afinlayson@kean.ucs.mun.ca (12/13/90)
Guy Saffold and Brian L. Kahn both report no deleterious consequences from running their machines and data disks through airport X-ray equipment. Further, Kahn suggests that greater electro-magnetic forces may be at work on the OUTSIDE of this equipment than actually in it. A recent experience of mine suggests that this may be the case. On my latest jaunt I allowed plenty of time for the hand- checking of the bag holding my laptop, disks, and associated etceteras believing (as most of us apparently do) that evil and corruption lurks in the heart of an X-ray machine. Imagine my surprise when my wp.exe file turned up zapped. Norton to the rescue and no perminant harm done but still, I wondered. Now, perhaps B.L. Kahn is correct in suggesting that our dearly beloveds are actually safer on the inside than the outside. Comments? Chris Finlayson, Dept. of Sociology Memorial University of Newfoundland
userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar) (12/24/90)
In article <170197@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, afinlayson@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes: >Guy Saffold and Brian L. Kahn both report no deleterious consequences >from running their machines and data disks through airport X-ray >equipment. Further, Kahn suggests that greater electro-magnetic >forces may be at work on the OUTSIDE of this equipment than actually ... I also have had no trouble with the xray machine. An attendant suggested that carrying it through the "personnel key finder portal" (or whatever it is really called) would be harder on disks. -------------------+------------------------------------------- Al Dunbar | Edmonton, Alberta | "this mind left intentionally blank" CANADA | - Manuel Writer -------------------+-------------------------------------------