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.

(BusinessWeek)   Expert: "Only one in 30 million people will probably get cancer from scanners." US Airlines: "532 million people fly per year"   (businessweek.com) divider line 419
    More: Scary, National Council on Disability, radiation exposures, R-AZ, Arizona State University  
•       •       •

9971 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Nov 2010 at 6:00 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



419 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-11-24 04:27:03 PM
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?
 
2010-11-24 04:38:34 PM
For reference, what are the odds that your plane gets hijacked and/or gets blown up?
 
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.
 
2010-11-24 04:46:38 PM
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?
 
2010-11-24 04:50:15 PM
Rez also said he would opt out since he didn't know the rate of failure on those machines.
 
2010-11-24 05:01:16 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 05:05:40 PM
Someone always eventually wins the lottery too. It still happens.
 
2010-11-24 05:16:08 PM
moothemagiccow: . What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

the odds of them getting cancer are now 12 in 30 million, or even 52 in 30 million. they might as well end it now!
 
2010-11-24 05:19:32 PM
I wonder what the probability of being even remotely harmed by a terrorist or their actions (TSA aside) on a plane are.
 
2010-11-24 05:25:41 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 05:27:56 PM
hockeyfarker: I question that it's even 1 in 30 million.

still higher than the probability of getting killed by terrorists, though.


532/30 = 17.7 fatal cancers a year. More than the number that die from airborne terrorism. And that assumes they will stop the terrorists.
 
2010-11-24 05:30:00 PM
hockeyfarker: moothemagiccow: . What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

the odds of them getting cancer are now 12 in 30 million, or even 52 in 30 million. they might as well end it now!


It's actually 50/50. You're either going to get cancer or you won't.
 
2010-11-24 05:30:05 PM
Complacent. Like Hindu cows. The illusion of security. Post 9/11 world...etc.
 
2010-11-24 05:30:50 PM
1) NOBODY flies just once.
2) The TSA agents are not allowed to wear dosimiters

that is all
 
2010-11-24 05:40:21 PM
torch: 2) The TSA agents are not allowed to wear dosimiters

I would think OSHA would be all over that.
 
2010-11-24 05:41:53 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 05:42:49 PM
basemetal: torch: 2) The TSA agents are not allowed to wear dosimiters

I would think OSHA would be all over that.


The TSA's rules overrule all laws and even the Constitution. You think they give a f*ck about OSHA?
 
2010-11-24 05:50:36 PM
jmaster306: ParallelUniverseParking:

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.


It's risk vs. benefit. We risk our lives on the streets every day to get from 'a' to 'b'. I actually like your example: About 120 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States. Safer & better cars will hopefully cause this number to shrink. How many people die in the US or planes coming from the US due to terrorism? How many of those terrorist attacks have been prevented by the TSA. Really, I don't actually know. How many will be prevented by those scanners? Again: I put up with the very real risk of dying in a car because I need a car. I do not like to put up even with a super-minimal risk that those scanners might pose because I think the actual benefit of these things is even less- namely 0%.
 
2010-11-24 05:51:09 PM
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.


I like those people with (insert cause here) that shout... "BUT IF WE ONLY SAVE ONE PERSON IT'S WORTH OUR EFFORT"

The dog and pony show put on by the TSA is just that.
 
2010-11-24 05:53:05 PM
All we need to do is develop a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth. This would be a win-win for everyone. There would be no racial profiling and the device would eliminate long and expensive trials. This is so simple it's brilliant! I can see it now: you're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Then an announcement comes over the PA system, "Attention standby passengers, we now have a seat available on flight number...
 
2010-11-24 05:54:10 PM
and while I'm at it...
i483.photobucket.com
 
2010-11-24 06:01:49 PM
jmaster306: ParallelUniverseParking:

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. 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.


You see, NOW you're a dick. And if you'd be the 'somebody' poor sucka who'd be exposed to the 100x dose you'd be a cancer-spotted-dick.

/how do you know the scanners are 'idiot proof' btw?
 
2010-11-24 06:02:23 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:04:21 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:05:18 PM
Tr0mBoNe: All we need to do is develop a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth. This would be a win-win for everyone. There would be no racial profiling and the device would eliminate long and expensive trials. This is so simple it's brilliant! I can see it now: you're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Then an announcement comes over the PA system, "Attention standby passengers, we now have a seat available on flight number...

Lol that would be amazing actually. You wouldn't even need them to work really. Just have those 1980 movie beeps and boops going when you step into a box and it would scare people shiatless. Make up a story how some d-bag esploded in one with his bomb to boot!
 
2010-11-24 06:05:43 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:05:49 PM
BunkyBrewman: I like those people with (insert cause here) that shout... "BUT IF WE ONLY SAVE ONE PERSON IT'S WORTH OUR EFFORT"

Those same people would probably argue I shouldn't have rounded up to 18. Which is true, and I feel bad about it. Somewhere out there, there's some poor dude who's 70% dead and upset I rounded up.

t2.gstatic.com

Whatever. Only a 9% chance I'd have to hear him complain about it anyway, and that's assuming he's a farker and I care.

/Brain, mouth, & hands not working
//.7+.7*.7*.7=.91
\The jerk probably hasn't even removed the eels from his hovercraft yet.
 
2010-11-24 06:06:09 PM
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.


Dude, you bring this up in every TSA thread even though it's been refuted many times by many folks in every TSA thread.

Give it a rest or get new material, already.
 
2010-11-24 06:07:09 PM
Crosshair: Except that driving a car serves a useful purpose, the scanners don't. Even the Israelis don't bother with this kind of crap.

ParallelUniverseParking: It's risk vs. benefit. We risk our lives on the streets every day to get from 'a' to 'b'. I actually like your example: About 120 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States. Safer & better cars will hopefully cause this number to shrink. How many people die in the US or planes coming from the US due to terrorism? How many of those terrorist attacks have been prevented by the TSA. Really, I don't actually know. How many will be prevented by those scanners? Again: I put up with the very real risk of dying in a car because I need a car. I do not like to put up even with a super-minimal risk that those scanners might pose because I think the actual benefit of these things is even less- namely 0%.

These are perfectly legitimate arguments to make and personally I'm undecided on whether or not these will actually do any good. I just know enough of the science to understand that while they might be expensive and useless, they are by no means dangerous.
 
2010-11-24 06:07:21 PM
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?


Reminds me of a case study from an engineering ethics class. These guys who were doing electron beam welding one day found out someone replaced the leaded glass in their rig with regular glass. and then had to change careers. shiat is expensive because Palin-Americans aren't able to understand and manage any risk let alone the subtle ones.
 
2010-11-24 06:09:40 PM
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.


There you are, I knew you'd come here to stump for the TSA. Someone's gotta stand up for the useless and incompetent.
 
2010-11-24 06:09:49 PM
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?
 
2010-11-24 06:10:25 PM
Tr0mBoNe: All we need to do is develop a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth. This would be a win-win for everyone.

What about the poor slob TSA agent who has to hose that thing out after every detonation? Not exactly a win for that person. Though I'd still rather do that than stand by an X ray machine all day, soaking untold amounts of "safe" radiation.
 
2010-11-24 06:10:48 PM
In other news, ten years from now, several TSA scanner operators will begin to develop super powers after all those years of radiation exposure. I smell a sitcom...
 
2010-11-24 06:10:49 PM
ThisNameSux: A scan is the equivalent of...

3 minutes of flying at altitude


I did a quick calculation and came up with 20 minutes, but still, compared to the radiation you get from actually flying, the radiation from a Compton backscatter image is trivial.
 
2010-11-24 06:11:08 PM
I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer earlier this year and I do not care how low it is, I cannot willing expose the healthy half of the thyroid I have left to radiation. The results would be bad.

So, bring on McGropenstein.
 
2010-11-24 06:11:29 PM
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.


spoken a derp who can't spell.

biology training? is that, like, a college course or sumthin'? i assume you can take that after your Noledge of Cancer 301 class.
 
2010-11-24 06:12:20 PM
...or about the equivalent of breathing in second hand seal flatulence
 
2010-11-24 06:13:46 PM
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.


...When the scanner is working properly. TSA "agents" are bottom of the barrel employees. I don't trust them to operate the machine properly. I also don't trust them to maintain them properly. Bottom line: I don't trust them.

Tell me, what level of radiation are you comfortable being exposed to by someone you don't trust?
 
Xai
2010-11-24 06:13:53 PM
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!
 
2010-11-24 06:14:05 PM
that's a lot of Hulks..
 
2010-11-24 06:14:45 PM

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.


Bullshiatt. The scanners are designed to get bought by the TSA. That is all they are designed for. Even if they were designed by qualified people for medical use, I'd be worried. Google Therac 25 to see why.
 
2010-11-24 06:14:52 PM
ParallelUniverseParking: You see, NOW you're a dick. And if you'd be the 'somebody' poor sucka who'd be exposed to the 100x dose you'd be a cancer-spotted-dick.

/how do you know the scanners are 'idiot proof' btw?


The "idiot proof" statement comes from a presupposition based on the skill of your average TSA worker, the propensity for large companies to enjoy not being sued and the FDA review of the device.

As for the 100x statement, that comes from reading and understanding the FDA's Response over concerns that the radiation dose had been incorrectly calculated. You honestly could go to 1,000x but I figured a more modest 100x would be more believable.
 
2010-11-24 06:15:01 PM
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.


You tried to make a point but it backfired. Traveling by car is one of the most dangerous things you can do for a reason
 
2010-11-24 06:15:20 PM
Barakku: I wonder what the probability of being even remotely harmed by a terrorist or their actions (TSA aside) on a plane are.

The 527 million number is low. If you figure they used the nude-o-scopes on everyone that flew since 9/11 you would have more dead passengers from the nude-o-scopes than from the terrorists. (The total death toll would still be higher for the terrorists, though.)

Note that this is going with the TSA numbers, something that many people who deal with such stuff say is wrong, the actual risk is considerably higher.

It could be argued that it's worth it but since the nude-o-scopes are hopeless against bombs in body cavities there's no upside. To kill that many just to inconvenience terrorists isn't worth it.
 
2010-11-24 06:15:26 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:15:39 PM
The terrorists are laughing their balls off at you irradiated pussies.
 
2010-11-24 06:16:17 PM
I swear you'd think that these TSA articles were somehow connected to Wampler with the amount of appearances they make on Fark.

We get it, getting grouped and getting cancer is a bad thing...unless you're into kinky stuff with your SO and enjoy a good cigarette afterward.
 
2010-11-24 06:16:29 PM
ThisNameSux: The internet really showed the evil TSA.

Somebody got showed, all right. Empty security lines on the supposed busiest travel day of the year?

