If there were no screening whatsoever -- NOTHING, no metal detectors, explosives dusting, or X-rays for bags -- I would still fly. Know why? I'm not a pussy who's afraid of his own shadow, and I have a basic understanding of risk.

eddiesocket: BumpyMcNipples: impaler: 532/30 = 17.7 fatal cancers a year.

The loss of 18 innocent lives per year is a SMALL price to pay to not be terrorized

by people who don't live here.

That is not how probability works.

Of course not it isn't, I oversimplified. Guilty as charged.

The loss of 18 17.7 innocent (presumed) lives per year after a period of time approximately equal to the limit of the gestation period of said cancer is a SMALL price to pay to not be terrorized feel safer

FTFM

This of course assumes the 1 in 30 million is correct and that 532 million people continue to fly per year. And, on a smaller scale, that said cancer victims die of no other cause before the cancer kills them. Such as an unprevented terrorist attack.

/Great, now I'm going to be attempting to approximate THAT probability all night...

\not sure if gestation is the right word... Dammit Jim, I'm an engineer, not a dictionary!

Radiation from flying at 35,000 feet >>>>>>>> Radiation from these scanner

God people are dumbasses. Technically you get a radiation dose from granite in the airport parking lot too.

Xai: given that 0 terrorists have been caught by the TSA that means we are paying $220million a year to ensure the deaths of aproximately 17 americans a year.

Woo!

Wow, that's 12.94 million per person. Can't we find a more efficient way to kill people?

Typical government waste.

GuyCaballero: If there were no screening whatsoever -- NOTHING, no metal detectors, explosives dusting, or X-rays for bags -- I would still fly. Know why? I'm not a pussy who's afraid of his own shadow, and I have a basic understanding of risk.

If there were none of that bullshiat, I think a lot of people would fly more.

BumpyMcNipples: And, on a smaller scale, that said cancer victims die of no other cause before the cancer kills them. Such as an unprevented terrorist attack.

Considering the likelihood of both cancer from the machine and a terrorist carrying out a successful attack (let alone a crash due to other reasons) is phenomenally low, I believe we can draw two conclusions:

- You probably won't get cancer from the machine
- There is no need for these machines

So we can eliminate the machine-caused cancer risk by eliminating the machines, and we won't significantly increase the risk of dying to terrorists. As a bonus, we could probably pare the TSA back even further at no great increase of risk.

""The dose of radiation is equivalent to 1/1000 of a dental X-ray," he added."

And no one is asking why if they can scan my entire body and see every single pimple on my ass with such a low dose of radiation. Why the hell do they need such a high dose to look at my teeth?

joe714: jmaster306: ParallelUniverseParking: Those things are not operated by radiologic technicians but simple TSA agents. Who tells me that they can operate them right, provide maintenance and spot when something is going wrong? It's not like the scanned person would get an insta-sunburn or catch fire. How many people would walk through a malfunctioning scanner, that might expose you to a X times higher dose, before they would realize something is wrong?

I often wonder about other cars that drive by me on the road being operated by simple everyday people and not automotive engineers. Are they bad drivers? Can they change their own oil? Do they even know where the catalytic converter is? It's not like you can tell right away if the person approaching you from behind is going to suddenly accelerate and rear end you. How many people drive the roads surrounded by bad drivers without realizing that one of them could cause a fatal accident at any moment? How many could respond to save their own lives?


Yes, I'm being a dick here but c'mon. The scanners are designed to be about as idiot proof as possible for just the reasons you listed. Then again, so are most cars. Arguably a rapidly propelled 2 ton box of steal and plastic containing a large amount of flammable liquid has a far more realistic chance of causing serious mayhem compared to a full body scanner. Consider this for a moment, even if somebody was exposed to 100x the dose of a regular scan, it still wouldn't be a big deal for 99.9% of the population.

I bet at least some of those idiot drivers know their car is made of steel and not steal.


drives a car made of steal

ParallelUniverseParking: How many of those terrorist attacks have been prevented by the TSA.

Zero. All terrorism today that has been stopped were a result of FBI, CSI, their foreign counterparts and passengers.

How many will be prevented by those scanners?

