8th grade Amendment debates

In conclusion, the safety of the public is more important than privacy. Even though the TSA has changed the technology to less invasive animated, non graphic images, some people might have thought that it's still invasion. We hope you are convinced.

The scanners have very little radiation. This is also called a milimeter wave. the American College of Radiology (ACR) said a traveler would require more than 1,000 such scans in a year to reach the effective dose equal to one standard chest X-ray

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/23614

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration put the risk of a fatal cancer from the machines at one in 400 million. The U.K. Health Protection Agency has put it at one in 166 million. Some experts say such estimates of population risk create a distorted picture of the danger because humans are constantly exposed to background radiation and already accept risks that increase exposure, such as flying on a plane at cruising altitude. In the authoritative study on the health risks of low levels of radiation, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the risk of cancer increases with radiation exposure and that there is no level of radiation at which the risk is zero.

http://www.propublica.org/article/coffee-tea-or-cancer-americans-oppose-x- ray-body-scanners

The dogs sniffing and searching will look and feel awkward. The dogs and metal detectors cannot find dynamite or boobs which are concealed. Furthermore, the dogs or metal detectors can't detect drugs. Tis is more invasive than the scanners.

What if people don't want dogs to sniff and search them? What if the dog goes and bites someone?

(2013) TSA says that the scanners have revealed more than 60 "artfully concealed" illegal or prohibited items in the past year. No explosives have been detected by the machines to this day, but their ability to spot even small concealed objects demonstrates their effectiveness as a security tool, officials said. "It is absolutely a tremendous improvement of what we can detect at the checkpoints," TSA Acting Administrator Gale Rossides said this week. "It is an excellent piece of technology that will significantly improve our detection capabilities." But to illustrate the machines' effectiveness, Rossides showed a packet of white powder smaller than a tea bag, saying it was identical to a concealed bag detected by an imager. She also said that the body imagers are especially useful because they can expose contraband on parts of the body that aren't fully explored in pat-downs, such as private parts.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/travel/tsa-body-scanners/index.html#

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/01/airport.body.scanners/

https://drive.google.com/a/gemsdaa.net/file/d/0B4hrrItwXm4bTWtpaGxjUDhteEE/view

As we've already said, the machines are not invasive. The scanner is not graphic. In fact, it’s generic with almost no detail. When metal or illegal products are detected, the area turns yellow on the screen to indicate where it’s located. The body scanner images are not archived or stored if this happens. If the person has nothing illegal or dangerous on them, the screen gives the ‘OK’ without any images. Before the TSA modified the machines, they used to have detailed images of the passengers body. It’s true that people disagreed with this saying that it was a violation of the fourth amendment. After this, the TSA made the picture look the same whether you’re a girl or boy, young or old, short or tall, it all came out the same.

http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks

The scanner prevents huge tragedies like 9/11 where planes were hijacked and many lives were lost. This was done by terrorists from the Saudi terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda. They crashed the planes on purpose. The reason they got through easily in the first place was because of loose security.

You may argue that radiation from the machines can cause health risks and problems, but I say that radiation is so minimal that it won’t have any affect. Radiation experts and medical physicists say that the scanners used in airports produce such low levels of radiation that they have no potential real health risks. Kelly Classic, a health physicist, said "The amount of radiation is almost insignificant … There are so many common things we're exposed to that produce radiation. This [an airport scan] is a pretty minor piece of that." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted the assessment that the radiation from one scan is equivalent to the radiation a person is exposed to from two minutes of flying at cruising altitude. A passenger would need more than 1,000 scans in a year to reach the dose equal to one normal chest X-ray. The Department’s August report said the doses of the radiation given to a person in the scanner are below those laid out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Even if a person had 46 scans a day for every single day for a year, it would still be only 1/4 of the total amount of radiation that the ANSI recommends not be exceeded in a given year.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/23614