I give it 6 months before the CEOs of United, Delta, American et al are all begging Congress for a bailout.
 
2010-11-24 06:16:38 PM
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.


I'll be damned, you're right.
Your name *DOES* sux.
 
2010-11-24 06:16:52 PM
zahadum party planner: spoken a derp who can't spell.

biology training? is that, like, a college course or sumthin'? i assume you can take that after your Noledge of Cancer 301 class.


You're not thinking here.

Why would any physicist be trained to calculate health effects of radiation? That's clearly only done by biologists.
 
2010-11-24 06:17:02 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:18:50 PM
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!
 
2010-11-24 06:19:43 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:20:12 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:20:14 PM
impaler: Why would any physicist be trained to calculate health effects of radiation? That's clearly only done by biologists.

Mustn't bite.
supress engineer
drink, yess... drink. that's better.
 
2010-11-24 06:20:15 PM
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.
 
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:22:26 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:23:05 PM
""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?
 
2010-11-24 06:23:11 PM
Just for reference:

How Israel does airplane security (new window)
 
2010-11-24 06:23:21 PM
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.


i258.photobucket.com
drives a car made of steal
 
2010-11-24 06:23:56 PM
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
 
2010-11-24 06:25:37 PM
Honestly I would love it if there was a terrorist on my plane.

/It's time to be a hero.
 
2010-11-24 06:25:57 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:26:07 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:27:06 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:27:28 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:27:45 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:29:52 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:30:56 PM
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:

www.state.nj.us

Just don't go outside (cosmic rays), don't eat bananas (lots radioactive Postassium), or have granite countertops. Radioactivity is everywhere.
 
2010-11-24 06:32:02 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:32:40 PM
Er, I meant 1 in 25 million to 1 in 30 million obviously.

Sorry.
 
2010-11-24 06:32:43 PM
Wow .. .that's like half isn't it?

/USA! USA!
 
2010-11-24 06:32:49 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:33:36 PM
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.


theedger.org
/hot as desert sand
 
2010-11-24 06:34:10 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:34:29 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:34:58 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:35:05 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:35:28 PM
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...
 
2010-11-24 06:36:24 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:36:33 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:39:04 PM
There are really only two options for going through airport security. Either they touch you, or
they touch themselves.
 
2010-11-24 06:39:05 PM
FARK:

Expert: "Only one in 30 million people will probably get cancer from scanners." US Airlines: "532 million people fly per year"

Farker: OMG it must banned!! BLARG!!!


Experts: Many many many more will die from 2nd house smoke!

Farker: PUSSY!! Stay home if you want to breathe clean air!!!!!
 
2010-11-24 06:39:42 PM
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
 
2010-11-24 06:39:47 PM
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
 
2010-11-24 06:39:48 PM
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. From a legal/civil liberties standpoint, though, I am profoundly disturbed by what I am seeing in this country.
 
2010-11-24 06:40:37 PM
NoSugarAdded: There are really only two options for going through airport security. Either they touch you, or
they touch themselves.


Not everyone is checked in fact some airports don't have the monitors at all.
 
2010-11-24 06:40:47 PM
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


i170.photobucket.com

fighting terrorists, one partial at a time...

Gil Grissom
the thinking man's Chuck Norris
maybe
 
2010-11-24 06:40:54 PM
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?
 
2010-11-24 06:41:04 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:42:00 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:42:49 PM
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)
 
2010-11-24 06:43:04 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:43:12 PM
Corvus: FARK:

Expert: "Only one in 30 million people will probably get cancer from scanners." US Airlines: "532 million people fly per year"

Farker: OMG it must banned!! BLARG!!!


Experts: Many many many more will die from 2nd house hand smoke!

Farker: PUSSY!! Stay home if you want to breathe clean air!!!!!



damn auto-correct.
 
2010-11-24 06:43:20 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2010-11-24 06:44:33 PM
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?
 
2010-11-24 06:44:37 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:44:50 PM
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.
 
2010-11-24 06:45:25 PM
jshine: 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.


That's a great idea, replace all the scanners with 30-million cylinder guns. It will be just as safe and catch just as many terrorists.
 
2010-11-24 06:45:42 PM
impaler : 532/30 = 17.7 fatal cancers a year. More than the number that die from airborne terrorism. And that assumes they will stop the terrorists.

I just skimmed the article, but I don't recall seeing anything that said that the 1 in 30 million was yearly odds.

Statistics are meaningless without a timeframe, and when you're talking about the odds of getting some life threatning disease, the assumed timeframe is life.

So 1 out of ever 30 million people who go through the scanners will contract cancer in their lifetimes.

This assumption could be wrong since it's based on a shiatty article. It could just as easily be a 1/30 million chance per exposure.
 
2010-11-24 06:46:11 PM
jshine: ...but given how many people "play", it's certain that *someone* will get the bullet.

It's not like that. It's someone who is probably traveling often and already experiences radiation. It's not like Russian roulette.


It's like 2nd hand smoke. a single person is not going to keel over and die from 1 exposure but it comes from repeated exposure or in combination of other carcinogens.
 
2010-11-24 06:46:23 PM
I've never really cared about this sort of thing. I'll opt out, deal with some guy touching me. It's all just skin and flesh, any uncomfortableness is simply learned social stigma.
 
2010-11-24 06:46:28 PM
A Fark Handle: 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)


If you want to oppose the TSA, do it for legitimate reasons. Grasping at straws makes your argument weaker.

This "A fraction of a fraction of radiation dosage is harmful!" is a ridiculously stupid argument. You people sound the same as those 1970s environmentalists who freaked out over the fraction of a fraction of radiation that a nuclear power plant would introduce.
 
2010-11-24 06:47:47 PM
lordargent: I just skimmed the article, but I don't recall seeing anything that said that the 1 in 30 million was yearly odds.

In context, the 1 in 3e7 is presumably the *per scan* odds. If there are 532 million people per year (this is where the "per year" comes from) and the odds are 1/3e7 per person, then the units work out just fine.
 
2010-11-24 06:48:29 PM
microlith: 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.


No, because everyone lies, just like everyone poops.

Just like your folks keep telling you, you'll understand when you're older.
 
2010-11-24 06:48:32 PM
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.


Let's see. Radiologists have to go through 2 years of school, plus pre-requisites to be allowed to operate those machines.
In light of recent incidents there is a strong push to make even more training mandatory.
Yet you don't see a problem with letting a mouth breather who got his job from a pizza box irradiate you.
Enjoy your cancer, the world will be better for it.
 
2010-11-24 06:49:18 PM
Breygon: ...CSI...

I think Freud dropped a banana peel in front of me.

/CIA
 
2010-11-24 06:49:23 PM
Adam Savage has a pretty amusing TSA anecdote himself.

Yeah, those procedures are making us all much safer.
 
2010-11-24 06:50:01 PM
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.


The above statement (c) 2010 A Rapidscan Employee
All Rights Reserved
 
2010-11-24 06:50:18 PM
helix400: This "A fraction of a fraction of radiation dosage is harmful!" is a ridiculously stupid argument. You people sound the same as those 1970s environmentalists who freaked out over the fraction of a fraction of radiation that a nuclear power plant would introduce.

It's amusing how if you come into an article about second hand smoke on FARK which is much much more deadly, you get: "You pussy", "if it bothers you stay at home", "You are worried about something that has no chance of happening", "It only kills you when your old" type responses.
 
2010-11-24 06:50:51 PM
helix400: A Fark Handle: 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)

If you want to oppose the TSA, do it for legitimate reasons. Grasping at straws makes your argument weaker.

This "A fraction of a fraction of radiation dosage is harmful!" is a ridiculously stupid argument. You people sound the same as those 1970s environmentalists who freaked out over the fraction of a fraction of radiation that a nuclear power plant would introduce.


Fortunately, nuclear safety officers require advanced degrees and years of training on top of that.

According to the TSA spokesman, the position requires a GED.
 
2010-11-24 06:51:45 PM
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.


Umm, no. That's not how it works either.

If you roll a standard die 6M times, there's a high probability 3 came up about a million times, with each step further away from the expected odds being defined by it's own probability distribution.

The odds of any specific person being killed in a terrorism related aircraft accident is within the same order of magnitude as the cancer risk. If we use your interpretation, the odds are highly in favor of no one every dying in a terrorist attack either, so we're still back to these things accomplish no real change in risk for an extremely unlikely event, at a disproportionate cost in time, money, and personal liberty and dignity.

Human beings are terrible at understanding relative risks of extremely rare and unlikely events, especially when compared to common but still highly unlikely events. Most people will not die in an auto accident. However, you're several orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash traveling to and from the airport than you are to die in a terrorist attack against your flight. If you drive the entire trip to avoid flying, you're even more likely to die in a car crash, even though those odds are still minuscule.
 
2010-11-24 06:51:55 PM
Luse: 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.

Let's see. Radiologists have to go through 2 years of school, plus pre-requisites to be allowed to operate those machines.
In light of recent incidents there is a strong push to make even more training mandatory.
Yet you don't see a problem with letting a mouth breather who got his job from a pizza box irradiate you.
Enjoy your cancer, the world will be better for it.


Actually, radiologists are MDs who do years of residency to specialize, but generally do not operate the equipment themselves. That is done by radiology techs, who, as you said, undergo two or more years of specialized training.
 
2010-11-24 06:51:56 PM
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?


Oh, no. That could never happen. These are sophisticated machines and I'm sure they have failsafes. Like CT scanners do.

Link (new window)
 
2010-11-24 06:52:26 PM
That thing we see in the sky that we all call the sun. It exposes us to deadly radiation daily but nobody is asking for it to go away.

I don't fly that often and I'll take my risk with a machine or a pat down. They can feel my junk. I won't care.
 
2010-11-24 06:52:58 PM
jshine: 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.


yes, but you drive a car for a reason; transportation, work, impress the date, etc...this body scan shiat is done for no reason. NONE. even though more cost effective and non-irradiating methods of bomb detection are available (e.g. dogs). hence the difference. hell, if the TSA manages to piss enough fliers off and more drive, then more will die on the roads because auto travel is much much more dangerous than flying.

/if there's no reason to play in traffic, then it's probably best people don't.
 
2010-11-24 06:52:59 PM
Corvus: jshine: ...but given how many people "play", it's certain that *someone* will get the bullet.

It's not like that. It's someone who is probably traveling often and already experiences radiation. It's not like Russian roulette.

It's like 2nd hand smoke. a single person is not going to keel over and die from 1 exposure but it comes from repeated exposure or in combination of other carcinogens.


It's true that prior exposure can make a person more susceptible, but even a single wayward photon can give a person cancer. There is no minimum safe dose (where "safe" implies a 0% increase in cancer risk).

