DeletedUser
I agree with all the security measures and i would take the scan but there is no way some guy is coming up to me and groping me, that's just wrong - you should be able to refuse both - but not get on the plane 
- Status
DeletedUser
The US airport security is nothing when compare to the Chilean security. If they find as much as one nut or seed in your belongings, they will question you for hours.
The overall security system is getting a bit tighter, but a lot of it comes down to the guards themselves. Some like being overcautious, some not.
The overall security system is getting a bit tighter, but a lot of it comes down to the guards themselves. Some like being overcautious, some not.
DeletedUser
one thing I haven't seen come up in this thread is are these scanners safe to use?
Will they cause skin Cancer?
Will they cause skin Cancer?
DeletedUser
ONE Scan i posted was an UNKNOWN fake the rest of mine were completely accurate and used by the TSA as an example of how the scanners work
and its already been stated by the tsa that they cannot clearly detect plastics
and no other countries have not been using these they have been usin other versions similar to teh courthouse you posted . and the reason WERE using them is because someone forced it through the system then left to go work for the company that makes them
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Wrong again, they're all fake, as is evidenced by their having no "clothing" sub-images, nor any clothing impressions on their bodies.
Really, care to provide a quote/link to this alleged statement?
Really, care to provide evidence supporting these alleged claims?
DeletedUser
considering hte other images i posted were the ones released to al media scources by the tsa to show how the backscatter imaging works yes my images are NOT fakes
furthermore the images you posted as you yourself stated the one is a courthouse scanner not nearly as powerful the other is a milimeter wave scanner NOT the new backscatter xray image try accualy doing some research before making nonsensicle replies
care to provide evidence supporting YOUR alleged claims?
furthermore the images you posted as you yourself stated the one is a courthouse scanner not nearly as powerful the other is a milimeter wave scanner NOT the new backscatter xray image try accualy doing some research before making nonsensicle replies
care to provide evidence supporting YOUR alleged claims?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
There you go again spider, dodge, duck, weave, and point the other way. You still have not provided one iota of supporting evidence and instead try to argue that I didn't provide evidence?
Well, fine, let's cut that little bit of crap out shall we? You provided 3 images, claiming they were released by TSA, to all media sources, as examples of how their imaging worked. I said they are fake, you insist they are real. So, here's the evidence:
Millimeter wave (click image to enlarge)
Backscatter Imaging (click image to enlarge)
For your first claim, I clearly demonstrated you were not honest, as TSA never provided, nor released, any of the three pictures you presented. So, let's go back to pointing to you and getting you to provide substantiation for your bogus claims:
There it is buddy. Bring it.
Well, fine, let's cut that little bit of crap out shall we? You provided 3 images, claiming they were released by TSA, to all media sources, as examples of how their imaging worked. I said they are fake, you insist they are real. So, here's the evidence:
- The first image you claim to be from TSA ---> http://assets.vbs.tv/blog_articles/images/000/000/944/original_body_scan_blog.jpg
Was actually a stock image of a nude woman, color inverted to create the illusion it was an image scan. It is evidenced by this link (which I provided earlier) ---> http://www.newser.com/story/79466/gizmodo-drudge-fooled-by-fake-tsa-porn.html
- The second image you claim to be from TSA ---> http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/Body_Scan_Pic.jpg
Was a fake image (a self-portrait) produced by a man named John Wild, self-proclaimed anarchitect (i.e., propagandist) ---> http://www.rupture.co.uk/index.html#Biography
- The third image you claim to be from TSA --> http://i.acdn.us/image/A8949/894927/470_894927.jpg
It is, in fact, not from TSA, nor was it ever provided by TSA as an example, to anyone --- let alone the media. While it is an image created using high resolution backscatter imaging technology, it is not what is created or displayed by airport scanners. Airport scanners are specifically designed with lower, diffused settings producing a chalk-like image (privacy algorithms). For evidence click to this link (btw, this link also directly debunks your claim about the image you provided) ---> http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/05/which-is-it-millimeter-wave-or.html
So, two of them are clearly fakes, the third is also essentially fake, because it is not demonstrative of what the airport scanners are capable of, and NONE of them were ever released by TSA to the media. The actual images released by TSA, and produced by the two types of airport scanners, are these (and yes, both of the below images actually DID come from TSA, unlike your fake pics ---> http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/08/imaging-technolgy-bigger-picture.html):
Millimeter wave (click image to enlarge)
Backscatter Imaging (click image to enlarge)
For your first claim, I clearly demonstrated you were not honest, as TSA never provided, nor released, any of the three pictures you presented. So, let's go back to pointing to you and getting you to provide substantiation for your bogus claims:
1. You claimed TSA stated they, "cannot clearly detect plastics."
Provide that statement, otherwise I think we can safely deduce it's simply another dishonest claim.
2. You claimed, "no other countries have not been using these they have been usin other versions similar to teh courthouse you posted."
That's simply false. The European Union authorized the use of both types of scanners before TSA authorized it.
3. You claimed, "the reason WERE using them is because someone forced it through the system then left to go work for the company that makes them."
So, who is this "someone"? If you do not provide a name, along with supporting evidence, it will be labeled as yet more conspiracy theory ramble.
There it is buddy. Bring it.
DeletedUser
get on a plane in developing nation X, Y or Z and you can pretty much get on with anything you want and fly to developed nation A, B or C. simples.
nothing like a bit of scaremongering. TERROR, TERROR, TERROR ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh they are all out their to get you!!!!!!!!! i thought this had all be forgotten since the media moved on to the economy anyway.
nothing like a bit of scaremongering. TERROR, TERROR, TERROR ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh they are all out their to get you!!!!!!!!! i thought this had all be forgotten since the media moved on to the economy anyway.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
agian hell your ducking and dodging the third image is Susan Hallowell showing what they backscatter images can do
now they CLAIM that they have reduced the resolution at airports for privacy so OBVIOUSLY we should all beleive tehm since no one can see there image to prove otherwise and since goverment agencies NEVER lie
now they CLAIM that they have reduced the resolution at airports for privacy so OBVIOUSLY we should all beleive tehm since no one can see there image to prove otherwise and since goverment agencies NEVER lie
DeletedUser
lspiderl said:
So wait, your argument is that we can't trust TSA when they say they are using privacy algorithms, nor can we trust any of the examples they provided? So, I guess your next claim is that if I were to show you video, wherein the exact scanners used at the airports are displayed and the images shown on the screen look like the images I presented, you're going to claim that video is invalid because those scanners belong to TSA? Does it help if it's not merely TSA providing such a video, but also maybe another news agency? CBS News perhaps?
Question being, what will it take for you to accept their claim that they are using privacy algorithms and that the photos I provided are the images produced by the scanners being used at the airports, or are you dead-set in holding onto your conspiracy theories?
Oh, and how about answering those questions you continue to avoid answering? Either you are going to stand by your claims, and provide evidence, or you're going to need to back off from your claims and confess to deception:
1. You claimed TSA stated they, "cannot clearly detect plastics."
Provide that statement.
3. You claimed, "the reason WERE using them is because someone forced it through the system then left to go work for the company that makes them."
Who is this "someone"?
DeletedUser
Michael Chertoff.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/19/bush_homeland_security_officia.html?wprss=44
Chertoff was asked by the Obama administration to stay in his post until 9 a.m. on January 21, 2009 (one day after President Obama's inauguration), "to ensure a smooth transition".[11]
Chertoff has been an advocate of full body scanners at airports. In 2010 he admitted that a client of his security firm, the Chertoff Group, is Rapiscan Systems, one of the two manufacturers of this technology.[21]
DeletedUser
Interesting. Good argument presented here that the scanners were pushed through by former Bush administration officials who were surreptitiously sidelining as lobbyists for manufacturers of these scanners.
