Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

11199 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 09:59:45 PM  
I'm through flying. I didn't fly that often anyway, but I'm definitely not flying now, not when being given the choice of being sexually assaulted or being bombarded with radiation. The choice is simple - take a train, take a bus, or drive. When I get my pilot's license and a Cessna/Piper, then I'll fly myself places, but I won't be parking my plane at a large airport. It will be at a small airfield with no TSA assholes there to molest me and my family.
 
2010-11-12 09:59:47 PM  
Gleeman: 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!


Yeah, seriously, you're an idiot. The link goes to a post that you might claim to be refuting, but the actual text you chose for that link is from a different post that is entirely about the point I made, which is that you're mixing medical rationalization for xrays with tsa rationalizations.

Good luck to your victims, you can't do links right, I sure hope your xray machines are operated mostly by computers. They'll probably be safer than in your hands.

http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/SWE/Papers/THERAC25.html
 
2010-11-12 10:01:30 PM  
Metaluna Mutant: 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.


That's retarded. Radiation isn't the boogeyman, but to pretend something is completely safe when it is demonstrably otherwise is stupid.
 
2010-11-12 10:03:39 PM  
defects: Walker: This sh*t needs to stop.

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.




They lied to you. Plain and simple. Flat out lied. Taken directly from their website.

"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers. Passengers who opt out of AIT screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down."

Here is a link. Last sentence in the paragraph. Link (new window)
 
2010-11-12 10:06:42 PM  
Another quote and link to a tsa.gov faq.

Link (new window)

Q. Is imaging technology optional?
A. Yes, imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers. Passengers who do not wish to receive imagining technology screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down.
 
2010-11-12 10:07:14 PM  
Personally, I'm disappointed that I have never been molested by a butch transport security lady.
 
2010-11-12 10:09:56 PM  
vsavatar: I'm through flying. I didn't fly that often anyway, but I'm definitely not flying now, not when being given the choice of being sexually assaulted or being bombarded with radiation. The choice is simple - take a train, take a bus, or drive. When I get my pilot's license and a Cessna/Piper, then I'll fly myself places, but I won't be parking my plane at a large airport. It will be at a small airfield with no TSA assholes there to molest me and my family.

When I was flying in and out of Snohomish County/Paine Field (KPAE), Boeing Field (KBFI), and Bellingham International (KBLI) you just parked and walked right in, went to the office for METAR and any new temporary flight restrictions, filed a flight plan and got into your plane.
 
2010-11-12 10:13:40 PM  
thats why I only use thesewww.black-bear-haversack.com
 
2010-11-12 10:15:40 PM  
That's pretty much the way it works out of Ann Arbor Municipal (KARB) and even Oakland County International (KPTK). I've got probably about 40 hours logged, but most of them are spread over several years. I really should put in the remaining time to get my private license, but it costs so much money that frankly I just don't have right now. A pity too, because I love flying planes.
 
2010-11-12 10:17:17 PM  
RoyBatty: Gleeman: 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!

Yeah, seriously, you're an idiot. The link goes to a post that you might claim to be refuting, but the actual text you chose for that link is from a different post that is entirely about the point I made, which is that you're mixing medical rationalization for xrays with tsa rationalizations.

Good luck to your victims, you can't do links right, I sure hope your xray machines are operated mostly by computers. They'll probably be safer than in your hands.

http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/SWE/Papers/THERAC25.html


I know you're going all ITG, but where in any of my posts did I refer to the article about the scanners? I'll wait for a quote. I'm not promoting their use in any fashion, in fact if you read my other posts I'm against it. But by all means continue to argue the semantics of my misquoting rather than the substance of low level medical radiation versus cancer risk.

Is that your paper? The THERAC incident is unfortunate, and the field is still having similar problems occasionally I'm sad to admit. There are no national standards of patient exposure for CT, PET and NucMed so far, but radiographers like myself are among those fighting to have standards adopted to protect the patients.
 
2010-11-12 10:18:29 PM  
And here I thought these were initially for people flying from/to specific countries. Funny how that worked out.

The TSA agents at O'Hare were picking random people to use it when I flew out to the east coast back in September. I probably got picked because I was visibly ticked off and worried about missing my flight due to a long ass line.
 