Depending on exactly where the 1/3e7 number came from, my description is essentially accurate.

/have had this conversation with the wife, whose PhD is in genetics
//my own was in chemical engineering
 
2010-11-24 06:53:55 PM
A Fark Handle: jshine: 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.

yes, but you drive a car for a reason; transportation, work, impress the date, etc...this body scan shiat is done for no reason. NONE. even though more cost effective and non-irradiating methods of bomb detection are available (e.g. dogs). hence the difference. hell, if the TSA manages to piss enough fliers off and more drive, then more will die on the roads because auto travel is much much more dangerous than flying.

/if there's no reason to play in traffic, then it's probably best people don't.



Yea, that was sarcasm on my part. I agree with you.
 
2010-11-24 06:53:55 PM
moops:
God people are dumbasses. Technically you get a radiation dose from granite in the airport parking lot too.


Don't take airport parking lots for granite.
 
2010-11-24 06:53:59 PM
jake3988: 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.


Go educate yourself. http://www.google.com/search?q=cosmic+radiation+air+travel

Here's a nice gem from the EPA. "Our exposure to cosmic radiation partially depends on the elevation of where we live. For example, people who live in Denver, Colorado, which is more than 5,000 feet above sea level, are exposed to more cosmic radiation than people living in Chicago, Illinois, which is only about 700 feet above sea level. For the same reasons described above, we are exposed to higher levels of cosmic radiation when we fly on a commercial airplane. "
 
2010-11-24 06:55:15 PM
zahadum party planner: 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.

spoken a derp who can't spell.

biology training? is that, like, a college course or sumthin'? i assume you can take that after your Noledge of Cancer 301 class.


Yeah that was an awkward mistake, god only nos why I farked up know and no. I'm pretty sure I no the difference. It wasn't a spelling mistake it was a grammatical mistake as the word "know" was correctly spelled.

Biology training is the training to become a biologist. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp? The man had physics training, to become a physicist which no doubt required zero biology whatsoever, save perhaps a silly undergrad course he may have taken a decade or longer ago.

Now to be fair, I don't expect him to understand biology but he might keep his opinions on biological topics to himself and stick to the physics of scanners. From his manuscript if you take him at his word (what exactly his "clear evidence" is for instance), 200mSv is bad, 100mSv is unknown:

There is clear evidence of cancer induction at effective dose above about 200 mSv. Below an effective dose of about 100 mSv radiogenic cancer mortality risk estimates for all cancers is highly uncertain. 16 It is not possible to determine reliably whether a radiogenic risk is present in an X-ray screening population because of the high spontaneous incidence of cancer and multifactorial nature of disease causation 17.

The safety measures in place are there to limit the effective dose to no higher than 0.25mSv:

Passenger screening presents no public health concern under normal operating conditions. However, serious consideration should be given to the possibility of unintended and unnecessary doses to passengers due to malfunctioning equipment. The NS 43.17 standard requires the exposure terminate before an effective dose of 0.25 mSv is reached

How low is that 0.25mSv? Lower than the radiation you get from flying on the plane 10 minutes later.

An effective dose of 0.25 µSv is substantially less than the average effective dose of 6.2 mSv members of the US population get every year from all sources of radiation exposure, and is less than the increased cosmic radiation dose passengers receive during commercial airline travel

His beef is not with the scanners under normal operation. His beef is only if these safety mechanisms malfunction and a higher effective dose is delivered. Yet the question remains, what is the maximum possible dose the machines can deliver?

And all of this again, gave him the benefit of the doubt. The "clear evidence" he states is more likely not so clear. You don't go from being happy healthy normal person to poof malignant near death cancer in a single step. There are reasons to hate on the nudie scanners, this is not one of them.
 
2010-11-24 06:56:24 PM
The Asshole Guy: That thing we see in the sky that we all call the sun. It exposes us to deadly radiation daily but nobody is asking for it to go away.

I don't fly that often and I'll take my risk with a machine or a pat down. They can feel my junk. I won't care.


Just because noone else will touch it doesn't mean the rest of us need, or want that service.
There are several places you can go to receive much better quality service of that type without even having to fly.
The more you know...
 
2010-11-24 06:56:29 PM
So, more people dead from the scanning than from the islimic terror? Hmmm.
 
Al!
2010-11-24 06:57:00 PM
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.


You're missing the point, and there is a flaw in your argument. As a percentage of the total number of automobile accidents each year, how many people are injured each year in accidents that could have been prevented by properly caring for their automobile? As a percentage, how many of the people that drive cars have a working knowledge of their vehicle and can diagnose a major problem before it actually becomes a hazard?

As a percentage of the total number of backscatter imager operators, how many of them have a working knowledge of the technology to such an extent that they might be able to diagnose a problem with the machine before it becomes a hazard? As a percentage of the total number of injuries occurring that can be directly tied to backscatter technology being used in commercial airline screening, how many of those injuries occur because the machine is not operating properly? I don't know about the rest of the numbers, but the last two percentage would have to be almost 0 and almost 100, respectively (well, assuming there is a method to compile the data on backscatter injuries/illnesses, which there likely is not.) At least make sure anyone operating the machine has a strong working knowledge of the technology and the different problems that can arise from its malfunctioning. I don't care if they know how to fix it. At least teach them how to know if it isn't working properly.
 
2010-11-24 06:57:01 PM
what will you do when you have no liberty left? Anyone who doesn't consider the TSA complete fascists are responsible for the dismantling of this national experiment in democracy. The rest of us will eventually move away I guess, and leave you sad, frightened little sheep to your own deathwish. Unless of course you die first, in which case we'll all be better off.
 
2010-11-24 06:57:10 PM
ThisNameSux:
A scan is the equivalent of...

3 minutes of flying at altitude

17 minutes everyday living


Very good, sir. I assume that your ITG-ness gives you sufficient resistance to harm to tell those pesky nurses and dental assistants that you don't need no pansy lead bib when you have an x-ray taken.

The rest of us mere mortals must protect ourselves as best we can.
 
2010-11-24 06:57:12 PM
woodstock: I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer earlier this year and I do not care how low it is, I cannot willing expose the healthy half of the thyroid I have left to radiation. The results would be bad.

So, bring on McGropenstein.


Based on your concerns, you should take a bus/train/car.
 
2010-11-24 06:57:25 PM
The article is misleading.

Likelihood increases with repeated exposure; if you go home once a year to visit granny, you are in no great risk.

But if you are a businessman who flies 50 times a year, that risk is not 50 times higher; more like 250 times higher.

And if you are a pilot who flies 250 times a year---WATCH OUT!
 
2010-11-24 06:57:29 PM
They_no_kill_BakBak: I've never really cared about this sort of thing. I'll opt out, deal with some guy touching me. It's all just skin and flesh, any uncomfortableness is simply learned social stigma.

I disagree. There are plenty of reasons an individual might rationally decide on his or her own that being touched in all over their body by a stranger is unacceptable. Some of us are not objectivists or materialists and have more complex ways of viewing the world, by choice and through experience.

Even people from cultures where touching is much more common or nudity is permissible don't like being groped by strangers. They weren't taught not to like it.

Autistic people, also, dislike being touched. Maybe I'm autistic (and I guess my adoptive mother was too), as I've never liked being patted or hugged or touched by aunties or anyone, since I was a baby.

I like being hugged, now, by a handful of people. And there's one person (and one person only) who I don't mind touching my titties.

A very official, intelligent female using the back of her hands on the sensitive parts without staring right at them is tolerable, but not desirable (for me). No one taught me this attitude, I came up with it myself - that's what happened in Paris last year. It makes a huge difference (to me) what the look in the screener's eye might be.

Perhaps you don't pay attention to people's facial expressions or have no sense of what some people are thinking (or saying, with their eyes) when they grope you, but some of us do.

I do not think anyone taught me this.
 
2010-11-24 06:57:46 PM
helix400: If you want to oppose the TSA, do it for legitimate reasons. Grasping at straws makes your argument weaker.

fine, here are some non-straws for you:

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 more deaths and injuries from auto accidents.
are clearly an sign of corruption on behalf 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.

/the people who get unnecessary cancer probably won't think irradiation was a straw
 
2010-11-24 06:57:50 PM
ThisNameSux:


Keep on herping that derp.

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


These scanners are so important to our national security that they decided to turn them off today.
 
2010-11-24 06:57:51 PM
Obama said "You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet"
 
2010-11-24 06:58:29 PM
tbyte: helix400: A Fark Handle: 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)

If you want to oppose the TSA, do it for legitimate reasons. Grasping at straws makes your argument weaker.

This "A fraction of a fraction of radiation dosage is harmful!" is a ridiculously stupid argument. You people sound the same as those 1970s environmentalists who freaked out over the fraction of a fraction of radiation that a nuclear power plant would introduce.

Fortunately, nuclear safety officers require advanced degrees and years of training on top of that.

According to the TSA spokesman, the position requires a GED.


The GED isn't required. You can use work experience in its place.
 
2010-11-24 06:59:44 PM
jshine: Yea, that was sarcasm on my part. I agree with you.

well, don't i feel silly...
 
2010-11-24 07:01:20 PM
The dose is purportedly 1/1000 of a dental x-ray. The booths are open at the sides, with helpful TSA agents telling people how to stand in front of the scanning device.

The TSA agents handle hundreds of pax each day. So, conservatively, they are getting a full body dental x-ray every two weeks. At the end of the year, their entire epidermises (epidermi?) have had 26 full body dental x-rays.

None of them have dosimeters.

Wonder what Cal OSHA would have to say about that.
 
2010-11-24 07:02:25 PM
jshine: 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.


It doesn't work that way. This is stochastic, not deterministic. Very different things.

Virtually all of the population probably (heh) does not have the statistics knowledge to accurately assess these statements. And the press for damn sure doesn't. Probability theory is involved as well.

Worthless article. But it's sure to rile up the ignorant but think they're intelligent crowd.
 
2010-11-24 07:02:35 PM
stuhayes2010: How do you know he doesn't know cancer biology? Radiation experts typically are knowledgable of such things.

Because this how biologists who disagree with scanners sound:

Link (new window)
 
2010-11-24 07:03:10 PM
OrelupM: 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?


It's rare that a commercial airplane crashes and even more rare that the crash is fatal. But in the last 9 years there have not been any first time flyers that died in commercial plane crashes that departed or should arrive in the US.

Generally airplane deaths are from hiding in the wheel wells. I am guessing most of them are first time fliers. Air Marshals have been the leading cause of death most years and those were mostly first time fliers.

Just remember American Air figured out that TSA had been damaged 43 aircraft and 9 had to be repaired before they were airworthy. So the lack of casulties is not anything to do with TSA.