So, the real argument should NOT be about whether these scanners are intrusive, or that they photograph you nude, because that's just plain crap and thus a red herring. Instead, the argument should be about whether these scanners are effective, or whether they're just going to cause airport security officials to become complacent, thus increasing the likelihood of bombs passing through and onto planes:
So, the real argument should NOT be about whether these scanners are intrusive, or that they photograph you nude, because that's just plain crap and thus a red herring. Instead, the argument should be about whether these scanners are effective, or whether they're just going to cause airport security officials to become complacent, thus increasing the likelihood of bombs passing through and onto planes:
"A leading Israeli airport security expert says the Canadian government has wasted millions of dollars to install "useless" imaging machines at airports across the country." ~ http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/...+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html
"Al Qaeda says it will share its new technique (hiding bombs in their rectum) via the Internet very soon. There is nothing that can stop that either." ~ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml
"FULL body scanners at airports are useless against the latest technique reportedly being considered by terrorists - surgically inserting explosives inside suicide bombers' bodies" ~ http://www.theage.com.au/national/b...surgically-implanted-bombs-20100131-n6jx.html
"Al Qaeda says it will share its new technique (hiding bombs in their rectum) via the Internet very soon. There is nothing that can stop that either." ~ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml
"FULL body scanners at airports are useless against the latest technique reportedly being considered by terrorists - surgically inserting explosives inside suicide bombers' bodies" ~ http://www.theage.com.au/national/b...surgically-implanted-bombs-20100131-n6jx.html
DeletedUser22575
Well, no doubt we will need more lobbyist pushing more and just as ineffective equipment to help the TSA "stay one step ahead of the terrorist with their security plans".
How do you counter both these surgically implanted bombs and bombs up rectums?
Meanwhile the terrorist will just shift techniques as their recent press release stated with attacks to target the economy as with the cargo bombs instead of targeting people as their main target.
How do you counter both these surgically implanted bombs and bombs up rectums?
Meanwhile the terrorist will just shift techniques as their recent press release stated with attacks to target the economy as with the cargo bombs instead of targeting people as their main target.
DeletedUser
IF they backscatter images wernt sooo invasive then why did countrys in europe ban using tehm on children because tehy might constitute child pornography ?
and thanks dcg i hadnt had time to look up his info
and thanks dcg i hadnt had time to look up his info
DeletedUser
Countries in Europe do a way better job at detecting stuff than american airports.
Little cute story: one of my friends received some toy handcuffs (you know, red puffy ones) and nobody noticed them in her carry on at JFK (for the ones who don't know, JFK is in New York). This was in 2005 (after 9/11) and yet, she got on the plane with handcuffs. Not "real" ones, but still ...
We stopped in Paris, where we went through security again. Well, she put the carry on through the scanner, the security guards asked her to open her carry on and empty it. And told her she cannot travel with the cuffs on the plane. So she had to throw them away.
I know for a fact that people got through with pocket knives through US airport security check-ins. The metal blade was small enough to not be detected by the metal detector. This does not happen in Europe. Those darn european detectors catch even a lighter. I had to throw many of those. But not in the US.
And I've been through one of those scanners. And I do believe Hellstromm's pics are authentic. They ask you to hold your hands above your head. I remember that specifically because I thought to myself: haha I look like a moose.
It slows down the security check a bit, but I do consider it necessary. US needed to do something to be more efficient in detecting stuff. And I am sure that if they did not use privacy algorithms, they would be in a lawsuit as we speak.
Little cute story: one of my friends received some toy handcuffs (you know, red puffy ones) and nobody noticed them in her carry on at JFK (for the ones who don't know, JFK is in New York). This was in 2005 (after 9/11) and yet, she got on the plane with handcuffs. Not "real" ones, but still ...
We stopped in Paris, where we went through security again. Well, she put the carry on through the scanner, the security guards asked her to open her carry on and empty it. And told her she cannot travel with the cuffs on the plane. So she had to throw them away.
I know for a fact that people got through with pocket knives through US airport security check-ins. The metal blade was small enough to not be detected by the metal detector. This does not happen in Europe. Those darn european detectors catch even a lighter. I had to throw many of those. But not in the US.
And I've been through one of those scanners. And I do believe Hellstromm's pics are authentic. They ask you to hold your hands above your head. I remember that specifically because I thought to myself: haha I look like a moose.
It slows down the security check a bit, but I do consider it necessary. US needed to do something to be more efficient in detecting stuff. And I am sure that if they did not use privacy algorithms, they would be in a lawsuit as we speak.
DeletedUser
They're trying to claim that this is an Obama conspiracy.
