Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ] 

QuantumCowboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 897
Location: (1/√2)|0> + (1/√2)|1>

28 Feb 2010, 8:25 pm

The new millimeter wave scanners intended for airport security may very well be hazardous to one's health. A paper fielded earlier this year illustrates how these terahertz waves may locally disrupt the bonds in DNA 8O.

Technology Review Article
Paper in ARXIV


_________________
The ket always seems to psi over its own indeterminacy.


chaotik_lord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 597

28 Feb 2010, 8:54 pm

They also cause embarrassment and additional screening for transgendered passengers.



greengeek
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 434
Location: New York USA

08 May 2010, 7:28 pm

One hazard is that they will let terrorists through because they can't go through the body of a person. People can hide stuff in themselves. Drug smugglers have been doing that for years. I would have skipped this technology and went straight to full cavity searches, painful but effective and they would catch drug smugglers too.


_________________
Nothing is fool proof only fool resistant


StuartN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,569

09 May 2010, 3:09 pm

chaotik_lord wrote:
They also cause embarrassment and additional screening for transgendered passengers.


... and severe discomfort (a beating) for those who ridicule what they see on-screen http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/sp ... n_air.html and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/07 ... _incident/



wendigopsychosis
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 471
Location: United States

10 May 2010, 1:15 pm

I hate this stupid airport scanner stuff. All it will do is violate privacy...
The reason xray scanners don't catch everything is because we're imperfect animals! If one is searching for something that's hard to spot and rarely there (ie: xray-ed baggage, mammogram scans, etc) the brain will cease to see it. If one doesn't find something the majority of the time, our brains will just assume it's not there and not see it when it is there. Being "extra careful" doesn't help either.
Say 1 in every 3000 people bring a gun on a plane. That's a small percentage, and scanners won't catch it because of the above reason. If we're scanning people's bodies instead, and the number is still 1/3000, the same problem will happen. The only thing they're going to see is lots of dicks :(


_________________
:heart: I'm an author and public speaker on autism, gender, and sexuality :heart:
:heart: Read my articles @ http://kirstenlindsmith.wordpress.com :heart:
:heart: Follow updates @ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kirsten- ... 9135232493 :heart:


QuantumCowboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 897
Location: (1/√2)|0> + (1/√2)|1>

10 May 2010, 6:00 pm

wendigopsychosis wrote:
I hate this stupid airport scanner stuff. All it will do is violate privacy...
The reason xray scanners don't catch everything is because we're imperfect animals! If one is searching for something that's hard to spot and rarely there (ie: xray-ed baggage, mammogram scans, etc) the brain will cease to see it. If one doesn't find something the majority of the time, our brains will just assume it's not there and not see it when it is there. Being "extra careful" doesn't help either.
Say 1 in every 3000 people bring a gun on a plane. That's a small percentage, and scanners won't catch it because of the above reason. If we're scanning people's bodies instead, and the number is still 1/3000, the same problem will happen. The only thing they're going to see is lots of dicks :(


Rather appropriate avatar for this thread. :hail:


_________________
The ket always seems to psi over its own indeterminacy.