When has any government agency other than TSA be able to just dump an expected explosive in the garbage. The entire TSA process is based on never actually finding a real threat.
 
2010-11-24 07:04:24 PM
Highway61Revisited: 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.


Uh yeah I do... we're talking about two different things.

Prevalence and probability aren't the same thing.
 
2010-11-24 07:04:45 PM
this is entertaining.

i wonder why these nuclear physicists / statisticians / cancer experts waste their time debating with the masses of idiots on here....maybe I should mistype or make a spelling mistake for one of these clever individuals to point out....
 
2010-11-24 07:05:36 PM
STFU and have some more Thalidomide!
 
2010-11-24 07:05:44 PM
I wonder how much radiation you get from standing in front of a microwave or putting a cell phone to your head?
 
2010-11-24 07:06:19 PM
Words aren't studies, not even when done by a physics professor.
 
2010-11-24 07:06:43 PM
olddinosaur: The article is misleading.

Likelihood increases with repeated exposure; if you go home once a year to visit granny, you are in no great risk.

But if you are a businessman who flies 50 times a year, that risk is not 50 times higher; more like 250 times higher.

And if you are a pilot who flies 250 times a year---WATCH OUT!



If one assumes statistical independence (which may not be valid from a biological perspective) then it works like this:

Say the probability of an event happening in one "trial" is "P" (here 1/30,000,000 = 3.333e-8). The probability of that event not happening is 1-P (here, 0.999999967). The probability of the event *not* happening in 2 independent trials is (1-P)^2, or to be general, the probability of the event not happening in N independent trials is (1-P)^N.

Here, (1-P)^1 = 0.999999967 (99.9999967%)
(1-P)^50 = 0.999998333 (99.9998333%)
(1-P)^250 = 0.999991667 (99.9991667%)

Again, these are the probabilities of *not* getting cancer (assuming each run through the scanner is independent).

If there were 5.32e8 statistically independent trips through the scanner each year, the odds of *nobody* getting cancer (in that year) would be: (1-1/3e7)^5.32e8=1.98843346e-8 or a 99.999998% chance that it *will* happen at least once.
 
2010-11-24 07:08:03 PM
Radiation is cumulative, and your body purges it very, very slowly. Anyone remember the guy the Russians took out with Polonium, months after actually exposing him to it?

That 1:30 mil becomes much, much higher for frequent travelers, and even worse, what about the pilots being exposed to this on a daily basis - sometimes even multiple times per day?

More importantly, let's say this device is only going to kill a single person, ever. That's 1 more than it's going to save.
 
2010-11-24 07:08:30 PM
The radiation safety argument against the X-ray backscatter machines (and, notably, not the millimeter wave machines) is only one of many arguments against both of them. (What did supporters ever have to say about the conjectures posited in this letter? I can't keep up with everything.)

The bottom line is that those of you who support this TSA shiat have a lot more explaining to do to make us support the current procedures.
 
2010-11-24 07:09:04 PM
Airports look like jails more and more everyday
/Cook County jail had one of these for a while
 
2010-11-24 07:09:30 PM
helix400:
This "A fraction of a fraction of radiation dosage is harmful!" is a ridiculously stupid argument. You people sound the same as those 1970s environmentalists who freaked out over the fraction of a fraction of radiation that a nuclear power plant would introduce.


We don't actually know if there is a minimum dosage level, below which no damage is done. Our current guess is that every ionizing photon has a chance to cause cancer. However, statistically speaking there is a level below which you cannot determine the effects at all. 1 in 30M is definitely in this undetectable range.

There are hundreds of reasons to dislike the scanners and the ridiculous operating procedures of the TSA. I don't think radiation exposure is one of them, but it seems to be what the masses have jumped on. I guess it's not all that surprising. There's an almost irrational fear of radiation exposure in this country that just will not go away.
 
2010-11-24 07:10:37 PM
532 million people fly every year? Considering we have less than 350 million people living in this country, I find that figure quite suspect.
 
2010-11-24 07:10:42 PM
TheDirtyNacho: jshine: 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.

It doesn't work that way. This is stochastic, not deterministic. Very different things.

Virtually all of the population probably (heh) does not have the statistics knowledge to accurately assess these statements. And the press for damn sure doesn't. Probability theory is involved as well.

Worthless article. But it's sure to rile up the ignorant but think they're intelligent crowd.




I described it correctly, assuming that each trip through the scanner is independent (which is a "best case" scenario -- reality is worse, if anything, since DNA damage accumulates).

If not, please describe my error in detail, besides just saying that "it's wrong". My PhD thesis (chemical engineering) involved stochastic effects in gene regulatory networks, so I'd be more than happy to discuss this in technical detail if you feel that I've made an error.
 
2010-11-24 07:11:12 PM
jshine: olddinosaur: The article is misleading.

Likelihood increases with repeated exposure; if you go home once a year to visit granny, you are in no great risk.

But if you are a businessman who flies 50 times a year, that risk is not 50 times higher; more like 250 times higher.

And if you are a pilot who flies 250 times a year---WATCH OUT!


If one assumes statistical independence (which may not be valid from a biological perspective) then it works like this:

Say the probability of an event happening in one "trial" is "P" (here 1/30,000,000 = 3.333e-8). The probability of that event not happening is 1-P (here, 0.999999967). The probability of the event *not* happening in 2 independent trials is (1-P)^2, or to be general, the probability of the event not happening in N independent trials is (1-P)^N.

Here, (1-P)^1 = 0.999999967 (99.9999967%)
(1-P)^50 = 0.999998333 (99.9998333%)
(1-P)^250 = 0.999991667 (99.9991667%)

Again, these are the probabilities of *not* getting cancer (assuming each run through the scanner is independent).

If there were 5.32e8 statistically independent trips through the scanner each year, the odds of *nobody* getting cancer (in that year) would be: (1-1/3e7)^5.32e8=1.98843346e-8 or a 99.999998% chance that it *will* happen at least once.


i was told there would be no math...
 
2010-11-24 07:12:19 PM
impaler: hockeyfarker: I question that it's even 1 in 30 million.

still higher than the probability of getting killed by terrorists, though.

532/30 = 17.7 fatal cancers a year. More than the number that die from airborne terrorism. And that assumes they will stop the terrorists.


Not quite how the numbers work, and because of duplicate or frequent flyers it's also a pretty gross overestimation.
 
2010-11-24 07:12:26 PM
Coco LaFemme: 532 million people fly every year? Considering we have less than 350 million people living in this country, I find that figure quite suspect.

One person can fly (or be screened) multiple times. Presumably, it's not distinct people that are being counted, it's the number of through the TSA screening station.
 
2010-11-24 07:12:57 PM
Regarding TSA and dosimeters, as far as the few comments relating to OSHA are concerned, TSA is a federal department, OSHA does not apply to public sector employees including the military and federal/state/local government employees, with the exception that state/local government employees in the states that have adopted their own OSHA approved state plans must implement an "as effective as" policy. So, no, OSHA won't give two flying flips.
 
2010-11-24 07:13:22 PM
sconietagneeded: this is entertaining.

i wonder why these nuclear physicists / statisticians / cancer experts waste their time debating with the masses of idiots on here....maybe I should mistype or make a spelling mistake for one of these clever individuals to point out....


what if the choice is to argue on fark, or debate with relatives, home for the holiday, about whether Obama was born in this country?
 
2010-11-24 07:13:47 PM
joe714: 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.

Umm, no. That's not how it works either.

If you roll a standard die 6M times, there's a high probability 3 came up about a million times, with each step further away from the expected odds being defined by it's own probability distribution.

The odds of any specific person being killed in a terrorism related aircraft accident is within the same order of magnitude as the cancer risk. If we use your interpretation, the odds are highly in favor of no one every dying in a terrorist attack either, so we're still back to these things accomplish no real change in risk for an extremely unlikely event, at a disproportionate cost in time, money, and personal liberty and dignity.

Human beings are terrible at understanding relative risks of extremely rare and unlikely events, especially when compared to common but still highly unlikely events. Most people will not die in an auto accident. However, you're several orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash traveling to and from the airport than you are to die in a terrorist attack against your flight. If you drive the entire trip to avoid flying, you're even more likely to die in a car crash, even though those odds are still minuscule.


Wait, my example and what I'm trying to say, which is correct don't match, thank you for calling me out on that. The die rolling example does imply that with every run through a scanner you're more likely to eventually get cancer from it, just as the more times you roll a dice the odds are in favor of you eventually getting a 3, which obviously isn't the case. It's the single event that matters and they don't cumulate or something damn I'm having a low brain day and officially have no farking clue what I'm trying to say anymore.

Listen to the other people. The ones who know what they're talking about. Not the ones saying 18 will die each year.

That said, you are also right, none of this is worth the multitude of costs relative to the negligible benefit and hope my initial fail didn't imply otherwise.
 
2010-11-24 07:15:41 PM
unyon: hockeyfarker: moothemagiccow: . What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

the odds of them getting cancer are now 12 in 30 million, or even 52 in 30 million. they might as well end it now!

It's actually 50/50. You're either going to get cancer or you won't.


Arguably if you accept the concept of non-linear time and of an immutable future, then the odds are 100% that you either will or you will not.
 
2010-11-24 07:17:13 PM
Alright, that's it, let's just invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to xianity.
 
2010-11-24 07:18:39 PM
bangmaid: I wonder how much radiation you get from standing in front of a microwave or putting a cell phone to your head?

Standing in front of a microwave exposes you to 0 xrays.
The hint is in the name.

/Electromagnetic spectrum, look it up
 
2010-11-24 07:19:36 PM
Did anyone find it funny that the company is called Rapiscan?
 
2010-11-24 07:20:25 PM
fizzix_is_fun: There are hundreds of reasons to dislike the scanners and the ridiculous operating procedures of the TSA. I don't think radiation exposure is one of them, but it seems to be what the masses have jumped on. I guess it's not all that surprising. There's an almost irrational fear of radiation exposure in this country that just will not go away.

i have never understood the fear of radiation in this nation. nuclear power would have help us not be so tied to oil (and oil has cause a lot of problems we've have had and are having with terrorists). never mind the whole climate change thing. that said, if the radiation boogieman gets these machines yanked and the TSA biatch slapped, i'm all for pretending that one trip through this device and your mom gets breast cancer.

/also, the "true" risk is unknown and some impressive people have said so
//that's a known unknown i believe...thanks dick cheney
 
2010-11-24 07:20:30 PM
trerro: Radiation is cumulative, and your body purges it very, very slowly.

No, some radioactive particles are difficult to purge. Radioactivity itself is NOT cumulative.

