from what i read its still a new technology, id rather opt for a strip search then be exposed to x-ray operated by some affirmative action worker. Im wondering if that is an option. (no im not a voyeur)
LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effectsHealth effects
Some people are concerned with exposure to radiation emitted by backscatter X-rays. At airports, lead vests are not used and people fear being exposed to "dangerous level of radiation if they get backscattered too often."[9] Safety regulations and standards like ANSI N43.17 (see below) that govern the use of these systems and that are recognized by the HPS, FDA and Various US Government Agencies may indicate that these concerns are not warranted.
The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (or 0.05 μSv) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.009 mrems (0.09 μSv).[9] According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure".[9]
According to a draft standard on the FDA website [15], the allowable dose from a scan would be 0.1 μSv, and that report uses a model whereby a 0.01 μSv dose results in a 5×10−10 additional risk of death by cancer. Since the dose limit is ten times higher than 0.01 μSv, their model would predict one additional cancer death per 200 million scans. Since the airports in the UK handled 218 million passengers in 2009 [16] , if all passengers were scanned in the UK, this would produce on average one additional death every year. (Presumably there would also be some people who are given cancer but survive due to treatments such as chemotherapy, which is also very unpleasant.) Whilst the anti-terrorism related killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was widely unpopular, people killed by being irradiated with low doses of x-rays may produce less public outcry because it is not possible to identify which cancer deaths are a result of x-ray scanners and which are due to other causes. It is also frequently argued that airline passengers are going to receive a larger dose of ionizing radiation due to the altitude at which aircraft fly, so that in comparison the dose due to the x-ray scanner may be small. On the other hand, imposing a small risk of cancer on someone by for example smoking near them in a public place is deemed to be illegal in many countries even though the risk due to smoking one cigarette near someone may be small and of a similar order to the airport x-ray scan. An important factor in people's perception of whether a risk is acceptable may be whether it is a risk that they choose and which brings them a personal benefit, or whether it is a risk imposed by someone else and which brings benefit only to other people as in the case of an x-ray airport scan, which might be alleged to benefit other passengers but which clearly doesn't benefit a passenger who knows that they themselves are not carrying any weapon.
Topic: Muslims: Airport scans violate faith (Read 2239 times)