It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
There's been lots of talk lately about body scanners — the new airport security tool that allows screeners to see through clothes. People are concerned about privacy, delayed flights, health effects.
Now there's another concern. What about kids? Do they have to go through this, too? And what are parents' rights?
A Baltimore family is raising the issue after their 12-year-old daughter was pulled out of line in Tampa and subjected to what they say was an embarrassing and unhealthy scan. The
Originally posted by airspoon
Does this not constitute child porn?
--airspoon
"Many people will approach this as, 'Oh, it must be safe, the government has thought about this and I'll just submit to it,'" says David Agard, a biochemist and biophysicist at the University of California, San Francisco. "But there really is no threshold of low dose being OK. Any dose of X-rays produces some potential risk."
Agard and several of his UCSF colleagues recently wrote a letter to John Holdren the president's science adviser, asking for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing all those airline passengers to X-rays. The other signers are John Sedat, a molecular biologist and the group's leader; Marc Shuman, a cancer specialist; and Robert Stroud, a biochemist and biophysicist.
"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," Agard says.
Child protection experts have warned that the image produced by the Rapiscan machines may break the law which prevents the creation of an indecent image or pseudo-image of a child.
The legislation, the Protection of Children Act 1978, could potentially have led to security officers facing criminal charges for doing their job by examining the images.
Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
You are seeing their privates .. It is a bit different! I agree with OP..
Have you seen one of the scans? They have to be blured on television!
GALESBURG -- An Illinois National Guard soldier in Afghanistan has been charged by the U.S. Army with possessing child pornography over pictures of a young relative his mother says she sent him.
Terri Miller of Galesburg says she sent her son, Specialist Billy Miller, pictures of the little girl to help him get over his homesickness.
The pictures show the child in a swimsuit playing a wading pool and sitting on a truck. In one, the girl is wearing a swim suit and part of her buttocks are exposed.
The Army says Miller will stay in Afghanistan until his court martial. His unit came home last August. Miller faces jail time, if convicted.
Terri Miller says the pictures are innocent.
WQAD TV reports that the child is a relative Billy treated as his own child when the girl was diagnosed with cancer as her father was going through boot camp. The family notes that the same pictures are on family computers and on Facebook pages, and no one else has been investigated.
"You have no clue how it eats me up", said a crying Terri Miller. "I blame myself every day, every day, if I wouldn't have sent the pictures he would be home."
Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
That is a completely failed comparison... A gynocologist can do a vaginal exam... If TSA wanted to, would you object?
Those scans are very revealing. It is different than a medical xray. These scans show a very detailed view of your skin.