Most likely zero. These scanners were largely in response to the underwear bomber, which they probably would not even have detected. [Citation]

/you have a much higher chance of dying due to a car, instead of a plane
//NTSB.gov

Honestly I would love it if there was a terrorist on my plane.

/It's time to be a hero.

GuyCaballero: If there were no screening whatsoever -- NOTHING, no metal detectors, explosives dusting, or X-rays for bags -- I would still fly. Know why? I'm not a pussy who's afraid of his own shadow, and I have a basic understanding of risk.

Who needs cops also! The only reason we have cops is because people are scurred and can't deal with problems themselves right! Chest BUMP!

Your point is valid, but taking unnecessary risks is just being stupid, not tough.

NoSugarAdded: These scanners were largely in response to the underwear bomber, which they probably would not even have detected.

The wheels were in motion long before that guy. He was the political justification for a financial decision. Follow the $$$. This has NOTHING to do with security.

ParallelUniverseParking: How many of those terrorist attacks have been prevented by the TSA?

So far, the answer seems to be none. Of course, the same can be claimed about my wonderful lion-preventing stone. I haven't seen any lions in the vicinity, so obviously it works.

Tetzlaff: ThisNameSux: Really this shiat again?

A scan is the equivalent of...

3 minutes of flying at altitude

17 minutes everyday living

Keep on herping that derp.


Again? After you just got pawned in the last thread? You have some kind of nasty 'posting autism', don't you?

What is it with truth denial in all things TSA related here on fark? Is it because all of you truly want to believe that every aspect of TSA is evil, perverse, and generally unwholesome?

geesh, fight against neighborhood crime or getting traffic lights at a dangerous intersection or teenage pregnancy, any number of good causes, but please, stfu about TSA seeing as you've probably not flown in years nor have plans to anytime soon.

Not to mention that when you do, you'll probably go through the wtmd and even if you were selected you'd in all likelihood suck it up and go through with out an utterance.

All these preposterous claims of 200 soldiers flying with guns in the cabin but having to give up their nail clippers, the woman who was handcuffed to a chair had breasts twisted and was led out of the airport by no less than 19 officers, this bunk you idiots buy.

give it a rest, at least for a while.

The puffer machines kill no one, unless one falls on you, I suppose, and they are far more effective.

But, instead, we use backscatter devices that, when they are working right, will give ~18 people/year cancer. And, we're trusting the maintenance of radiological equipment to people who would otherwise be fry cooks at Micky D's.

Great.

the money is in the banana stand: GuyCaballero: If there were no screening whatsoever -- NOTHING, no metal detectors, explosives dusting, or X-rays for bags -- I would still fly. Know why? I'm not a pussy who's afraid of his own shadow, and I have a basic understanding of risk.

Who needs cops also! The only reason we have cops is because people are scurred and can't deal with problems themselves right! Chest BUMP!

Your point is valid, but taking unnecessary risks is just being stupid, not tough.

That's not even close to my point, though. The point is, how much quality of life do you want to give up to receive an infinitesimal amount of additional security? For people who travel even semi-frequently, this is a big deal. I know that in the states, gated communities and metal detectors in schools are a normal part of life, but in my worldview that's a crappy way to live.

moops: Radiation from flying at 35,000 feet >>>>>>>> Radiation from these scanner

God people are dumbasses. Technically you get a radiation dose from granite in the airport parking lot too.

Beat me to it.

I'd also add:



Just don't go outside (cosmic rays), don't eat bananas (lots radioactive Postassium), or have granite countertops. Radioactivity is everywhere.

hockeyfarker 2010-11-24 04:40:37 PM I question that it's even 1 in 30 million. still higher than the probability of getting killed by terrorists, though.
==================================================================

The probability of getting killed by terrorists is like 1 in 25 million I think.

So we're giving up our liberty and letting folks see our junk or grope us to lower our chance of dying from 1 in 30 million to 1 in 25 million.

/Wonderful.

Er, I meant 1 in 25 million to 1 in 30 million obviously.

Sorry.

Wow .. .that's like half isn't it?

/USA! USA!

tonguedepressor:
What is it with truth denial in all things TSA related here on fark? Is it because all of you truly want to believe that every aspect of TSA is evil, perverse, and generally unwholesome?