2010-11-12 10:33:56 PM  
My version of airport security:

1. Keep the metal detectors.
2. X-ray ALL baggage.
3. Issue each passenger getting on the plane one of these in case someone gets uppity (the mini bat, not the kid). Since there are more 'good' people on the plane than asshats, things will be just fine. Fellow passengers are the last line of defense.

lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2010-11-12 10:34:30 PM  
Iwan Dobski: 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....


You skipped the step where you (if male) request a red-head and provide the measurements of the female TSA agent you would most like to provide the service.

If female, just point at the male agent who looks the nicest to you and say, "let's go search my cavities, cowboy."
 
2010-11-12 10:36:04 PM  
the derp in the article knows no bounds. there are two types of tech: the backscatter and the millimeter wave tech. by far the MW radio waves are more common... and everyone thinks it's a bloody xray machine. it's not; backscatter may be but the only xray machines at the airports ive been in have been for baggage...

while understandable about not wanting to go through it, at least learn all the facts before wharrrgarrrbling about it..
 
2010-11-12 10:42:54 PM  
"Man, you must have a hell of a job. Especially with that new AIDS strain that can tunnel right through a latex glove. I'm just glad we have people like you keeping us safe."
 
2010-11-12 10:46:48 PM  
The sad part is this would all end... all of it, if everybody would just band together and refuse to accept either. You can't stop 30,000 people from getting on those planes if they all say no. Unfortunately, somehow in the last 100 years or so, the average American has lost his courage and now places the value of his life and the lives of his family above the value of his freedoms. That wasn't always true.

There was a time in this country where people placed more value on their individual liberties than they did on their own lives. I fear that time is now long gone, and that as a result, this will only be the beginning of what ultimately ends up being a surveillance-based police state where everybody is a criminal and the only way to remain free is to do whatever the government tells you to do, or else you'll get charged with whatever crimes they can come up with.

This kind of BS merely makes the population accustomed to doing what they're told without question. They'll give up any freedom for a feeling of safety, even if it's just an illusion. Once the people have become conditioned enough I predict you'll start seeing a significant rise in prosecuting political dissidents for BS interstate commerce crimes and other crimes people commit every day without even being aware that they're breaking the law. There will be a message that these people are a danger to our country, and for that reason using the law in that manner is justified. Within 50-75 years, I predict this will be a totalitarian country run by an aristocracy very similar to pre-revolution France, but with a nuclear arsenal and a military that can never be overthrown by the populace. One thing I can promise though is that either I won't be alive, or I won't be here to see it.
 
2010-11-12 11:01:25 PM  
vsavatar: The sad part is this would all end... all of it, if everybody would just band together and refuse to accept either. You can't stop 30,000 people from getting on those planes if they all say no. Unfortunately, somehow in the last 100 years or so, the average American has lost his courage and now places the value of his life and the lives of his family above the value of his freedoms. That wasn't always true.

There was a time in this country where people placed more value on their individual liberties than they did on their own lives. I fear that time is now long gone, and that as a result, this will only be the beginning of what ultimately ends up being a surveillance-based police state where everybody is a criminal and the only way to remain free is to do whatever the government tells you to do, or else you'll get charged with whatever crimes they can come up with.

This kind of BS merely makes the population accustomed to doing what they're told without question. They'll give up any freedom for a feeling of safety, even if it's just an illusion. Once the people have become conditioned enough I predict you'll start seeing a significant rise in prosecuting political dissidents for BS interstate commerce crimes and other crimes people commit every day without even being aware that they're breaking the law. There will be a message that these people are a danger to our country, and for that reason using the law in that manner is justified. Within 50-75 years, I predict this will be a totalitarian country run by an aristocracy very similar to pre-revolution France, but with a nuclear arsenal and a military that can never be overthrown by the populace. One thing I can promise though is that either I won't be alive, or I won't be here to see it.


Yep, the average US citizen has never advocated anything that would diminish personal liberty for anyone, until recently.

Your rose coloured glasses are so strong I bet everything looks red.
 
2010-11-12 11:10:36 PM  
The backscatter effect has been kicking stuff up here for months now. The ice here is 200,000 years old.
 