Radioactivity itself comes in three varieties.

1) Alpha (essentially excited Helium atoms without electrons). Easily stopped by a piece of paper and generally unharmful. If you get some radioactive particles emitting alpha particles within your body, ya, that's a problem. But otherwise, your skin does a nice job stopping this. The Polonium example you cited earlier is in this category.
2) Beta (essentially excited electrons). Once the electron transfers its energy, it's not "radioactive" anymore. I can promise you your body has lots of electrons in it. Radiation from bananas fall in this category.
3) Gamma (high energy packets). Once they hit, the energy is transferred in some form or another, and the gamma ray is gone. The TSA scanners use these.
 
2010-11-24 07:21:05 PM
lennavan: zahadum party planner: 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.


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


Biology training is the training to become a biologist. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp? The man had physics training, to become a physicist which no doubt required zero biology whatsoever, save perhaps a silly undergrad course he may have taken a decade or longer ago.

Now to be fair, I don't expect him to understand biology but he might keep his opinions on biological topics to himself and stick to the physics of scanners. From his manuscript if you take him at his word (what exactly his "clear evidence" is for instance), 200mSv is bad, 100mSv is unknown:


Physicists can most certainly understand complex biological issues, and can have education to deal with radiation and its effects on biology. Shoot, sometimes physicists and biologists work together on projects!

This is even a school age project: http://www.phys.ksu.edu/gene/ (new window)

Funny, Dr. Manney, the professor I worked with, was a prof of both physics and biology; but more physics than biology, as I worked with him in the physics department.
 
2010-11-24 07:21:10 PM
TheSilverOne: Highway61Revisited: 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.

Uh yeah I do... we're talking about two different things.

Prevalence and probability aren't the same thing.


You said:

With odds that low, chances are highly in favor of no one ever getting cancer from these scanners.

That's not how an increased relative risk of 1 in 30 million works.

Sure, on an individual basis, it is extremely unlikely that going through that scanner will give you cancer. However, (again assuming the statistic is correct to begin with and assuming 532 million go through the scanner), around 18 people will get cancer when they would not have otherwise.

I'm not sure what issue you take with that.
 
2010-11-24 07:21:15 PM
Luse: bangmaid: I wonder how much radiation you get from standing in front of a microwave or putting a cell phone to your head?

Standing in front of a microwave exposes you to 0 xrays.
The hint is in the name.

/Electromagnetic spectrum, look it up


Also apparently cell phones now use ionizing radiation. Who knew?
 
2010-11-24 07:21:19 PM
Luse: bangmaid: I wonder how much radiation you get from standing in front of a microwave or putting a cell phone to your head?

Standing in front of a microwave exposes you to 0 xrays.
The hint is in the name.

/Electromagnetic spectrum, look it up


OP said radiation, not xrays. A microwave does expose you to a very very minor dose of radiation but it's not harmful.

/Non-ionizing radiation, look it up.
 
2010-11-24 07:21:39 PM
I'm just waiting for terrorists to start planting bombs before the security checkpoints at airports. The lineups of people waiting to get through security helps ensure that there's always a big crowd in the airport. If terrorists actually want to kill and, y'know, terrorize people they can do it very effectively without even getting within a few hundred feet of a plane.

The TSA would actually save lives by hurrying people through security with "just" the old fashioned checks.
 
2010-11-24 07:22:01 PM
FTA: "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.

Is that 1 in 30,000,000 per year? Per person? per exposure? per life-time? Makes a big difference to frequent fliers.

The figure on being struck by lightning is just plain wrong. Perhaps it is the figure for being KILLED by lightning in a year. Perhaps they accidentally added a zero. Only 20% of the people struck by lightning are killed immediately. Many others die prematurely, possibly as a result of being struck by lightning, in whole or part. Your odds of being hit by lightning are actually 1 in 500,000 a year. Three or four hundred Americans are killed by lightning each year, most of them in Florida or a few other lightning-prone, outdoorsy states.

Of course, being struck by lightning, unlike air travel, is mainly a young to middle-aged male habit. Over 80% of the victims are men. Men are more likely to be working or playing outdoors. Golf particularly exposes one to the risk of being struck by lightning, particularly in Florida.

So that's another thing: anybody may have to fly--the elderly, the sick, the very young, the pregnant, etc., but not everybody has to be struck by lightning. You can avoid lightning with a little bit of planning--plan to move to Yellowknife or Moose Factory--the chances of being struck by lightning in Canada are considerably lower, if only because you'll have the sense to come in out of the rain if you live in Canada, where the rain is much, much colder on average.

Also, people naturally fear an involuntary risk more than a voluntary one. Your odds of being killed by smoking are pretty high but people "choose" to smoke despite it being an addiction. People are not choosing to be fondled by fat ugly quasi-retarded security personnel. Well, most of them aren't.

I expect that a few lonely weirdos will start flying just for the groping.
 
2010-11-24 07:22:23 PM
trerro: Radiation is cumulative, and your body purges it very, very slowly. Anyone remember the guy the Russians took out with Polonium, months after actually exposing him to it?

That 1:30 mil becomes much, much higher for frequent travelers, and even worse, what about the pilots being exposed to this on a daily basis - sometimes even multiple times per day?

More importantly, let's say this device is only going to kill a single person, ever. That's 1 more than it's going to save.


Radiation does not build up in the body to be 'purged'. It knocks things loose, like molecular bonds in your DNA. This happens all the time through other means, physical, chemical, viral. The very heart of biological beings incorporate methods to detect and repair damaged DNA.

Nevertheless, too much radiation can knock too much DNA loose, which can lead to cancer (which is a failure of the body to regulate genetic damage). This is a stochastic process - meaning, it is random. There are so many potential factors, it becomes non-deterministic. Since the body can repair itself, small doses likely have no long term effect. Cumulative small doses before the body can repair itself can have an effect, but the body receives plenty of small doses everyday from the natural environment.

A single large dose can have an acute effect - radiation sickness. But even that does not guarantee cancer in the long run.

The key phrase in all this is 'stochastic process'
 
2010-11-24 07:23:37 PM
So, how many people died from terrorist attacks on airplanes per year, under the old rules? I bet it was less than 30,000.
 
2010-11-24 07:26:02 PM
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?


Working properly is not the responsibility of the operator. Outside agencies, not the operator, are responsible for the proper operation of the scanners. Minimal training is actually required for the use of the equipment.

Like medical radiological equipment, there are redundant safety systems built into the equipment that insure its proper operation.

FWIW- the amount of radiation used in the scanning process makes up about .03% of the 300mrem background exposure the average person gets each year, or the equivalent of about twenty minutes of flight. Medical chest x-rays, which increase the risk of cancer to 8 in 10 million, are aproximately 10mrem.
 
2010-11-24 07:29:08 PM
helix400: trerro: Radiation is cumulative, and your body purges it very, very slowly.

No, some radioactive particles are difficult to purge. Radioactivity itself is NOT cumulative.

Radioactivity itself comes in three varieties.

1) Alpha (essentially excited Helium atoms without electrons). Easily stopped by a piece of paper and generally unharmful. If you get some radioactive particles emitting alpha particles within your body, ya, that's a problem. But otherwise, your skin does a nice job stopping this. The Polonium example you cited earlier is in this category.
2) Beta (essentially excited electrons). Once the electron transfers its energy, it's not "radioactive" anymore. I can promise you your body has lots of electrons in it. Radiation from bananas fall in this category.
3) Gamma (high energy packets). Once they hit, the energy is transferred in some form or another, and the gamma ray is gone. The TSA scanners use these.


What you described are the three results from nuclear processes. These are the output of radioactive decays. These are NOT the only sources of radiation, and the TSA scanners do NOT use gammas from nuclear decays.

Photons extend the range from radio waves to gammas. The point where they start becoming harmful is when they can ionize bound electrons. This varies depending on the actual material, but for most materials, the 'dangerous' range starts somewhere in the UV to X-ray range of the spectrum.
 
2010-11-24 07:29:59 PM
impaler: hockeyfarker: I question that it's even 1 in 30 million.

still higher than the probability of getting killed by terrorists, though.

532/30 = 17.7 fatal cancers a year. More than the number that die from airborne terrorism. And that assumes they will stop the terrorists.


HAHA! That's funny. You think they're worried about Americans getting killed. HAHAHA

They're worried about the Pentagon or White House being hit. They could give a shiat about how many Americans die from terrorists, much less from cancer caused by scanners.

HAHAHA....they care!!! HAHAHA!!!! That's rich.
 
2010-11-24 07:30:53 PM
Sorry, is that based on a single exposure, or multiple? Very very few people take one flight one way during their lives.
 
2010-11-24 07:31:10 PM
Highway61Revisited: TheSilverOne: Highway61Revisited: 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.

Uh yeah I do... we're talking about two different things.

Prevalence and probability aren't the same thing.

You said:

With odds that low, chances are highly in favor of no one ever getting cancer from these scanners.

That's not how an increased relative risk of 1 in 30 million works.

Sure, on an individual basis, it is extremely unlikely that going through that scanner will give you cancer. However, (again assuming the statistic is correct to begin with and assuming 532 million go through the scanner), around 18 people will get cancer when they would not have otherwise.

I'm not sure what issue you take with that.


It's really more like those 18 people might be at an increased risk* than otherwise.

*dependent on a vast, uncountable number of factors in their life experience and biological makeup

Personally I think if you're going to make a statement like "1 in 30 million will get fatal cancer", you should show your work...
 
2010-11-24 07:31:32 PM
HeartBurnKid: So, how many people died from terrorist attacks on airplanes per year, under the old rules? I bet it was less than one in 30,000,000.

FTFM
 
2010-11-24 07:33:36 PM
vorsicht: OrelupM: 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?

It's rare that a commercial airplane crashes and even more rare that the crash is fatal. But in the last 9 years there have not been any first time flyers that died in commercial plane crashes that departed or should arrive in the US.

Generally airplane deaths are from hiding in the wheel wells. I am guessing most of them are first time fliers. Air Marshals have been the leading cause of death most years and those were mostly first time fliers.

Just remember American Air figured out that TSA had been damaged 43 aircraft and 9 had to be repaired before they were airworthy. So the lack of casulties is not anything to do with TSA.

When has any government agency other than TSA be able to just dump an expected explosive in the garbage. The entire TSA process is based on never actually finding a real threat.


I was just pointing out that "NOBODY" is a heck of an absolute to be capitalizing.
 
2010-11-24 07:34:01 PM
I dunno. I'm pretty sure that large terrorist cells are pretty much done hijacking airplanes. The days of "turn this plane around or I detonate this bomb" are over. The 9/11 attacks kinda shot future terrorist plane hijackings in the foot. If a terrorist is discovered on a plane, the passengers are going to assume that they are going to die and thus have nothing to lose by attempting to thwart the attack by taking down the terrorist(s).

