Thais27's Waterfall
In concusion, we had 3 main points. Safety, radiation, and privacy. Safety beats anything. What if someone said no to a full body scanner because they thought it invaded privacy, then walked into a plane and brought a weapon/ammunition with them. Then a whole plain filled with humna lives would explode and everyone would die. Also, the oponent might have argued that the scanners could cause cancer from the radiation, but they do not. As said in http://www.healthcentral.com/prostate/c/
the machines emit fewer than 10 micrograms of radiation (which is roughly one-thousandth of the exposure of a chest x-ray). The Food and Drug Administration says that the risk of cancer is one in 400 million, citing the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Up to 5 million micrograms of annual exposure is considered safe; 3 or 10 micrograms is still a very small amount. Our last point was privcay, as our oponents suggested pat downs and metal detectors, they are even more nvasive as they feel yoru bdoy. You are fully dressed during scanners and the images are ghsot like or catroon. Plu sonly one person is behind the screen. We hoped you have convinced you to stand on our side. Thank you.
As your main and only point is privacy, you might say that full body scanners are an invasion of privacy and that they should have pat downs instead or metal detectors but those are an even bigger invasion of privacy. In pat downs they feel every part of your body, and they do this with medal detectors too. Sarah also said they should have dog searches. 1) dogs cant detect anythign except for drugs, 2) this is a huge invasion of privacy as an animal is sniffing your body. Also Yumna said full body scanners would not catch everything and people could sneak things through, but medal detectors can only detect MEDAL. What if your carrying a bomb or dynamite or any kind of weapon that is not made of medal? Then what? The plain explodes, and you die.
Dog searches???? Your only point is privacy, but how are dog searches respecting privacy? Who wants dogs sniffing every part of their body ? Thats more of an invasion! So are pat-downs, pat downs are when you feel the passengers body, all around, to make sure she/he is not carrying anything. Full body scans are not as invasive, you stand fully dressed in a scanner. Your body is not touched in any way, or viewed with detail.
The airport and TSA are not stupid. Where do you get your info? They would never put a pervert behind the screen. What ? Are they going to be aroused by your cartoon/ ghost-like body? Plus this would not even satisfy anybody sexually because as said before, most images are cartoons, and those who aren't are ghost-like. The eprson behind the screen would obviously be a professional officer or such, and as images cannot be stored, he/she owuld only be abel to see for a couple seconds.
Scanners have found 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. http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/
As time goes on, scanners wil improve and evolve and be able to catch every little thing. Although right this second, they may not be able to catch every single thing, they can at least catch most things and give a higher chance of security.
Excuse me? Are you saying this item is not valuable? Without full body scanners, many weapons could be hid and sneaked into plans, filled with thousands of people! Then this plane filled with human beings, would crash or explode and thousands of lives would be taken away. Pretty valuable to me!
Excuse me? Are you saying this item is not valuable? Without full body scanners, many weapons could be hid and sneaked into plans, filled with thousands of people! Then this plane filled with human beings, would crash or explode and thousands of lives would be taken away. Pretty valuable to me!
As security is the main reason full body scanners should be allowed, I mean would you rather stand in a machine for 2 seconds
http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/bodyscanners/faq.aspx#anc_j
and have a safe flight, or refuse and have weapons be brought onto a plane filled with people and millions of death. Our second point would be radiation. Although you might argue that the scanner can cause cancer because of the radiation, but the machines emit fewer than 10 micrograms of radiation (which is roughly one-thousandth of the exposure of a chest x-ray). The Food and Drug Administration says that the risk of cancer is one in 400 million, citing the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
Up to 5 million micrograms of annual exposure is considered safe; 3 or 10 micrograms is still a very small amount. http://www.healthcentral.com/prostate/c/
When you buy your ticket, you're agreeing to the full body scan. Plus, this does not invade privacy, you are fully dressed the whole time, and only person sees the image, and images cannot be saved. Images are not a pornographic, they only show a ghostly outline.
http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/
"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.
"
Safety always beats privacy. Your argument was they go hand in hand, but they already do: the procedure for a full body scan is explained in this website http://
http://www.propublica.org/special/
"If you have your name on something and you agree to that and later on find out that an issue such as this is happening then it is not the persons fault." I do not agree because when you said that if they agree to give their name and then LATER find out an issue is happening, then it is still their fault, as they should have looked into it earlier, and researched what they were getting themselves into.
I think that celebrities should be responsible for the products they endorse because if they endorse the product, it makes it their responsibility. Plus, because they are good at what they do, they are role models to many. You don't want to be setting a bad example! Celebrities earn millions of dollars by endorsing brands, if someone is affected by misleading advertisements, celebrities. should be held responsible