2010-11-12 11:18:05 PM  
Well, I seem to be seriously wounded.
 
2010-11-12 11:35:04 PM  
LavenderWolf: vsavatar: The sad part is this would all end... all of it, if everybody would just band together and refuse to accept either. You can't stop 30,000 people from getting on those planes if they all say no. Unfortunately, somehow in the last 100 years or so, the average American has lost his courage and now places the value of his life and the lives of his family above the value of his freedoms. That wasn't always true.

There was a time in this country where people placed more value on their individual liberties than they did on their own lives. I fear that time is now long gone, and that as a result, this will only be the beginning of what ultimately ends up being a surveillance-based police state where everybody is a criminal and the only way to remain free is to do whatever the government tells you to do, or else you'll get charged with whatever crimes they can come up with.

This kind of BS merely makes the population accustomed to doing what they're told without question. They'll give up any freedom for a feeling of safety, even if it's just an illusion. Once the people have become conditioned enough I predict you'll start seeing a significant rise in prosecuting political dissidents for BS interstate commerce crimes and other crimes people commit every day without even being aware that they're breaking the law. There will be a message that these people are a danger to our country, and for that reason using the law in that manner is justified. Within 50-75 years, I predict this will be a totalitarian country run by an aristocracy very similar to pre-revolution France, but with a nuclear arsenal and a military that can never be overthrown by the populace. One thing I can promise though is that either I won't be alive, or I won't be here to see it.

Yep, the average US citizen has never advocated anything that would diminish personal liberty for anyone, until recently.

Your rose coloured glasses are so strong I bet everything looks red.


Recent is a relative term. If you look at the freedoms we had 100 years ago, you'd find that for all intents and purposes, the government pretty much tended to stay out of the everyday lives of the average person. Personal freedoms, at least for white male landowners were nearly unlimited. Any attempt to do half of what's going on in today's society would have been met with a revolt.

The main problem is that since people have started to live longer and have more conveniences in their lives and have become, for lack of a better term, softer, the thought of death frightens people more now than it used to, and people will now do almost anything to keep themselves alive. The desire to live longer has outstriped the desire to live free. Exactly when that started to happen is hard to pinpoint, but I'd probably guess it would be sometime in the 1920s or 1930s when some of the groundbreaking medical advances of the modern age were first being discovered. It didn't happen all at once. Like all insidious things, it happened gradually over time.

Over time we've given up a lot of our freedoms for the mere appearance of safety. And it is merely an appearance. The war on drugs was probably the main event I can think of that really kicked it all off, but now it's the "war on terror". If you truly believe these scanners/patdowns make you even one iota safer, then you've been deceived. If someone really wants to blow up a plane, they're very likely going to find a way to do so, unless by chance someone happens to discover it first.

A determined terrorist would know that the safest place to hide explosive chemicals would be in his rectum or her vagina if it was female. Should we now start doing body cavity searches of all passengers? Two vials of chemicals with about 10-20mL of fluid apiece can blow a hole in the side of a plane large enough to cause it the fuselage to tear itself apart in midair, and a well placed bomb right above one of the fuel tanks can cause one to explode in a spectacular fireball.

Just think, all of these draconian and invasive measures have come about because a mere 3,000 people died in 2001 from a single terror attack, 10 times that number died of influenza that year, but 3,000 deaths was all it took to cause the Fourth Amendment to be almost completely eradicated. Imagine what other rights we might be willing to get rid of if it was 10,000. I'm sure that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination would be the first to go, followed by the First Amendment right of free speech.

Maybe I do have rose coloured glasses, but at least I can see something, whereas you my friend are blind and ignorant, because you don't see what's happening right under your nose. Enjoy your house, your material possessions, and everything you have, while you have it. Let's see how much comfort it all brings you when the government is telling you how to think, what to say, and what to do under threat of imprisonment or death. Mark my words, that day is not all that far off.
 
2010-11-12 11:37:40 PM  
I actually chose to opt out of having my noodz taken by the mouth breathers at the TSA about a week ago.