TSA is a waste of money.
 
2010-11-24 07:36:39 PM
Really, the stupidity of this, is that 1 underwear bomber caused the outlay of 1.5 billion dollars or was it 4.5 billion, I don't know, in order to catch underwear bombers.

So now there will be no underwear OR shoe bombers.

There will be some other kind of bomber if there are any bombers at all.

Will we invest an increasing percentage of the federal budget into...cavity searches? Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)? Pre-screening screenings at off-site, secret locations?

Will we become like Egypt, investing most of our national productivity in something inane and stupid?
 
2010-11-24 07:37:07 PM
50,000 Americans die every year in auto accidents. If they were serious about protecting us, that's where they should start.
 
2010-11-24 07:37:26 PM
I wish there was some way for the Internet Tough Guys to post about how they are going to cause havoc and mess with the screeners/operators of the backscatter scanners. There really isn't as much of an opportunity as there is with the pat-downs.

Seriously, I really don't like these two new TSA methods at all. And I wish they'd get rid of them. I think they are an extremely unnecessary invasion of personal privacy.

I just think it is funny how the pat-downs have brought in a wave of Internet Badasses who are supposedly going to cover themselves in poop and scream like a banshee whenever the TSA worker touches them, strip naked, then fake an orgasm and hump at the chair, 'cause that'll show 'em.

When, in reality, they'll just go through the damn scanner and mutter stuff under their breath.
 
2010-11-24 07:40:24 PM
Will we become like Egypt, investing most of our national productivity in something inane and stupid?


Swarma?
 
2010-11-24 07:40:58 PM
Barakku: I wonder what the probability of being even remotely harmed by a terrorist or their actions (TSA aside) on a plane are.

I'm sure the odds would severely increase if no screening precedures were in place.

I'd be more curious about what the odds of survival would be if you were a total a-hole about being screened or pat-down and the crowd behind you who were willing to go through the scanner missed their flight due to your beligerence.

Of course we'll probably never find out as the opt-out movement appears to have been headed by armchair activists rather than the travelers themselves.
 
2010-11-24 07:41:30 PM
TheDirtyNacho: Highway61Revisited: TheSilverOne: Highway61Revisited: 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.

Uh yeah I do... we're talking about two different things.

Prevalence and probability aren't the same thing.

You said:

With odds that low, chances are highly in favor of no one ever getting cancer from these scanners.

That's not how an increased relative risk of 1 in 30 million works.

Sure, on an individual basis, it is extremely unlikely that going through that scanner will give you cancer. However, (again assuming the statistic is correct to begin with and assuming 532 million go through the scanner), around 18 people will get cancer when they would not have otherwise.

I'm not sure what issue you take with that.

It's really more like those 18 people might be at an increased risk* than otherwise.

*dependent on a vast, uncountable number of factors in their life experience and biological makeup

Personally I think if you're going to make a statement like "1 in 30 million will get fatal cancer", you should show your work...


Yeah, I am in no way vouching for the accuracy of the actual numbers here... just that a relative risk of 1 in 30 million means that given 30 million exposures you will find around 1 more person with cancer than a similar population with no exposure.
 
2010-11-24 07:41:55 PM
TheCableGuy: TSA is a waste of money.

Especially since the rules before 9/11 were just fine. The only reason anything happened was because a few people nodded of on their jobs. It was already illegal to bring various implements on board. So about all the terrorists would've had is their fists. Which likely wouldn't work very well.
 
2010-11-24 07:41:57 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: There will be some other kind of bomber if there are any bombers at all.

The next one will probably be "sarin gas guy" who gets through completely undetected because nobody* has tried that before and TSA is entirely focused on bombs. Meanwhile they'll keep up the shoe bit, and the groping/irradiation, and the "no water bottles", and the "laptops out of their bags," and etc., etc., etc. -- with a new veneer or silliness added on to the top.

/ *excluding the Tokyo subway incident
 
2010-11-24 07:43:46 PM
RhineStoneTaco: I wish there was some way for the Internet Tough Guys to post about how they are going to cause havoc and mess with the screeners/operators of the backscatter scanners. There really isn't as much of an opportunity as there is with the pat-downs.

Seriously, I really don't like these two new TSA methods at all. And I wish they'd get rid of them. I think they are an extremely unnecessary invasion of personal privacy.

I just think it is funny how the pat-downs have brought in a wave of Internet Badasses who are supposedly going to cover themselves in poop and scream like a banshee whenever the TSA worker touches them, strip naked, then fake an orgasm and hump at the chair, 'cause that'll show 'em.

When, in reality, they'll just go through the damn scanner and mutter stuff under their breath.


It was one thing when they sent some dumbass in a suit to follow the "junk" guy, but then people started getting arrested.
 
2010-11-24 07:44:27 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]
 
2010-11-24 07:48:04 PM
I'm fairly certain there are many more voluntary, unnecessary activities that have higher death rate. Like driving to the store.
 
2010-11-24 07:49:12 PM
tbyte: RhineStoneTaco: I wish there was some way for the Internet Tough Guys to post about how they are going to cause havoc and mess with the screeners/operators of the backscatter scanners. There really isn't as much of an opportunity as there is with the pat-downs.

Seriously, I really don't like these two new TSA methods at all. And I wish they'd get rid of them. I think they are an extremely unnecessary invasion of personal privacy.

I just think it is funny how the pat-downs have brought in a wave of Internet Badasses who are supposedly going to cover themselves in poop and scream like a banshee whenever the TSA worker touches them, strip naked, then fake an orgasm and hump at the chair, 'cause that'll show 'em.

When, in reality, they'll just go through the damn scanner and mutter stuff under their breath.

It was one thing when they sent some dumbass in a suit to follow the "junk" guy, but then people started getting arrested.


You won't get arrested to save your liberties?

I didn't think so.
 
2010-11-24 07:49:42 PM
And the chance that these scanners stop a terrorist?

0 in 30 million. Because even if they worked to stop somebody from getting a bomb onto a plane (which they've never been proved to be capable of), the terrorist just detonates while waiting in line to go through the scanner.

One would think that this statistic would be at least as important than the miniscule chance that these things kill you.
 
2010-11-24 07:51:23 PM
RhineStoneTaco: When, in reality, they'll just go through the damn scanner and mutter stuff under their breath.

Meh, I'll opt for the groping. Not out as part of any organized protest, but just because I don't want to increase my odds of cancer by any amount -- no matter how small -- for the sake of theater.
 
2010-11-24 07:51:32 PM
zabadu: tbyte: RhineStoneTaco: I wish there was some way for the Internet Tough Guys to post about how they are going to cause havoc and mess with the screeners/operators of the backscatter scanners. There really isn't as much of an opportunity as there is with the pat-downs.

Seriously, I really don't like these two new TSA methods at all. And I wish they'd get rid of them. I think they are an extremely unnecessary invasion of personal privacy.

I just think it is funny how the pat-downs have brought in a wave of Internet Badasses who are supposedly going to cover themselves in poop and scream like a banshee whenever the TSA worker touches them, strip naked, then fake an orgasm and hump at the chair, 'cause that'll show 'em.

When, in reality, they'll just go through the damn scanner and mutter stuff under their breath.

It was one thing when they sent some dumbass in a suit to follow the "junk" guy, but then people started getting arrested.

You won't get arrested to save your liberties?

I didn't think so.


So you finally admit it is a matter of liberties, and that you are arguing against them. Sure took you a while though.
 
2010-11-24 07:52:24 PM
corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]


Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.
 
2010-11-24 07:53:01 PM
tbyte: zabadu: tbyte: RhineStoneTaco: I wish there was some way for the Internet Tough Guys to post about how they are going to cause havoc and mess with the screeners/operators of the backscatter scanners. There really isn't as much of an opportunity as there is with the pat-downs.

Seriously, I really don't like these two new TSA methods at all. And I wish they'd get rid of them. I think they are an extremely unnecessary invasion of personal privacy.

I just think it is funny how the pat-downs have brought in a wave of Internet Badasses who are supposedly going to cover themselves in poop and scream like a banshee whenever the TSA worker touches them, strip naked, then fake an orgasm and hump at the chair, 'cause that'll show 'em.

When, in reality, they'll just go through the damn scanner and mutter stuff under their breath.

It was one thing when they sent some dumbass in a suit to follow the "junk" guy, but then people started getting arrested.

You won't get arrested to save your liberties?

I didn't think so.

So you finally admit it is a matter of liberties, and that you are arguing against them. Sure took you a while though.


No, I'm using words that you and others used. You were losing your "liberties".

But you won't get arrested for them.
 
2010-11-24 07:53:15 PM
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.


Where did you get your maths? Contracting cancer and dying from cancer are two seperate things. There in nothing in the post that said cancer fatalities. Many cancers are surviveable.

The whole study is flawed as you would have to keep all 527 million travelers off the airplane (20 mins of flight is equivalent to one visit with the scanner), out of the sun and away from medical radiological equipment for the year. In other words: one would have to have a large controlled sample with their only exposure to be 300 mrem of radiation annually for this supposition to actually hold any water at all.
 
2010-11-24 07:54:06 PM
tonguedepressor: stfu about TSA seeing as you've probably not flown in years nor have plans to anytime soon.

Stopped reading right there. You're an idiot.
 
2010-11-24 07:54:06 PM
zabadu: corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]

Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.


Hah -- they should require that on *leaving* Colombia, not entering.
 
2010-11-24 07:54:11 PM
zabadu: corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]

Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.


Here's the link: Link
 
2010-11-24 07:54:32 PM
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: For reference, what are the odds that your plane gets hijacked and/or gets blown up?

I think there's a mathematical equation for this. The probability of it being spontaneously blown up approaches 1 as you near an island that harnesses a magnetic force, which is driven by a donkey wheel.

If your plan is to be hijacked, as the number of Islamic-looking passengers board your place, the probability approaches 1 exponentially.

Or something.

My head hurts.
 
2010-11-24 07:55:09 PM
jshine: zabadu: corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]

Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.

Hah -- they should require that on *leaving* Colombia, not entering.


Well, according to all the warnings, "leaving" Columbia is not guaranteed.
 
2010-11-24 07:55:47 PM
corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]


Just our State Department's advisory, is all I got:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1090.html

You can also google it. There's way more information on teh internets.

Use Ctrl f and type in x- and you'll see where secondary screening can include an actual abdominal x-ray, just as here, if you get chosen, you get the x-ray or the grope.

Neither Colombia nor the TSA makes it absolutely clear who they're going to zap with regular or micro x-rays.

