If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Post)   John Hopkins University: "Backscatter machines will cause skin cancer"   (nationalpost.com) divider line 96
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

11198 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Nov 2010 at 8:54 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-12 04:55:52 PM  
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's Johns Hopkins University.
 
2010-11-12 04:56:39 PM  
..which is another reason why I won't use them. I've had cancer once before. It's not fun.
 
2010-11-12 05:19:41 PM  
Subby:
www.transformer-ivan.net
 
2010-11-12 05:35:11 PM  
what_now: ..which is another reason why I won't use them. I've had cancer once before. It's not fun.

Is there an option to not use them (other than not flying)..?

/Traveling on Wdnesday, not keen to get yet more xrays
 
2010-11-12 05:36:21 PM  
amaranthe: what_now: ..which is another reason why I won't use them. I've had cancer once before. It's not fun.

Is there an option to not use them (other than not flying)..?

/Traveling on Wdnesday, not keen to get yet more xrays



Opt for the "enhanced" pat down, which means they get to legally sexually molest you.
 
2010-11-12 07:01:38 PM  
cannotsuggestaname: amaranthe: what_now: ..which is another reason why I won't use them. I've had cancer once before. It's not fun.

Is there an option to not use them (other than not flying)..?

/Traveling on Wdnesday, not keen to get yet more xrays


Opt for the "enhanced" pat down, which means they get to legally sexually molest you.


Oh, yeah, that sounds good. :-/ I guess molested is better than yet more xray exposure... Sort of.
 
2010-11-12 07:36:40 PM  
Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?
 
2010-11-12 08:14:47 PM  
Talking on your cellphone while going through the machine will cure your cancer.

But only if you live under high tension power lines.
 
2010-11-12 08:31:41 PM  
SoothinglyDeranged: Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?

Can cancer cause cancer? Because if not, I think we've found our preventative measure. The treatment has a few risks to it, though.
 
2010-11-12 08:59:45 PM  
This sh*t needs to stop.

Currently you have two options at the airport:

1. Let yourself and your children have naked pictures taken of you (OH HELLS NO!)
or
2. Let yourself and your children be molested by TSA agents (OH REALLY HELLS NO!)

And to those who say "You only need those things done if you set off the metal detectors". Wrong. There are numerous reports of TSA agents directing everyone to these backscatter machines. if you refuse them or the aggressive pat-down you are not allowed to fly and may be chained to a chair.
 
2010-11-12 08:59:52 PM  
Big Man On Campus: Subby:

Not really applicable.

X-Rays can and do cause cancer. If you get a lot of x-rays, or CAT scans, you're at significantly higher risk of developing cancer where you were exposed.
 
2010-11-12 09:00:07 PM  
SoothinglyDeranged: Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?

I'm pretty sure that having them not scan me would be less carcinogenic. And the odds of being blown up are about the same.
 
2010-11-12 09:01:11 PM  
SoothinglyDeranged: Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?

Uh, I'd say radiation is top on the list as cancer-causingly dangerous. This isn't like "Gluten raises cancer risk by %0.001", this is like "Bombarding your body with radiation will cause cancer eventually, period."
 
2010-11-12 09:05:18 PM  
Walker: This sh*t needs to stop.

Currently you have two options at the airport:

1. Let yourself and your children have naked pictures taken of you (OH HELLS NO!)
or
2. Let yourself and your children be molested by TSA agents (OH REALLY HELLS NO!)

And to those who say "You only need those things done if you set off the metal detectors". Wrong. There are numerous reports of TSA agents directing everyone to these backscatter machines. if you refuse them or the aggressive pat-down you are not allowed to fly and may be chained to a chair.


This sh*t will never stop. This is America.

Either submit like a good little sheep, or don't fly. You have no other options.

I guarantee that the absolute certainty of these machines causing cancer will have no effect on their use. They will not be removed from service or restricted in their use. Every passenger will be required to use them, and no law suits will be allowed over any cases of cancer caused by forced exposure.

This is the country we live in. There is no turning back.
 
2010-11-12 09:07:44 PM  
LavenderWolf: Big Man On Campus: Subby:

Not really applicable.

X-Rays can and do cause cancer. If you get a lot of x-rays, or CAT scans, you're at significantly higher risk of developing cancer where you were exposed.


Sigh, this.