Personally, it's because they cost an excess of money that is pretty obviously being routed into a former politician's pocket while simultaneously violating my rights and providing shiat for extra security.

Not to mention that when you do, you'll probably go through the wtmd and even if you were selected you'd in all likelihood suck it up and go through with out an utterance.

WTMD? And of course, they'd love it if everyone just sucked it up and obeyed meekly.

All these preposterous claims of 200 soldiers flying with guns in the cabin but having to give up their nail clippers, the woman who was handcuffed to a chair had breasts twisted and was led out of the airport by no less than 19 officers, this bunk you idiots buy.

Yeah, cause it's all bunk and EVERYTHING the TSA says is true. Right.

tonguedepressor: Tetzlaff: ThisNameSux: Really this shiat again?

A scan is the equivalent of...

3 minutes of flying at altitude

17 minutes everyday living

Keep on herping that derp.


Again? After you just got pawned in the last thread? You have some kind of nasty 'posting autism', don't you?

What is it with truth denial in all things TSA related here on fark? Is it because all of you truly want to believe that every aspect of TSA is evil, perverse, and generally unwholesome?

geesh, fight against neighborhood crime or getting traffic lights at a dangerous intersection or teenage pregnancy, any number of good causes, but please, stfu about TSA seeing as you've probably not flown in years nor have plans to anytime soon.

Not to mention that when you do, you'll probably go through the wtmd and even if you were selected you'd in all likelihood suck it up and go through with out an utterance.

All these preposterous claims of 200 soldiers flying with guns in the cabin but having to give up their nail clippers, the woman who was handcuffed to a chair had breasts twisted and was led out of the airport by no less than 19 officers, this bunk you idiots buy.

give it a rest, at least for a while.


/hot as desert sand

jmaster306: ParallelUniverseParking: Those things are not operated by radiologic technicians but simple TSA agents. Who tells me that they can operate them right, provide maintenance and spot when something is going wrong? It's not like the scanned person would get an insta-sunburn or catch fire. How many people would walk through a malfunctioning scanner, that might expose you to a X times higher dose, before they would realize something is wrong?

I often wonder about other cars that drive by me on the road being operated by simple everyday people and not automotive engineers. Are they bad drivers? Can they change their own oil? Do they even know where the catalytic converter is? It's not like you can tell right away if the person approaching you from behind is going to suddenly accelerate and rear end you. How many people drive the roads surrounded by bad drivers without realizing that one of them could cause a fatal accident at any moment? How many could respond to save their own lives?


Yes, I'm being a dick here but c'mon. The scanners are designed to be about as idiot proof as possible for just the reasons you listed. Then again, so are most cars. Arguably a rapidly propelled 2 ton box of steal and plastic containing a large amount of flammable liquid has a far more realistic chance of causing serious mayhem compared to a full body scanner. Consider this for a moment, even if somebody was exposed to 100x the dose of a regular scan, it still wouldn't be a big deal for 99.9% of the population.

Well, one difference is that while most people aren't mechanics, they can tell if their car is about to kill someone. Not so with malfunctioning equipment that (when functioning correctly) shoots people with invisible rays.

The Therac-25 incidents are a good comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Three people died and three more were seriously injured by devices intend to deliver measured, controlled doses of radiation. Unlike the backscatter scanners, they were being operated by X-ray techs in controlled conditions where the patient's condition was being closely monitored.

People can't perceive X-rays. The TSA agent is relying on the scanner's software to tell them that the machine is working and the dose is within acceptable parameters. The machine should shut down if there is a fault. But of course, the rate at which faults occur requiring shutdown, and the failure modes involved, are apparently matters of national security (like how voting machines work), so we aren't allowed to know any information about what safeguards are or aren't in place.

People have no clue how probability works. 1 in 30 million change doesn't mean 1 out of every 30 million will definitely get cancer.

If I roll a standard fair die I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 3. That does not mean if I roll the die six times I'm guaranteed to get a 3. I could roll it a hundred times and never get a 3. That's probability. So basically 1 in 30 million means that the likelihood of any one person getting cancer from any one scan is extremely tiny. With odds that low, chances are highly in favor of no one ever getting cancer from these scanners.

