Chertoff's airport porno scanners "10,000 times safer than your cell phone"

[midnight rambler]

And as harmless as a sonogram!

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110713/NEWS01/307130115/Police-charge-mother-Nashville-airport-altercation

[Canadian-guerilla]

if people don't like TSA procedures
now is the time to show their displeasure by supporting this mother

[po boy]

if people don't like TSA procedures
now is the time to show their displeasure by supporting this mother

If people don't like the tsa quit flying!

[mrnhtbr2232]

Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police..."No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”

Yes and elephants can paint and monkeys can do basic word identification. TSA - raising the bar since 2001.

[Spectrism]

Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police..."No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”

Yes and elephants can paint and monkeys can do basic word identification. TSA - raising the bar since 2001.

And may Sabrina's skin break out with a multitude of cancer sores from her exposure to this "harmless" scanner.

[keehah]

Fuck are the people running things ever stupid-evil.


“It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”
I won't argue the first half, perhaps cell phones are really much worse than even I expect. ;)

As for the last half:

Sonogram (sonic waves) Ultrasound
'Radiogram' (radio waves) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

It seems a repeat of the tactic used with the first generation body scanners. They modified X-ray technology to use a slightly different wavelength, then claim its safe using safety equipment that measures the low level of bleedover to the standard wavelengths they do not use, and not what the machine is focused on to emit.

[Dogman]

And as harmless as a sonogram!

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110713/NEWS01/307130115/Police-charge-mother-Nashville-airport-altercation

Yes she will feel safe , until the night the lights goes out and she and her coworkers look like this.

http://ryortho.com/images/upload_images/article_images/2009-09-18_glowing_people.jpg

[Twisted Titan]

Can she provide the study from which that claim is cited?

[midnight rambler]

Can she provide the study from which that claim is cited?

Of course not, but trust her - she's 'an authority figure'.

[Ares]

Can she provide the study from which that claim is cited?

Of course, but the government did the study but won't release the methodology for coming up with those results.

Basically the study is worthless, with no 3rd party verification possible.

[vacuum]

Can she provide the study from which that claim is cited?

Uh, she said it uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram. That tells you all you need to know right there.

[gunDriller]

given that Chertoff is a Zionist Jew who played key parts in the post 9-11 cover-up ... he has less-than-zero cred.

[mick silver]

dam i feel so much better now that it so safe . hells bells what fools we have working for us all . i may get one just so i can scan who comes on my land . dam i am glad it so safe

[Serpo]

Airport scanners harmful enough to kill an individual
1

Posted by Fatima Paracha | Posted on 30-06-2010

Category : General, Health, Travel





As the new full-body scanners are becoming popular in airports, doctors have expressed concern over the machine as they say it is harmful enough to take the life of an individual.

Many doctors have said that full-body scanners may indeed deliver a low level of energy as advertised (reportedly this is why they’re “safe” compared to X-ray machines), but they worry that all the energy becomes dangerously concentrated on and directly beneath the skin, particularly at the face and neck, delivering much more radiation to the traveler than previously thought.

This makes the machine give individuals a higher chance of skin cancer, basal-cell carcinoma, rather than lung cancer. Furthermore, in children, the impact may likely be even worse.

According to Columbia University’s David Brenner, this effect of concentrating energy on the skin means that the level of radiation delivered is actually 20 times higher than official estimates. Brenner aided in writing the original guidelines for using these scanners in 2002, and says now that he did so only with the intention and understanding that the scanners were not going to be put into heavy use nationwide.

These scanners have grown concerns ever since they were installed at airports. Lawsuits over the invasion privacy caused by such scanners are already under way, as the semi-naked images produced by the scanners invades privacy.

Another doctor has said that the type of radiation used by the scanners can rip an individual’s DNA apart.


http://maxinews.co.uk/general/airport-scanners-harmful-enough-to-kill-an-individual/

[Book]

Tested on Palestinians!