Well, maybe not *significantly* higher, but if you're getting to a exposure level of statistical significance then of course it will.

Between this, overuse of CAT scans (from both lawsuit scared doctors/hospitals as well as demanding patients), 360 dental imaging becoming more popular... well... I wonder if anyone's doing a study of how much the average persons yearly dose has been jumping up over the past decade or so.

Of course, I don't have any of my nifty easily accessible exposure graphs on this laptop yet to actually work out a rough estimation of the increased risk. And my handbook is buried somewhere too. Bah.

/yeah I'm a geek what of it
 
2010-11-12 09:08:41 PM  
cannotsuggestaname:
Opt for the "enhanced" pat down, which means they get to legally sexually molest you.


If you choose the enhanced pat down, can you choose a male or a female? I'm not trying to be funny - I'm genuinely curious about the procedure since I may be going through it next month.
 
2010-11-12 09:08:52 PM  
As a graduate of said university, I would just like to say that subby is a moran.
 
2010-11-12 09:09:49 PM  
Am I the only one who would rather have their freedom, dignity, and time back in exchange for a slightly higher increase of death by some terrorist?
 
2010-11-12 09:14:36 PM  
From the TSA booth at the airport:
img.photobucket.com

Seems real. You can see the Windows XP taskbar at the bottom and the icons on the desktop.

For a closer look here is the original:
img.photobucket.com

F*cking sick. Is this joke an example of the "professionalism" of the TSA workers and why we should let them see us naked and sexually molest our children??

Oh, I'm sure you heard about the professional TSA agent in charge of groping people at the airport who was arrested for multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl including child rape. Yeah, real professional. All the pedophiles know where to go now if they want to see naked kids and grope their genitals. F*cking sick sh*t going on at the airports these days. And we take it like the sheep we are. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
2010-11-12 09:14:37 PM  
"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City."

Link

Can we please stay focused on the privacy and state of fear aspect, rather than the cancer angle? I mean, I guess if it gets these damn machines taken away I'm all for it... but still.

/A lot of CT scans are completely unnecessary
 
2010-11-12 09:14:55 PM  
Step One: OPT OUT
Step Two: As the TSA Rapist is feeling you up, start whistling "Let's Get It On" by Marvin Gaye
Step Three: ask, "What sign are you"
Step Four: start moaning, inflect with "baby, I like the way you work it"

yeah....
 
2010-11-12 09:15:33 PM  
The terrists have won.

/is there really any doubt at this point ?
 
2010-11-12 09:16:21 PM  
LavenderWolf: SoothinglyDeranged: Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?

Uh, I'd say radiation is top on the list as cancer-causingly dangerous. This isn't like "Gluten raises cancer risk by %0.001", this is like "Bombarding your body with radiation will cause cancer eventually, period."


Exposure to lots of things causes cancer. All depends on the amount of the exposure, how you're exposed to it, etc. Chemical spills and airborne particles worry me more than radiation as far as causing cancer goes because nuclear power plants on a Great Lake get far more scrutiny and attention than whatever chemical crap is floating in the river. Downriver of Detroit, apparently, has significantly higher cancer rates than upriver (I say apparently because I've seen a chart but not the source it came from, but it doesn't matter if it's true for this story anyway). I had several friends from the area, and they were all convinced the cooling tower of the nuclear plant in the area was releasing radiation (if by radiation you mean condensed water).

There's plenty of misplaced blame there, but the upside to that is should anything really go wrong, it will be noticed. Quickly. However, not many people think of, oh, say, US Steel's operation upriver being the source of anything. Someone in the family gets cancer around there, the knee-jerk reaction is to blame it on the nuclear plant. You can't trace cancer in one person from the environment (as opposed to hereditary) to anything specifically, but you can do that for populations to some degree. But it doesn't matter.

/tipsy
//sorry
 
2010-11-12 09:20:58 PM  
Walker: pic

Whew, be glad they didn't catch you snapping that photo. It would be a good way to wind up a Fark headline.
 
2010-11-12 09:21:38 PM  
Backscatter are X-ray? Really? Nah.

Really?

Yeah, I guess they are.

Since they don't need to penetrate the skin, why such high-energy radiation? Why not near-visible UV, for example? Or is this not close to the frequencies used for X-rays?

/yes, I understand it's not much radiation.
//it's the type that kills
///I get more radiation from a light bulb, but it ain't a frequency that'll burn through skin and catch on bone.
////yay slashies!
 