DeletedUser
Are the scanners safe? I'll post something that I found on here.
A group of UC-San Francisco professors recently raised a number of safety concerns regarding these scanners. While the Obama administration attempted to address these worries, its assertion that the scanners are safe appears to fall short.
The TSA has slowly been implementing the use of X-ray scanners in airports (so far, 38 airports have 206 of the machines) in order to see through passengers' clothes and check them for explosive devices. Officials have asserted that the machines are okay to use on the basis of the everyday use of X-rays in medical offices. However, a group of four UCSF professors pinpointed several important differences between the medical X-ray machines and those used in airports. They described the issues in a letter to Dr. John P. Holdren, the assistant to the president for science and technology.
A normal X-ray image is a familiar sight—depending on the exposure, an X-rayed person typically appears only as a skeleton. This is because the X-rays used in those machines penetrate the skin and can only scatter off of the larger atoms in bones.
Unlike a medical X-ray, the TSA X-ray machines are a sci-fi fan's dream: they are lower-energy beams that can only penetrate clothing and the topmost layers of skin. This provides TSA agents with a view that would expose any explosives concealed by clothing. But according to the UCSF professors, the low-energy rays do a "Compton scatter" off tissue layers just under the skin, rather than the bone, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation.
When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn't shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is "likely breaking bonds," which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer.
Because the X-rays only make it just under the skin's surface, the total volume of tissue responsible for absorbing the radiation is fairly small. The professors point out that many body parts that are particularly susceptible to cancer are just under the surface, such as breast tissue and testicles. They are also concerned with those over 65, as well as children, being exposed to the X-rays.
The professors pointed to a number of other issues, including the possibility that TSA agents may scan certain areas more slowly (for example, the groin, to prevent another "underwear bomber" incident like the one in December 2009), exposing that area to even more radiation. But the letter never explicitly accuses the machines of being dangerous; rather, the professors encourage Dr. Holdren to pursue testing to make sure that the casual use of these X-rays is safe.
Dr. Holdren passed the letter on to the Food and Drug Administration for review. But, in the FDA's response, the agency gave the issues little more than a data-driven brush off. They cite five studies in response to the professors' request for independent verification of the safety of these X-rays; however, three are more than a decade old, and none of them deal specifically with the low-energy X-rays the professors are concerned about. The letter also doesn't mention the FDA's own classification of X-rays as carcinogens in 2005.
The letter concludes that "the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use X-ray security system are minuscule." But the increased surface area and volume of absorption area, plus the frequency with which many people travel, suggests that this use at least bears further scrutiny. US pilots' associations have also encouraged their members to opt for the pat-down in the meantime.
Of course, these pat-downs have recently become rather invasive, so now travelers must choose between a little irradiation and being felt up by a non-doctor.
However, the TSA does have a potential solution in hand. Of the 68 airports scanning for explosives, 30 are using millimeter-wave scanners that don't use X-rays at all; they hit the surface of the body with safer radio waves. If the TSA committed to using only this type of equipment, it could avoid the safety concerns regarding the X-ray full body scanners completely.
Lets hope that you don't get cancer as an unexpected Christmas gift... unless your airport is using the radio wave scanners I guess. So what do you guys think?
EDIT: Just looked back and appearently Gizmo also posted something similar to this. Didn't get any attention though...
A group of UC-San Francisco professors recently raised a number of safety concerns regarding these scanners. While the Obama administration attempted to address these worries, its assertion that the scanners are safe appears to fall short.
The TSA has slowly been implementing the use of X-ray scanners in airports (so far, 38 airports have 206 of the machines) in order to see through passengers' clothes and check them for explosive devices. Officials have asserted that the machines are okay to use on the basis of the everyday use of X-rays in medical offices. However, a group of four UCSF professors pinpointed several important differences between the medical X-ray machines and those used in airports. They described the issues in a letter to Dr. John P. Holdren, the assistant to the president for science and technology.
A normal X-ray image is a familiar sight—depending on the exposure, an X-rayed person typically appears only as a skeleton. This is because the X-rays used in those machines penetrate the skin and can only scatter off of the larger atoms in bones.
