Rogerian Argument: Airport Scanners
Rogerian Argument Research Paper Millions of people fly annually. Almost everyone has or will travel by plane in his lifetime whether he is traveling for the holidays, visiting family, or important business trips. This must mean that they must have been at an airport, and if they have been to an airport, that means they have shared the experience of airport scanners. After 9/11, security measures have been increased which seems to have led to racial profiling. The major frustrations for many Americans are the Airport Security Scanners. Scanners were created since 1992 when Dr. Steven Smith first created them. Their primary purpose is to detect anyone who is trying to smuggle any harmful object or substance that could be used as a weapon onto a plane. Some welcome the machines as protection and others see as the same threat the scanners try to pick up. It now bubbles down to the question “Should scanners or pat-downs be required to go through if one wants to travel by plane?”
Why we should have scanners in airports If someone asks another person what would be a reason to avoid airport scanners her answer would most likely reply with something having to do with radiation. This should not be a major concern because “Millimeter wave energy is much lower than that of X-rays, so it poses fewer health concerns” (Hamalainen). Getting a scan is practically equivalent “…to 3to9 of the radiation received through normal daily living” (Martin). “Natural background radiation exposes us to about 2.4 millisieverts of radiation annually, which is about 24,000 times the high end estimate of 0.1 microsievert of radiation from a backscatter airport scanner” (“Are…”). If someone is concerned about radiation then flying is a bullet compared to the pinch of a scan because “Flying at 30,000 feet exposes you to X-rays from the sun anyhow, so the amount of X-rays beamed at you during the scan is the same as tacking a few extra minutes onto a flight from New York to Las Angeles”
Why we should have scanners in airports If someone asks another person what would be a reason to avoid airport scanners her answer would most likely reply with something having to do with radiation. This should not be a major concern because “Millimeter wave energy is much lower than that of X-rays, so it poses fewer health concerns” (Hamalainen). Getting a scan is practically equivalent “…to 3to9 of the radiation received through normal daily living” (Martin). “Natural background radiation exposes us to about 2.4 millisieverts of radiation annually, which is about 24,000 times the high end estimate of 0.1 microsievert of radiation from a backscatter airport scanner” (“Are…”). If someone is concerned about radiation then flying is a bullet compared to the pinch of a scan because “Flying at 30,000 feet exposes you to X-rays from the sun anyhow, so the amount of X-rays beamed at you during the scan is the same as tacking a few extra minutes onto a flight from New York to Las Angeles”