/not an x-ray terminology expert, but I do follow international travel issues...
 
2010-11-24 07:56:11 PM
BodaciousTease:
Physicists can most certainly understand complex biological issues, and can have education to deal with radiation and its effects on biology. Shoot, sometimes physicists and biologists work together on projects!

This is even a school age project: http://www.phys.ksu.edu/gene/ (new window)

Funny, Dr. Manney, the professor I worked with, was a prof of both physics and biology; but more physics than biology, as I worked with him in the physics department.


I never said Physicists could not understand biology or collaborate on projects. I said this specific physicist does not understand biology.

The best work I see in biology is collaborative work with other departments.
 
2010-11-24 07:56:33 PM
zabadu: corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]

Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.


Yes, yes you did. So I looked it up y voilá - il y a beaucoups d'information...
 
2010-11-24 07:56:47 PM
jshine: RhineStoneTaco: When, in reality, they'll just go through the damn scanner and mutter stuff under their breath.

Meh, I'll opt for the groping. Not out as part of any organized protest, but just because I don't want to increase my odds of cancer by any amount -- no matter how small -- for the sake of theater.


It also cracks me up when people talk about how they are going to do something like not wipe themselves for days - something I've actually seen typed on Fark - because the TSA folks are not reaching inside your pants, best I can figure. They're patting down/groping the outside of the clothing. So they'd end up with a bad butthole rash for nothing.
 
2010-11-24 07:56:48 PM
clowncar on fire: 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.

Where did you get your maths? Contracting cancer and dying from cancer are two seperate things. There in nothing in the post that said cancer fatalities. Many cancers are surviveable.

The whole study is flawed as you would have to keep all 527 million travelers off the airplane (20 mins of flight is equivalent to one visit with the scanner), out of the sun and away from medical radiological equipment for the year. In other words: one would have to have a large controlled sample with their only exposure to be 300 mrem of radiation annually for this supposition to actually hold any water at all.


What gets me is that they won't go thru the scanner and get cancer, but they'll get on the plane, where 20 minutes in the air will give you the same amount.

So, you have a three hour flight, you're getting zapped way more than walking thru the scanner for 10 seconds.

The stupid, it hurts.
 
2010-11-24 07:57:59 PM
zabadu: Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.

It's not an regular screening, the very same way it's not common to make colombians sit down for 72 hours in an interrogation room on top of their own poo when entering the US.

/yet it still happens
//I work in the biz
 
2010-11-24 07:58:38 PM
jshine: zabadu: corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]

Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.

Hah -- they should require that on *leaving* Colombia, not entering.


From someone who is currently on his fourth trip (for work) to Colombia: apparently they can require it either direction. It is Colombia, after all.

And from someone at the state department, I got a message stating that x-ray machines are installed in Colombian international airports, for use at the discretion of Colombian authorities, hence the rather generic advisory on the state department page.
 
2010-11-24 07:58:41 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: zabadu: corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]

Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.

Yes, yes you did. So I looked it up y voilá - il y a beaucoups d'information...


Yes, I thought it was pretty tasty myself.

Funny, air travel didn't stop today. Interesting.
 
2010-11-24 08:00:09 PM
corronchilejano: zabadu: Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.

It's not an regular screening, the very same way it's not common to make colombians sit down for 72 hours in an interrogation room on top of their own poo when entering the US.

/yet it still happens
//I work in the biz


What part of "you may be asked" did you miss? Kind of hard to sit on "top" of your poo unless you shiat bricks. Maybe sit "in" your poo? Regardless, those Columbians are funny, huh?

///you're "in the biz"? Are you a made man?
 
2010-11-24 08:01:06 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: jshine: zabadu: corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]

Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.

Hah -- they should require that on *leaving* Colombia, not entering.

From someone who is currently on his fourth trip (for work) to Colombia: apparently they can require it either direction. It is Colombia, after all.

And from someone at the state department, I got a message stating that x-ray machines are installed in Colombian international airports, for use at the discretion of Colombian authorities, hence the rather generic advisory on the state department page.


Man, kidnapping of Americans is high there. Do you wear a Life Alert button? :)
 
2010-11-24 08:01:33 PM
zabadu: What gets me is that they won't go thru the scanner and get cancer, but they'll get on the plane, where 20 minutes in the air will give you the same amount.

So, you have a three hour flight, you're getting zapped way more than walking thru the scanner for 10 seconds.

The stupid, it hurts.



With a difference: that 20 min. in the air accomplishes something. Most reasonable people will assume a risk (like driving to work) if it brings a reward (like getting paid). I once had a medical PET scan (with a *massive* dose of radiation, compared to these scanners) because the benefit was worth the risk (I might have had liver cancer due to preliminary tests; turns out I didn't, thanks to the scan).

But only an idiot would assume a risk -- even a small one -- if there is absolutely no benefit to be had.
 
2010-11-24 08:03:44 PM
zabadu: What part of "you may be asked" did you miss? Kind of hard to sit on "top" of your poo unless you shiat bricks. Maybe sit "in" your poo? Regardless, those Columbians are funny, huh?

I'm Colombian. It's pretty common to hear horror stories about our nationals arriving to the US and being led to an interrogation room where they aren't allowed to leave, eat, drink or call anyone until "something" is researched about them. In one case, I had a very old lady who was left for 72 hours, and when she had "an accident", she was told to continue sitting down on her own poo.

/Tourism, that biz
 
2010-11-24 08:06:32 PM
Getting the grope/Nude-o-scope is not a "regular screening" here, either. Many passengers are still sent through the metal detectors and on their way, as they always were.

It's completely unclear why or how people are chosen for the NoS, and then, what exactly can trigger the further groping (you have the option to skip straight to the groping, however at least one TSA manager has been disciplined in Atlanta for failing to grok that; she apparently gets it now).

One observer said it was 70% women who were sent through the NoS, which sounded like propaganda until the story about the airport security rapist guy broke:

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO137343/

Gotta be an attractive job for perverts.

And no, they don't *have* to have a GED, and they don't have to have a clean criminal record either.
 
2010-11-24 08:08:59 PM
yeah well, at least the radiation absorbed in flight cant produce cock pix
 
2010-11-24 08:09:31 PM
jshine:

But only an idiot would assume a risk -- even a small one -- if there is absolutely no benefit to be had.


Don't mind the scanners, but agree the whole "we're going to risk your health by a tiny amount so we can protect your health by an even smaller amount" isn't terribly bright.
 
2010-11-24 08:12:18 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: Many passengers are still sent through the metal detectors and on their way, as they always were.

Then 1 in a 30 million isn't something to be worried about... if it was actually that chance.
 
2010-11-24 08:12:22 PM
corronchilejano: zabadu: What part of "you may be asked" did you miss? Kind of hard to sit on "top" of your poo unless you shiat bricks. Maybe sit "in" your poo? Regardless, those Columbians are funny, huh?

I'm Colombian. It's pretty common to hear horror stories about our nationals arriving to the US and being led to an interrogation room where they aren't allowed to leave, eat, drink or call anyone until "something" is researched about them. In one case, I had a very old lady who was left for 72 hours, and when she had "an accident", she was told to continue sitting down on her own poo.

/Tourism, that biz


I work with a Columbian. He thinks people who are pissed at the scanners are insane. He's been zapped a whole bunch of times.
 
2010-11-24 08:13:25 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: They_no_kill_BakBak: I've never really cared about this sort of thing. I'll opt out, deal with some guy touching me. It's all just skin and flesh, any uncomfortableness is simply learned social stigma.

I disagree. There are plenty of reasons an individual might rationally decide on his or her own that being touched in all over their body by a stranger is unacceptable. Some of us are not objectivists or materialists and have more complex ways of viewing the world, by choice and through experience.

Even people from cultures where touching is much more common or nudity is permissible don't like being groped by strangers. They weren't taught not to like it.

Autistic people, also, dislike being touched. Maybe I'm autistic (and I guess my adoptive mother was too), as I've never liked being patted or hugged or touched by aunties or anyone, since I was a baby.

I like being hugged, now, by a handful of people. And there's one person (and one person only) who I don't mind touching my titties.

A very official, intelligent female using the back of her hands on the sensitive parts without staring right at them is tolerable, but not desirable (for me). No one taught me this attitude, I came up with it myself - that's what happened in Paris last year. It makes a huge difference (to me) what the look in the screener's eye might be.

Perhaps you don't pay attention to people's facial expressions or have no sense of what some people are thinking (or saying, with their eyes) when they grope you, but some of us do.

I do not think anyone taught me this.


It's called modeling, and if you're adoptive mother had issues with interpersonal contact, and you were not raised by your maternal parents, then there is a clear aberation in your normal development.
 
2010-11-24 08:13:49 PM
darth_shatner: jshine:

But only an idiot would assume a risk -- even a small one -- if there is absolutely no benefit to be had.

Don't mind the scanners, but agree the whole "we're going to risk your health by a tiny amount so we can protect your health by an even smaller amount" isn't terribly bright.


And yet both of you will get however many 20 min x length of your flight zapped, because the benefit is seeing grandma.

Your logic makes no sense. Okay to zap if it benefits me, but if it benefits the whole country, fark it.
 
2010-11-24 08:14:44 PM
www.radprotect.com
fashion accessory for the frequent traveler...
 
2010-11-24 08:15:02 PM
img828.imageshack.us
 
2010-11-24 08:16:35 PM
FTA: "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.

And the chances of "getting" a non-fatal cancer, or a tumour? Because, personally, I think those are a quite an inconvenience as well. But then again, I know people who work with radioisotopes all day long. Just visiting their lab is probably just as bad.
 
2010-11-24 08:19:41 PM
zabadu: I work with a Columbian. He thinks people who are pissed at the scanners are insane. He's been zapped a whole bunch of times.

He's an idiot. Here, take some white duct tape and tape off a 5ft x 5ft box in your house. Now stand in it for 20 seconds every time you are going to leave the house.

There ya go. A procedure with a zero-percent chance of death, and it protects you from being killed by drunk drivers as much as these scanners protect us from terrorists.

Do this for two months and then come back and tell us what you've learned.
 
2010-11-24 08:19:57 PM
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?

I am a US Airways Platinum member and I fly 50+ times a year. Guess what my choice will be.
Yep - please grab my sack and make sure there isn't a bomb there. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
 
2010-11-24 08:19:59 PM
zabadu: Atypical Person Reading Fark: zabadu: corronchilejano: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Actual x-rays (like in Colombia)?

[citation needed]

Actually, that's true. If you look up the rules for entering the country, you may be asked to submit to an abdominal xray. I posted it one of the 400 tsa threads this past week.

Yes, yes you did. So I looked it up y voilá - il y a beaucoups d'information...