Add to that the fact that not everyone has to get scanned, most people go through security without it (for now). And plenty who are selected opt to get groped.

But that's only assumng this 1 in 30 million figure is true and that said, I don't trust anyone involved with these things. Lucky for us, I'd bet the odds of them being permanent fixtures in our airports is probably about 1 in 30 million.

stvdallas 2010-11-24 06:20:58 PM
Crosshair: jmaster306: Consider this for a moment, even if somebody was exposed to 100x the dose of a regular scan, it still wouldn't be a big deal for 99.9% of the population.

Except that driving a car serves a useful purpose, the scanners don't. Even the Israelis don't bother with this kind of crap.

No, the Israeli's interview EVERY passenger.

I love it when what - a small, non-western Semite language speaking (Arabic and Jewish) middle eastern country - does becomes relevant to a large Western country like the USA.

This small foreign non-Western 1-airline country...has a total number of domestic and international flights in an entire year that are lesser than the number of domestic flights in the USA in just one day. (not even counting international).

I'm sure this is very relevant to the USA.

moops: Radiation from flying at 35,000 feet >>>>>>>> Radiation from these scanner
===========================================

You'd need to fly about a hundred million times higher than 35000 feet to get subject to cosmic radiation.

And you think WE'RE stupid?

God.

/I've had enough of this thread. The dumbasses are out in full force.

FARK THE TSA

reasonable people hate the scanners/gropings because while these procedures add nothing to security, they;

cost a tremendous amount (either tax dollars or privacy or both).
in order to detect explosives dogs are much more effective.
cause security lines that make juicy terrorism targets.
will cause cancer in a small number of fliers (and maybe a lot of TSA agents).
are machines which irradiate being operated without dosimeters in order to pretend they're safe.
will cause more deaths and injuries from auto accidents.
are clearly an sign of corruption on behave of the homeland security industrial complex (see chertoff, michael).
the threat of terrorism is minimal.
and are done solely as security theater because americans are tards.

further, airport employees who work in the "sterile" area are a more likely threat than the average passenger...

I have been a trainer on devices such as they use at airports to screen baggage and detect metal etc.

Radiation from these devices is INDISTINGUISHABLE from background radiation.

The TSA agents "not being allowed" to wear dosimeters would be illegal. HOWEVER, TSA agents don't wear dosimeters because they DON'T HAVE TO, because the amount of radiation they're exposed to from these machines is so ridiculously low that they'd have to explicitly flaunt the safety measures--for a number of years--to get a sufficient accumulation to cause noticeable changes in the blood chemistry, which is the typically the first sign of radiation poisoning.

pstudent12: This small foreign non-Western 1-airline country...has a total number of domestic and international flights in an entire year that are lesser than the number of domestic flights in the USA in just one day. (not even counting international).

I'm sure this is very relevant to the USA.

It is, you see, if you apply it smartly. By doing it at major international ports and the like, and not at every goddamn airport in the country where it's unlikely to be helpful, like these scanners.

There are really only two options for going through airport security. Either they touch you, or
they touch themselves.

basemetal: torch: 2) The TSA agents are not allowed to wear dosimiters

I would think OSHA would be all over that.

State laws will over see that. TSA agents already wear badges.


/medical physicist

ThisNameSux: Really this shiat again?

A scan is the equivalent of...

3 minutes of flying at altitude

17 minutes everyday living

Keep on herping that derp.

By the way, good job on those protests today. The internet really showed the evil TSA.



Yes, plenty of people probably do get cancer each year as a result of flying. Is this a good reason to give a 1-2 dozen *more* people cancer just for the hell of it?

/it's only "derp" if you don't mind killing a dozen people or so

NoSugarAdded: ParallelUniverseParking: How many of those terrorist attacks have been prevented by the TSA.

Zero. All terrorism today that has been stopped were a result of FBI, CSI, their foreign counterparts and passengers.

How many will be prevented by those scanners?

Most likely zero. These scanners were largely in response to the underwear bomber, which they probably would not even have detected. [Citation]

/you have a much higher chance of dying due to a car, instead of a plane
//NTSB.gov



fighting terrorists, one partial at a time...