Honestly, I'd recommend it to everyone. It pisses off every agent at the checkpoint, takes about two extra minutes versus going through the machine, and makes you look dangerous to the other passengers, which is a great set up for express access to the mile high club from whatever bimbo with daddy issues happens to sit by you.

/seriously though, opting out is easy, for those who were asking earlier.
 
2010-11-12 11:47:19 PM  
I wonder how much radiation leaks out into areas where the TSA agents stand all day.

These scanners could be a brilliant idea.
 
2010-11-12 11:47:29 PM  
I ended up moving about 1,000 miles west of my home town a few years ago. I have no kids, a decent amount of disposable income and I hate the 16 hour drive.

I'm officially boycotting airports. It's just too much crap for me to deal with. I know it's not as anti-American to say that it's crap now, but a few years ago, saying anything bad made you a terrorist.

If (and it's a big if) sanity ever returns I'll consider flying. I really hope more people get on board with this. That's the only way it'll get better.
 
2010-11-13 12:01:36 AM  
Imagine what its like living in Hawaii. You have to go through this nonsense just to visit an ajoining island, which is like visiting the next closest city on the mainland. The ferries are stopped, so its the only way now. Of course, there also isnt any other reasonable way to get to and from the mainland.

To add insult to injury, so much sun already gives us skin cancer, and I am pretty sure those little umbrellas they put in your Mai Tai cause cancer.
 
2010-11-13 12:07:48 AM  
usera.imagecave.com
 
2010-11-13 12:15:50 AM  
I won't fly anymore, nope, not me. I got this funny thing about a belief in the Constitution, and how it magically doesn't end when you go into an airport. All that being said, I can't *wait* to check out the soon to be released airport scanner voyeur porn videos. I mean, heck, every ladies bathroom in Eastern Europe has a cam in it, airport scanner porn is only a matter of time!
 
2010-11-13 12:41:01 AM  
autopsybeverage: Iwan Dobski: 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....

You skipped the step where you (if male) request a red-head and provide the measurements of the female TSA agent you would most like to provide the service.

If female, just point at the male agent who looks the nicest to you and say, "let's go search my cavities, cowboy."


For even better results, swap these targets.
 
2010-11-13 12:47:50 AM  
After the nice detailed pat down, whisper to the guy "I'd go wash up if I were you, I'm carrying anthrax spores".

You might get away with it, but since there's no quick test?

How about as you are getting patted down, you shiat your pants? Best if you have been to Mexico and drunk the water. "Whoops, sorry about that!"

Shout: "Hey, that was worth it, I CAME in my Pants!"

Turd Sucking A*******
 
2010-11-13 02:04:01 AM  
I'll take the pat down, baby!
media.giantbomb.com
 
2010-11-13 02:07:33 AM  
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.


No, no, no.

If you read other articles on that professor's paper, he states the common misconception here.

Normal x-rays pass through your whole body in one big flash with film on the other side of your body.

These are bouncing x-rays off your skin - like radar - concentrating that juicy cancer-causing radiation in a few millimeters of skin.

And it's not a flash of x-rays, it's a tightly focused beam - more like a laser - that scans over your whole body including your farking eyes.

/ Really? Why scan your head?
// X-rays in my eyes, yummy
/// And if the *various failsafes* lock up...
 
2010-11-13 02:09:27 AM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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


So let me see if I've got this straight...

The rich who can actually afford these treatments will all die of cancer.

The poor who can't will die of everything else, and only occasionally from cancer.

Woo!
 
2010-11-13 02:11:59 AM  
For the good of America.

We need to stop this bullshiat.

Here's how:

-Refuse the x-rays and opt for the extended "pat-down"
-Masturbate furiously during the pat-down.
-TSA will succumb to the families screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"
 
2010-11-13 02:53:29 AM  
GIS for "backscatter" comes up with some horrifying images.

If I ever fly again, I'm definitely opting for pat-down.
 
2010-11-13 03:28:52 AM  
lead lined underwear
 
2010-11-13 04:05:34 AM  
Atomic Spunk: I'm not trying to be funny - I'm genuinely curious about the procedure since I may be going through it next month.

I'm sure those exact words have been said many times in reference to colonoscopy, too.
 
