In conclusion, safety always wins over privacy, and the radiation is extremely little in the full body scanner. The full body scanner is completely effective and should be kept in airports to keep everyone safe. You did say privacy was important, but safety always comes first. We hope you have been convinced that the body scanners should stay in airports.

I completely disagree with you, safety DOES win over privacy. Safety will always come first, no matter what! The pictures (which are animated and do not show and specific body parts) do not save in a server they delete forever. According to a 2010 CBS poll, four out of five Americans support the use of Advanced Imaging Technology at airports nationwide.

The health risks from the radiation the imaging equipment uses are generally very low, and usually outweighed by the benefits of getting the right diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

Body scanners are at use in many airports across the UK and abroad. There are two types of scanner in use in the UK. One type uses millimetre radio waves that can “see” through clothing. The other type uses a very low dose of ionising radiation. Neither type has been shown to pose a risk to people’s health.

The first type of scanner uses radio waves, which are a form of non-ionising radiation that does not cause health effects at the low doses given off by airport scanners.

The second type uses ionising radiation, which in high doses can be harmful. But the levels used in airport scanners are about 100,000 times lower than what an average UK person would be exposed to each year. This dose is so low that it makes no noticeable difference to a person’s risk of cancer.

I completely agree with you, because as well as this, scanners was to speed passengers through checkpoints at busy airports. The scanner takes 2 seconds and it doesn’t show your body with details, because it is animated. It is a better option. And infants and young children under 140cms will not be selected to undergo a body scan.

Who would want a dog sniffing them? The only thing the dogs would find is drugs and not weapons!!! Also, when you go through a metal detector, they will only find things that are metal! So you can pass through with drugs, bombs, sharp things that are not metal etc. The dog would be very invasive!! The scanner is less invasive as no one is actually touching you.

I completely agree with this. It is true that as you buy the ticket, you are agreeing to the body scan. It is true that once the person sees the image, it deletes and does NOT save on a server.

That was many years ago! In around 2010 they changed the picture to an average picture of a person without showing the human genitals.

http://www.propublica.org/special/scanning-the-scanners-a-side-by-side-comparison

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/29/travel/tsa-backscatter/

The TSA had developed protocols to assure that screeners who saw imagery of passengers never saw the passengers themselves.

Protecting life with scanners is more important than privacy. Outlines can be obscured to protect privacy. They can remove your face from the picture. Minors can be exempted from the full body scanners, but then would a pat-down. Fully-body scanners reveal metallic and nonmetallic items. Full-body scanners are less intrusive than pat-downs. Full-body scans pose no more risk than x-ray machines.

So are you saying that we should have liberty and then be unsure of your safety? That we should not have these scanners and have a very high chance of getting injured or even killed?

http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/ advanced-imaging-technology

Since 2009, officers operating advanced imaging technology (AKA “body scanners”) have found all sorts of things on passengers. Some of these items have been smaller items such as a three inch pocket knife hidden on someone’s back, little packets of powder, a syringe full of liquid hidden in someone’s underwear, and other small items either intentionally hidden or forgotten. These finds demonstrate that imaging technology is very effective at detecting anomalies and can help TSA detect evolving threats to keep our skies safe. This shows the scanners are very effective!!!

While this may be, the price of the human life is incalculable! Safety will always come first!

According to this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7wRr9DKZbs

74% of Americans are in favor of the scanner. As well as this, the radiation is equivalent to ⅓ of the power in a tooth x-ray. That is extremely little especially for people who travel rarely.

Body scanners can find drugs as small as a teabag

Body scanners can prevent planes from being hijacked like 9/11

https://prezi.com/gch-ysjkn06k/airport-scanners-and-the-fourth-amendment/

Privacy may be invaded but it is less intrusive than a pat-down, and is very effective. 74% of American are in favor for the scanner.

This is incorrect, the images on the screen would be an animated picture. They would not see a naked body, as well as this, women look at women and men would look at men. All modern body scanners also cover the face of the person.

Hello, today we are going to speak to you about the right of having the TSA permitted to using ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items.

The opponents might say “What about privacy?” “Can’t too much radiation cause cancer?” Privacy? Really?

We can counterclaim this by saying safety is a lot more important than privacy. Would you rather be stubborn and say no, go onto a plane and explode, or stand in a scanner for less than 5 seconds to be sure that no weapons or bombs of any kind is able to enter a plane full of people.

Now for radiation, pilots have gone through the scanners so many more times than any normal passenger, and none of them have cancer because the radiation power is so low. After our argument, we hope that you see that the side we stand for is the only side and it is the correct one.

I strongly agree with your point. Celebrities are role models and are held responsible for what they go into or what they do.

This may be, but it is their responsibility to look into the product ahead of time and find out what they are going in for.

I believe that celebrities should be held responsible. This is because it is their responsibility to actually look into the product to see what it is and how it is made. As well as this, they are role models to the public and if they make endorse a product and it has something bad in it, then they would set a bad example for many people.