2010-11-12 09:22:59 PM  
Kuroshin: Walker: This sh*t needs to stop.

Currently you have two options at the airport:

1. Let yourself and your children have naked pictures taken of you (OH HELLS NO!)
or
2. Let yourself and your children be molested by TSA agents (OH REALLY HELLS NO!)

And to those who say "You only need those things done if you set off the metal detectors". Wrong. There are numerous reports of TSA agents directing everyone to these backscatter machines. if you refuse them or the aggressive pat-down you are not allowed to fly and may be chained to a chair.

This sh*t will never stop. This is America.

Either submit like a good little sheep, or don't fly. You have no other options.

I guarantee that the absolute certainty of these machines causing cancer will have no effect on their use. They will not be removed from service or restricted in their use. Every passenger will be required to use them, and no law suits will be allowed over any cases of cancer caused by forced exposure.

This is the country we live in. There is no turning back.


And people still think this is a free country. LOL
 
2010-11-12 09:27:36 PM  
LavenderWolf: Uh, I'd say radiation is top on the list as cancer-causingly dangerous. This isn't like "Gluten raises cancer risk by %0.001", this is like "Bombarding your body with radiation will cause cancer eventually, period."

knowyourmeme.com
You do know they use radiation to cure cancer these days, right?

The National Cancer Center disagrees too:

"The risk of cancer from low-dose x-rays is extremely small. The risk from radiation therapy is slightly higher. For both, the benefit nearly always outweighs the small risk."

People should be much more afraid of second hand smoke than radiation.

/massive overexposure to radiation is still a bad thing
//as an x-ray tech I'm getting a kick out of this thread, etc.
 
2010-11-12 09:31:32 PM  
That is some weapons grade FUD right there
 
2010-11-12 09:31:51 PM  
Nick Nostril: The terrists have won.

/is there really any doubt at this point ?


I remember when you could smoke cigarettes on the plane. When I was a kid, the pilot used to take the kids into the cockpit and we sat in the seats (just like in the movie Airplane!)

When I was in college, a friend of mine used to smuggle pot and coke and meth and pills all the time, no problems.

Back in the 80s and 90s, they were more concerned about fruit and vegetables on planes coming from California or Florida than they were about drugs.

It was the salad days...
 
2010-11-12 09:33:20 PM  
Gleeman: LavenderWolf: Uh, I'd say radiation is top on the list as cancer-causingly dangerous. This isn't like "Gluten raises cancer risk by %0.001", this is like "Bombarding your body with radiation will cause cancer eventually, period."


You do know they use radiation to cure cancer these days, right?


The National Cancer Center disagrees too:

"The risk of cancer from low-dose x-rays is extremely small. The risk from radiation therapy is slightly higher. For both, the benefit nearly always outweighs the small risk."

People should be much more afraid of second hand smoke than radiation.

/massive overexposure to radiation is still a bad thing
//as an x-ray tech I'm getting a kick out of this thread, etc.


And how does that work, exactly. Oh. By targeting and killing the cancerous cells.

I'm sure it's a low dose, but as a rule of thumb, I like to avoid any unnecessary exposure. Yes, I know background radiation exists and I'm not going to turn down a CAT scan if it's actually needed. I'm still going to get X-Rays at the dentist, and if I need dental surgery then I will get the 360 scan. But I'm also not going to subject myself to anything I consider unnecessary and/or unwarrented, either.
 
2010-11-12 09:34:46 PM  
vernonFL: Nick Nostril: The terrists have won.

/is there really any doubt at this point ?

I remember when you could smoke cigarettes on the plane. When I was a kid, the pilot used to take the kids into the cockpit and we sat in the seats (just like in the movie Airplane!)

When I was in college, a friend of mine used to smuggle pot and coke and meth and pills all the time, no problems.

Back in the 80s and 90s, they were more concerned about fruit and vegetables on planes coming from California or Florida than they were about drugs.

It was the salad days...




You deserve this.
 
2010-11-12 09:35:29 PM  
Gleeman: The risk of cancer from low-dose x-rays is extremely small. The risk from radiation therapy is slightly higher. For both, the benefit nearly always outweighs the small risk."

Please consider a job at Walmart, because you're an idiot.