2010-11-13 08:21:02 AM  
Memo to the airline industry: These electronic strip search machines are the last straw. Until they are taken out, unless it's a matter of life or death, I will never fly again.
 
2010-11-13 09:13:19 AM  
My job calls on me to fly at least twice a week.
I have gone through these scatter machines probably 50 times at this point.
I quit doing the scan a while ago. I'm through with it.
I'm no prude, so the pat downs don't bother me.
I have found that when you befriend or make a personal connection to one of the TSA agents that are patting you down, they tend not to check as thoroughly.

Imagine if EVERYONE began to refuse the scans -- there wouldn't be enough patter-downers to get through everyone. People would begin to miss flights, and the airlines would force the TSA to remove the machines... or hire more patter-downers...
 
2010-11-13 09:19:37 AM  
rel-yo: Memo to the airline industry: These electronic strip search machines are the last straw. Until they are taken out, unless it's a matter of life or death, I will never fly again.

Sure you would.
Say you get a job that requires you to fly and you have a family.
No fly, no job. And good luck finding a job in this economy.
What say you?
 
2010-11-13 10:26:54 AM  
snortimer: defects: Walker: This sh*t needs to stop.

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.



They lied to you. Plain and simple. Flat out lied. Taken directly from their website.

"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers. Passengers who opt out of AIT screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down."

Here is a link. Last sentence in the paragraph. Link (new window)


So? Just because the TSA website says you have certain rights doesn't mean you do in practice.

DerPups: the derp in the article knows no bounds. there are two types of tech: the backscatter and the millimeter wave tech. by far the MW radio waves are more common... and everyone thinks it's a bloody xray machine. it's not; backscatter may be but the only xray machines at the airports ive been in have been for baggage...

while understandable about not wanting to go through it, at least learn all the facts before wharrrgarrrbling about it..


The backscatter machines are replacing the millimeter wave machines. I have no problem with the millimeter wave ones.

tjfly: My job calls on me to fly at least twice a week.
I have gone through these scatter machines probably 50 times at this point.
I quit doing the scan a while ago. I'm through with it.
I'm no prude, so the pat downs don't bother me.


You don't have to be a prude to not like being groped. I have no problem with the millimeter wave machines, they can look all they like as far as I'm concerned. Touching is a different matter, though--I don't like being touched by strangers, period.
 
2010-11-13 11:28:40 AM  
What's annoying is this news isn't new. They knew from the start it was risky and just pushed to the side any reports.

That it used stimulus money? Didn't realise that.

Someone got a huge 'campaign contribution' for this.
 
2010-11-13 11:50:22 AM  
OK, I understand that most people fly, and so that what they're focusing on.

But what a bout the hostess at Appleby's inside the security area? She's going to be getting backscanned 200 times a year. We get all persnicketty because waitresses get 2nd hand smoke, but we don't mind irradiating them over and over?
 
2010-11-13 11:56:59 AM  
The Jami Turman Fan Club: OK, I understand that most people fly, and so that what they're focusing on.

But what a bout the hostess at Appleby's inside the security area? She's going to be getting backscanned 200 times a year. We get all persnicketty because waitresses get 2nd hand smoke, but we don't mind irradiating them over and over?


If she's never had a CT scan she can go through the backscatter machine about 200,000 times before I'd personally be worried. Plus, she works at Applebee's, she deserves what she gets.

/Mmm Chili's
 
2010-11-13 12:11:21 PM  
SoothinglyDeranged: Okay, what doesn't cause cancer?

Apparently, marijuana
 
2010-11-13 03:42:20 PM  
just_a_typical_guy: that scans over your whole body including your farking eyes.

Thats no joke, ionizing radiation causes cataracts.
 
2010-11-14 01:21:56 AM  
gibbon1: just_a_typical_guy: that scans over your whole body including your farking eyes.

Thats no joke, ionizing radiation causes cataracts.


Go into scanner.

Wait for scan to begin.

Start screaming "AAAAH, MY EYES!!!!"
 
2010-11-15 02:34:52 PM  
Oh for Pete's sake!

Just go through the damn backscatter machines.

Everybody has seen your front butt and small penis.
 
Displayed 46 of 96 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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