    If they can't see your face why does it matter? Once you've seen one set of genitals you've seen them all, really, and it's not like the person in the room will be left to his own devices; he'll probably be on CCTV and he's not allowed to bring in electronic devices (e.g. cameras, phones).
    Offline

    0
    I'd rather be scanned than frisked. I'd had overenthusiastic frisking in the past....I doubt there can be overenthusiastic scanning though.


    Also - If they prevent one asswipe from blowing up one plane that's good enough.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.