Here is where your quote comes from:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/cancer/page4

The NCC is discussing the risks of radiation in the context of medical diagnostics and medical therapy, not in the context of non-medical just adding more radiation to you just to see if you're carrying weapons.

And yes, if you have been diagnosed with cancer, the risks of the radiation therapy is minor compared to the benefits of the radiation therapy in treating your cancer that you have been diagnosed with.

Okay, you are now free to burn your victims. Enjoy your career.
 
2010-11-12 09:37:48 PM  
Goddammitsomuch.

You receive a higher dose of radiation by flying than by being scanned. These backscatter machines are completely idiotic but an infinitesimally heightened chance of cancer is by far the weakest argument against them.
 
2010-11-12 09:37:52 PM  
www.dmacdigest.com
FWIW

Avoiding unnecessary exposure is a good thing. I just don't like the "OMG get an x-ray and you'll get cancer" FUD.

But I still wouldn't use a back-scatter check, for various reasons including the radiation. Though I haven't flown since before 9/11, and won't until the restrictions are brought down to rational levels.
 
2010-11-12 09:38:16 PM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: I'm sure it's a low dose, but as a rule of thumb, I like to avoid any unnecessary exposure. Yes, I know background radiation exists and I'm not going to turn down a CAT scan if it's actually needed. I'm still going to get X-Rays at the dentist, and if I need dental surgery then I will get the 360 scan. But I'm also not going to subject myself to anything I consider unnecessary and/or unwarrented, either.

Amen. I'm high risk for melanoma which my father died of. I'll opt for the ball touching when presented with a choice.
 
2010-11-12 09:40:02 PM  
The Angry Hand of God: Am I the only one who would rather have their freedom, dignity, and time back in exchange for a slightly higher increase of death by some terrorist?

Nope. I would gladly take the increased risk. If there even is an increased risk. The whole TSA security theater is just one big tiger repelling rock.
 
2010-11-12 09:40:07 PM  
Walker: From the TSA booth at the airport:


Seems real. You can see the Windows XP taskbar at the bottom and the icons on the desktop.

For a closer look here is the original:


F*cking sick. Is this joke an example of the "professionalism" of the TSA workers and why we should let them see us naked and sexually molest our children??

Oh, I'm sure you heard about the professional TSA agent in charge of groping people at the airport who was arrested for multiple child sex crimes targeting an underage girl including child rape. Yeah, real professional. All the pedophiles know where to go now if they want to see naked kids and grope their genitals. F*cking sick sh*t going on at the airports these days. And we take it like the sheep we are. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Shrug. I haven't flown in years. Don't plan on flying again until they get their shiat together.
 
2010-11-12 09:41:14 PM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: LavenderWolf: SoothinglyDeranged: Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?

Uh, I'd say radiation is top on the list as cancer-causingly dangerous. This isn't like "Gluten raises cancer risk by %0.001", this is like "Bombarding your body with radiation will cause cancer eventually, period."

Exposure to lots of things causes cancer. All depends on the amount of the exposure, how you're exposed to it, etc. Chemical spills and airborne particles worry me more than radiation as far as causing cancer goes because nuclear power plants on a Great Lake get far more scrutiny and attention than whatever chemical crap is floating in the river. Downriver of Detroit, apparently, has significantly higher cancer rates than upriver (I say apparently because I've seen a chart but not the source it came from, but it doesn't matter if it's true for this story anyway). I had several friends from the area, and they were all convinced the cooling tower of the nuclear plant in the area was releasing radiation (if by radiation you mean condensed water).

There's plenty of misplaced blame there, but the upside to that is should anything really go wrong, it will be noticed. Quickly. However, not many people think of, oh, say, US Steel's operation upriver being the source of anything. Someone in the family gets cancer around there, the knee-jerk reaction is to blame it on the nuclear plant. You can't trace cancer in one person from the environment (as opposed to hereditary) to anything specifically, but you can do that for populations to some degree. But it doesn't matter.

/tipsy
//sorry


FYI, I was talking about X-Ray radiation from medical and security scanners, rather than the old boogeyman nuclear power plant radiation.

/Nuclear power plants are safer than most other types of power generation.
 
2010-11-12 09:43:38 PM  
TofuTheAlmighty: Goddammitsomuch.

You receive a higher dose of radiation by flying than by being scanned. These backscatter machines are completely idiotic but an infinitesimally heightened chance of cancer is by far the weakest argument against them.