Unlike a medical X-ray, the TSA X-ray machines are a sci-fi fan's dream: they are lower-energy beams that can only penetrate clothing and the topmost layers of skin. This provides TSA agents with a view that would expose any explosives concealed by clothing. But according to the UCSF professors, the low-energy rays do a "Compton scatter" off tissue layers just under the skin, rather than the bone, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation.
When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn't shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is "likely breaking bonds," which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer.
Because the X-rays only make it just under the skin's surface, the total volume of tissue responsible for absorbing the radiation is fairly small. The professors point out that many body parts that are particularly susceptible to cancer are just under the surface, such as breast tissue and testicles. They are also concerned with those over 65, as well as children, being exposed to the X-rays.
The professors pointed to a number of other issues, including the possibility that TSA agents may scan certain areas more slowly (for example, the groin, to prevent another "underwear bomber" incident like the one in December 2009), exposing that area to even more radiation. But the letter never explicitly accuses the machines of being dangerous; rather, the professors encourage Dr. Holdren to pursue testing to make sure that the casual use of these X-rays is safe.
Dr. Holdren passed the letter on to the Food and Drug Administration for review. But, in the FDA's response, the agency gave the issues little more than a data-driven brush off. They cite five studies in response to the professors' request for independent verification of the safety of these X-rays; however, three are more than a decade old, and none of them deal specifically with the low-energy X-rays the professors are concerned about. The letter also doesn't mention the FDA's own classification of X-rays as carcinogens in 2005.
The letter concludes that "the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use X-ray security system are minuscule." But the increased surface area and volume of absorption area, plus the frequency with which many people travel, suggests that this use at least bears further scrutiny. US pilots' associations have also encouraged their members to opt for the pat-down in the meantime.
Of course, these pat-downs have recently become rather invasive, so now travelers must choose between a little irradiation and being felt up by a non-doctor.
However, the TSA does have a potential solution in hand. Of the 68 airports scanning for explosives, 30 are using millimeter-wave scanners that don't use X-rays at all; they hit the surface of the body with safer radio waves. If the TSA committed to using only this type of equipment, it could avoid the safety concerns regarding the X-ray full body scanners completely.
Lets hope that you don't get cancer as an unexpected Christmas gift... unless your airport is using the radio wave scanners I guess. So what do you guys think?
EDIT: Just looked back and appearently Gizmo also posted something similar to this. Didn't get any attention though...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I fly less often than I have x-rays done at the doctor's office. I consider medical x-rays more dangerous than the airport scanners. At least at the airport you have a choice, but if your dentist requires a tooth x-ray and you don't accept to do it, he might refuse to diagnose/treat your decay.
I do think that unless you are a pilot or flight attendant for commercial flights, you have no reasons to worry. I am sure most people who posted in this thread can count on their fingers how many times they flew this year. And not all the airports have scanners yet. Out of the 4 times I flew this year, I only went through the scanner once. But had multiple medical x-rays done (yeah, dentist).
I do think that unless you are a pilot or flight attendant for commercial flights, you have no reasons to worry. I am sure most people who posted in this thread can count on their fingers how many times they flew this year. And not all the airports have scanners yet. Out of the 4 times I flew this year, I only went through the scanner once. But had multiple medical x-rays done (yeah, dentist).
DeletedUser
What if you have to travel a lot in a short period of time though?
Lets say you live in Iowa and all your friends and family live in New York City. Lets say that you have to go through 2 airports to get from Iowa to New York and both have scanners and you always go through them since you hate being patted down.
In September you have to travel to New York for a buisness trip. Then in Novemeber you go celebrate Thanksgiving with your family in New York. Then in December you go there for Christmas. Since you are going back and forth, you would of passed through scanners 12 times. Think that might hurt you latter on in life?
Lets say you live in Iowa and all your friends and family live in New York City. Lets say that you have to go through 2 airports to get from Iowa to New York and both have scanners and you always go through them since you hate being patted down.
In September you have to travel to New York for a buisness trip. Then in Novemeber you go celebrate Thanksgiving with your family in New York. Then in December you go there for Christmas. Since you are going back and forth, you would of passed through scanners 12 times. Think that might hurt you latter on in life?
- Status