Gil Grissom
the thinking man's Chuck Norris
maybe

moothemagiccow: Well now that doesn't add up. 532 million US residents fly per year? There aren't that many US residents. 532 million passengers? Some of those have to be duplicates. What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

Just in case someone hasn't said it:

1) No, they aren't all U.S. residents, people from other countries do come here, California alone gets around 20-30 million foreign visitors annually.

2) Lots and lots of people fly more than once. I know some people who fly 3-4 times a week, and many more that fly 20-30 times a year.

Did anyone explain that to you yet, MooCow?

TheSilverOne: People have no clue how probability works. 1 in 30 million change doesn't mean 1 out of every 30 million will definitely get cancer.

If I roll a standard fair die I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 3. That does not mean if I roll the die six times I'm guaranteed to get a 3. I could roll it a hundred times and never get a 3. That's probability. So basically 1 in 30 million means that the likelihood of any one person getting cancer from any one scan is extremely tiny. With odds that low, chances are highly in favor of no one ever getting cancer from these scanners.

Add to that the fact that not everyone has to get scanned, most people go through security without it (for now). And plenty who are selected opt to get groped.

But that's only assumng this 1 in 30 million figure is true and that said, I don't trust anyone involved with these things. Lucky for us, I'd bet the odds of them being permanent fixtures in our airports is probably about 1 in 30 million.

Uh, I don't think you know how probability works, either.

Taking the statistics at face value :

A relative risk increase of 1 in 30 million means that you can likely expect 1 more case of cancer for every 30 million people going through the TSA scanner compared to an identical population that is not going through the scanner.

lennavan: I like how everyone just seems to have accepted this guy's 1 in 30 million number.

Peter Rez, a professor of physics at Arizona State University, said that when a scanner is working properly the amount of radiation exposed is very low.

"The probability of getting a fatal cancer is about one in 30 million, which puts it lower than the probability of being killed by being struck by lightning in any year in the United States, which is about one in 5 million," he said.

Spoken like a true physicist with know biology training or knowledge of cancer whatsoever. Nice.

How do you know he doesn't know cancer biology? Radiation experts typically are knowledgable of such things.

helix400: moops: Radiation from flying at 35,000 feet >>>>>>>> Radiation from these scanner

God people are dumbasses. Technically you get a radiation dose from granite in the airport parking lot too.

Beat me to it.

I'd also add:

[piechart.jpg]

Just don't go outside (cosmic rays), don't eat bananas (lots radioactive Postassium), or have granite countertops. Radioactivity is everywhere.

of course there's lots of sources of radiation in nature, but that doesn't mean i should pick up bonus dose of radiation for fun in the name of security theater and corruption.

i have work jobs where dosimeters are worn. and i'm not scared of radiation. but it's stupid to purposefully irradiate for no reason or negative reasons (example: enriching chertoff and pals)

Nabb1: Eh, my wife's a radiologist. If she says they're okay and will let our kids go through them, that's good enough for me.

On an individual case it's true; it's probably safe for her or you or your kids. It's like playing Russian roulette with a 30-million cylinder gun. The odds of getting the bullet are extremely small for any given person.

...but given how many people "play", it's certain that *someone* will get the bullet.

torch: 1) NOBODY flies just once.
2) The TSA agents are not allowed to wear dosimiters

that is all

You don't think there was a single first time flyer on a plan that crashed?

ParallelUniverseParking: Peter Rez, a professor of physics at Arizona State University, said that when a scanner is working properly the amount of radiation exposed is very low.

Those things are not operated by radiologic technicians but simple TSA agents. Who tells me that they can operate them right, provide maintenance and spot when something is going wrong? It's not like the scanned person would get an insta-sunburn or catch fire. How many people would walk through a malfunctioning scanner, that might expose you to a X times higher dose, before they would realize something is wrong?

Actually a high dose of x-rays feel just like getting burned. There are cases. But I agree.

A Fark Handle: of course there's lots of sources of radiation in nature, but that doesn't mean i should pick up bonus dose of radiation for fun in the name of security theater and corruption.

I drive a car every day, and (statistically) that's a very dangerous activity.

Logically, I can do anything that is less dangerous than driving a car as much as I want and bad things will never happen.