You're probably right, but exactly how do the hours of increased cosmic ray exposure at high altitude compare to the seconds of x-ray exposure in the airport?
 
2010-11-12 09:44:00 PM  
Last year while flying into Boise, the plane I was in decided to take a 500 ft. or so drop for no particular reason somewhere over Illinois. During the drop, the pilot came over the loudspeaker and the only words he said were, "Well folks...".

Talk about backscatter.
 
2010-11-12 09:44:44 PM  
Fark it. I'm gonna start smoking again.

/what's the farking point?
 
2010-11-12 09:45:53 PM  
RoyBatty: Gleeman: The risk of cancer from low-dose x-rays is extremely small. The risk from radiation therapy is slightly higher. For both, the benefit nearly always outweighs the small risk."

Please consider a job at Walmart, because you're an idiot.

Here is where your quote comes from:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/cancer/page4

The NCC is discussing the risks of radiation in the context of medical diagnostics and medical therapy, not in the context of non-medical just adding more radiation to you just to see if you're carrying weapons.

And yes, if you have been diagnosed with cancer, the risks of the radiation therapy is minor compared to the benefits of the radiation therapy in treating your cancer that you have been diagnosed with.

Okay, you are now free to burn your victims. Enjoy your career.


"X-Rays can and do cause cancer. If you get a lot of x-rays, or CAT scans, you're at significantly higher risk of developing cancer where you were exposed."

This was posted by the original person I was replying to, I was debunking the "significantly higher risk" part in reference to medical x-rays, which is the target of the above NCC quote, which makes it 100% relevant. At no point was I endorsing over exposure of patients, which is completely unethical not to mention illegal. Not to mention that I receive many times the radiation my patients do over the course of a given day. (OK, rad therapy patients have me beat)

But go ahead and continue to enjoy your K-Mart career!
 
2010-11-12 09:46:31 PM  
Gleeman: LavenderWolf: Uh, I'd say radiation is top on the list as cancer-causingly dangerous. This isn't like "Gluten raises cancer risk by %0.001", this is like "Bombarding your body with radiation will cause cancer eventually, period."


You do know they use radiation to cure cancer these days, right?

The National Cancer Center disagrees too:

"The risk of cancer from low-dose x-rays is extremely small. The risk from radiation therapy is slightly higher. For both, the benefit nearly always outweighs the small risk."

People should be much more afraid of second hand smoke than radiation.

/massive overexposure to radiation is still a bad thing
//as an x-ray tech I'm getting a kick out of this thread, etc.


Radiation is NOT used to cure cancer. Radiation therapy does not work that way. There is still no cure for cancer, it's a direct physical assault on the cancer cells and healthy cells alike. The cancer cells are just a little more susceptible.

The more you get dosed, the more the risk elevates. For people who fly frequently, or people who get frequent CAT scans, the danger is quite real.

Think asbestos in terms of exposure and risk. It just takes one particle knocking one thing out of place to cause cancer, but it's generally unlikely. But just as sitting in an asbestos building for years increases your risk immensely, as does frequent x-ray bombardment.
 
2010-11-12 09:47:03 PM  
amaranthe: Is there an option to not use them (other than not flying)..?

You actually "catch" significantly more radiation on a flight than you would in the same period on the ground (*****the more you know). Anywho, it seems as though we've reverted to the 30s-50s where people were using fluoroscopy to fit their freaking shoes and just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

/Being exposed to any more radiation than you have to is NEVER ok.
 
2010-11-12 09:47:28 PM  
Gleeman: FWIW

Avoiding unnecessary exposure is a good thing. I just don't like the "OMG get an x-ray and you'll get cancer" FUD.

But I still wouldn't use a back-scatter check, for various reasons including the radiation. Though I haven't flown since before 9/11, and won't until the restrictions are brought down to rational levels.


Eh. I agree with your point, but I disagree with your chart. You can't lump all factors together and then state, "See? Radiation is no problem!" Radiation is pretty uncommon in your daily life, but you can easily get cancer from it if your exposure is high enough.

Backscatter machines are throwing ionizing radiation at you. This isn't a good thing, and I'd be worried if I were a frequent air traveller...Though I'd be more worried about the upper atmosphere radiation you ALSO get.

Cancer is like the lottery: sometimes you get (un)lucky. And like the lottery, the less you play, the less (un)lucky you are likely to be. Doesn't mean you're not going to go through a million of these things and have no problems...But the possibility of problems exists, and there is no rational reason to put these things up in the first place.
 
2010-11-12 09:48:24 PM  
SoothinglyDeranged: Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?

userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2010-11-12 09:48:43 PM  
Walker: This sh*t needs to stop.

Currently you have two options at the airport:

1. Let yourself and your children have naked pictures taken of you (OH HELLS NO!)
or
2. Let yourself and your children be molested by TSA agents (OH REALLY HELLS NO!)

And to those who say "You only need those things done if you set off the metal detectors". Wrong. There are numerous reports of TSA agents directing everyone to these backscatter machines. if you refuse them or the aggressive pat-down you are not allowed to fly and may be chained to a chair.


I went through DFW a while back and the only person on our flight that was randomly selected for a naked picture scan was my wife. She's a good looking gal with tig ole bitties. I explained to her what they wanted to do and she got hysterical. The TSA agent told my wife if she didn't scan she couldn't fly home on the last leg of our home trip. There was no option for pat down. We don't fly anymore and I'm pretty sure it has all but bankrupted the airline industry. All of that is true except for the part about bankrupting the airline industry.
 
2010-11-12 09:49:42 PM  
LavenderWolf: StreetlightInTheGhetto: LavenderWolf: SoothinglyDeranged: Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?

Uh, I'd say radiation is top on the list as cancer-causingly dangerous. This isn't like "Gluten raises cancer risk by %0.001", this is like "Bombarding your body with radiation will cause cancer eventually, period."

Exposure to lots of things causes cancer. All depends on the amount of the exposure, how you're exposed to it, etc. Chemical spills and airborne particles worry me more than radiation as far as causing cancer goes because nuclear power plants on a Great Lake get far more scrutiny and attention than whatever chemical crap is floating in the river. Downriver of Detroit, apparently, has significantly higher cancer rates than upriver (I say apparently because I've seen a chart but not the source it came from, but it doesn't matter if it's true for this story anyway). I had several friends from the area, and they were all convinced the cooling tower of the nuclear plant in the area was releasing radiation (if by radiation you mean condensed water).

There's plenty of misplaced blame there, but the upside to that is should anything really go wrong, it will be noticed. Quickly. However, not many people think of, oh, say, US Steel's operation upriver being the source of anything. Someone in the family gets cancer around there, the knee-jerk reaction is to blame it on the nuclear plant. You can't trace cancer in one person from the environment (as opposed to hereditary) to anything specifically, but you can do that for populations to some degree. But it doesn't matter.

/tipsy
//sorry

FYI, I was talking about X-Ray radiation from medical and security scanners, rather than the old boogeyman nuclear power plant radiation.

/Nuclear power plants are safer than most other types of power generation.


I figured you were after I hit add comment, actually, sorry. I just spent a lot of time with environmental non-profit folks over the last week. Used to be one, agree with most, but inevitably (when I'm drunk) someone will try to debate me on nuclear. It's a knee-jerk reaction at this point.

I actually won some money from a paper about health risks of radiation exposure and treatment of kids. Sure, it's awesome that we can cure childhood leukemia far better than we ever could before and that we have awesome imaging tools, but they don't come without a cost.
 
2010-11-12 09:53:54 PM  
Kuroshin: Walker: This sh*t needs to stop.

Currently you have two options at the airport:

1. Let yourself and your children have naked pictures taken of you (OH HELLS NO!)
or
2. Let yourself and your children be molested by TSA agents (OH REALLY HELLS NO!)

And to those who say "You only need those things done if you set off the metal detectors". Wrong. There are numerous reports of TSA agents directing everyone to these backscatter machines. if you refuse them or the aggressive pat-down you are not allowed to fly and may be chained to a chair.


This sh*t will never stop. This is America.

Either submit like a good little sheep, or don't fly. You have no other options.

I guarantee that the absolute certainty of these machines causing cancer will have no effect on their use. They will not be removed from service or restricted in their use. Every passenger will be required to use them, and no law suits will be allowed over any cases of cancer caused by forced exposure.

This is the country we live in. There is no turning back.




REVOLUTION!!!
 
2010-11-12 09:57:19 PM  
Ra-di-a-tion.

Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report