Yes, I thought it was pretty tasty myself.

Funny, air travel didn't stop today. Interesting.


No, in fact things went faster at many airports (like LAX) because the TSA turned off their NoS's. For a complete list of airports that decided to "opt out" to block opting out, go here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1152508-list-airports-con f irmed-not-using-ait-today.html#post15275124

JFK used them, although not intensely. By not using them, things did speed up, which is good.

And that was because TSA was afraid of people opting out. They had "all hands on deck" (I believe that's the expression they used), so of course the traveling public had an easier time.

That's a good thing.
 
2010-11-24 08:20:00 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: Getting the grope/Nude-o-scope is not a "regular screening" here, either. Many passengers are still sent through the metal detectors and on their way, as they always were.

It's completely unclear why or how people are chosen for the NoS, and then, what exactly can trigger the further groping (you have the option to skip straight to the groping, however at least one TSA manager has been disciplined in Atlanta for failing to grok that; she apparently gets it now).

One observer said it was 70% women who were sent through the NoS, which sounded like propaganda until the story about the airport security rapist guy broke:

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO137343/

Gotta be an attractive job for perverts.

And no, they don't *have* to have a GED, and they don't have to have a clean criminal record either.


Bullshiat.

TSA Transportation Security Officers, who conduct passenger, baggage, and cargo screening at airports, undergo a two-part background investigation process. TSO applicants are first subject to a pre-employment background investigation. This investigation features the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Special Agreement Check which is a fingerprint based criminal history check that is processed through the FBI. If the pre-employment investigation is favorable and the applicant accepts a position with TSA, the individual then is subject to further background checks through OPM's Access National Agency Check with Inquiries (ANACI). The TSO is permitted to begin employment while the ANACI is underway. If derogatory information is developed, the individual is afforded an opportunity to address the information obtained during the investigation. If the information is not favorably resolved, the individual is removed from Federal service.

Other TSA employees undergo a similar investigation process. A pre-employment check is conducted to determine suitability, followed by a second, more in-depth investigation. The particulars of the second investigation are determined by the level of access required for the position (e.g., Secret or Top Secret) after the employee begins employment. According to OPM's quarterly report for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 (October 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005) a Minimum Background Investigation for TSA employees who require access to Secret information takes approximately 27 days when priority service is required, and 106 days when standard service is needed.

All airline and airport employees and contractors who require unescorted access to secure areas of the airport are subject to both fingerprint-based criminal history record checks and name-based background checks. Prior to employment, airlines and airports send fingerprints and other biographical information to the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Transportation Security
Clearinghouse, which conducts quality control on the information, accepts paper and electronic fingerprint submissions, converts the paper fingerprint submissions into an electronic format, and formats all data received into a single format for TSA. TSA then transmits to the FBI the necessary biographical information and fingerprint data to conduct a criminal history records check. The FBI returns the results of its criminal history records check to TSA's secure Fingerprint Results Distribution website, where airline and airport employer security representatives can access the information and adjudicate the results based on 28 disqualifying criminal offenses, which include forgery, unlawful possession of a weapon or explosive material, interfering with a flight crew or flight attendants, certain violent crimes causing bodily injury or death, treason, extortion, arson, and conspiracy. The disqualifying offenses are identified in section 44936(b) of Title 49 United States Code and implemented by 49 CFR 1542.209(d).

Simultaneous with the FBI's criminal history records check, TSA conducts a name-based security threat assessment against approximately ten databases that include information related to suspected or actual terrorist activity, suspicious immigration and identify theft activity, and criminal wants and warrants. Beginning in September 2005, TSA began using a system of "perpetual" name-based vetting of all TSA, airline, airport, and airport vendor employees and contractors. Under this system, each time a name is added to any one of the databases, all individuals who currently have unescorted access to secure areas are immediately checked against the new information.

AND as an American, you should know that a criminal offense in MOST jobs is not a cause for automatic elimination. Obviously, you've never employed someone.
 
2010-11-24 08:24:46 PM
Airport protest never takes off, few delays seen.
Link

The big Opt-Out looked like a big bust Wednesday as most of the Thanksgiving travelers selected for full-body scans and pat-down searches chose to submit to them rather than create havoc on one of the busiest flying days of the year. In fact, in some parts of the U.S., bad weather was shaping up as a bigger threat to travelers' hopes of getting to their destinations on time.

The Transportation Security Administration said few people seemed to be opting out. Some protesters did show up, including one man seen walking around the Salt Lake City airport in a skimpy, Speedo-style bathing suit, and others carrying signs denouncing the TSA's screening methods as unnecessarily intrusive and embarrassing.


Like standing around in a Speedo isn't embarrassing.
 
2010-11-24 08:26:00 PM
And my personal favorite from that article:

Protest organizers - some of whom had no plans themselves to fly on Wednesday - were not prepared to declare the event a flop, saying the publicity alone cranked up pressure on the White House and the TSA to review their security measures.

"The TSA now talks about re-evaluating everything," said James Babb, an organizer for one of the protest groups, We Won't Fly. "That is a tremendous victory for a grass-roots movement."


Yeah, the TSA said they might talk about it. BIG WIN.
 
2010-11-24 08:26:50 PM
zabadu: Like standing around in a Speedo isn't embarrassing.

Perhaps some people aren't embarrassed by the scans but offended that they're even being done in the first place? But you don't think, you just worship the TSA.
 
2010-11-24 08:28:03 PM
zabadu: Yeah, the TSA said they might talk about it. BIG WIN.

Yeah, I know. An insular bureaucratic agency that exists solely to feed money into contractors is leveraging its position to ignore the citizens of this country. Big surprise there. Nothing like relying on the ignorance and fealty of the masses to fark everyone over.
 
2010-11-24 08:32:06 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1152508-list-airports-con f irmed-not-using-ait-today.html#post15275124

Page not found
 
2010-11-24 08:36:07 PM
Ah hahahahaha! Nine guys reporting if their airport is using a scanner. One airport didn't even have them installed yet!!


Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 49

A list of Airports CONFIRMED to NOT be using AIT Today
We need a list of airports that have the scanners but are not in use, or are in use but are used VERY VERY sporadically...

this forum is littered with reports from flyers reporting very light use or no use at all of the scanners...

a comprehensive list would be helpful..

which airport (maybe a breakdown of the actual name instead of the 3 letter call sign) which terminal, and does it have a scanner and is it in use?

Edit:

BOS unconfirmed (Boston?)
MCO Unconfirmed
**PHX Confirmed Not in Use (Pheonix)
IAH - In use
JFK - in USe

[D/FW] airport has 16 checkpoints in five passenger terminals, and most of them were operating with the standard metal detectors. Several checkpoints in terminals C and D are now equipped with body scanning machines, but TSA screeners appeared to be using them only sporadically.

Last edited by Saitek; Today at 1:24 pm..
Saitek is offline Reply With Quote
Unread Today, 12:57 pm #2
BearX220
I Voted

Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Edmonds, WA USA
Programs: CO, HH, MR Elite; Dirt Tier on UA, AS, BA, WN. Abandoned DL SkyMiles.
Posts: 9,345

You could go ahead and consolidate the fragmentary reports yourself.
__________________
Prevent blindness. Don't let TSA officers see me naked. Fight the Nude-o-Scope full body scanners. Always opt out.
BearX220 is online now Reply With Quote
Unread Today, 1:36 pm #3
MastaHanky

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,760

I'm at SLC now. No AIT in use at T1, however it is in use at T2. Traffic is really light. There were protesters here earlier but they had left by the time I got here.
MastaHanky is offline Reply With Quote
Unread Today, 4:03 pm #4
Seat1A

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BOS
Programs: UA 1K, DL GM, AA GLD/1MM, Hertz 5*, Nat'l Exec
Posts: 2,201

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saitek View Post
BOS unconfirmed (Boston?)
a friend of mine was scanned at BOS today -- terminal B, AA side.
Seat1A is offline Reply With Quote
Unread Today, 4:53 pm #5
UAL4life

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Programs: UA MP- RIP Tulip Plat.
Posts: 559

Going in and out of T1 sec at ORD, there is a definate reduced operation (I'd say half), witnessed an opt out just being let through the Metal Detector without the grope.
__________________
Welcome Aboard Jeff Smisek!! - This will bring a smile to any FT-er: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PCOcyt7BPI
UAL4life is offline Reply With Quote
Unread Today, 5:04 pm #6
majorwibi
I Voted

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SLC/DCA
Programs: DL DM (and NRSA), UA 2P, HH Dia
Posts: 1,566

BWI terminal C did not have scanners as of today. Terminal A/B looked like they did as the shuttle drove me by but I cannot confirm that.
__________________
I'm an "awesome" DM and a "scummy" NRSA ... bet you'll never know which benefit I'm actually using
majorwibi is online now Reply With Quote
Unread Today, 5:31 pm #7
jordanmills

Join Date: Aug 2010
Programs: WN A-list, TSA-D Silver
Posts: 163

I couldn't find one at PHL today.

HOU has not had them installed
.
jordanmills is online now Reply With Quote
Unread Today, 5:35 pm #8
crhptic
I Voted

Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington DC USA
Posts: 2,801

Quote:
Originally Posted by majorwibi View Post
BWI terminal C did not have scanners as of today.
BWI terminal C doesn't have the scanners installed yet, so no big surprise there.
crhptic is online now Reply With Quote
Unread Today, 7:09 pm #9
LuvsParis

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 84

Reporters at LAX all day, showing lines with empty/unused/roped off backscatter machines. Very sparse or no use (and fewer flyers than two years ago, about the same as last year).
 
2010-11-24 08:37:38 PM
I wonder how many TSA flipper babies will be born now due to farked up sperm and scrambled egg DNA.

Those numbers aren't included in the cancer stats.
 
2010-11-24 08:39:33 PM
http://gizmodo.com/5698536/fliers-claim-tsa-have-deactivated-body-scanners

The presumption by some is that the TSA has deactivated the AIT machines in an effort to both increase throughput of travelers through the scanning process and to diffuse protest by the grassroots National Out-Out Day movement.

But as the AP photo shows (woman being scanned in AIT), it's not always possible for a single passenger to determine if an airport is using the machines at every terminal or not.

We will update this story as we get more information. If you are flying today, it might be useful to simply ask the TSA officers doing the screening if they are using their AIT machines at all.

Update: The TSA Press Secretary Nicholas Kimball responded to my inquiry-"Was there any sort of TSA-wide policy to not use the machines today or is this an airport-by-airport decision?"-with this statement: "No. Nothing to this at all."
 
2010-11-24 08:40:10 PM
GORDON: I wonder how many TSA flipper babies will be born now due to farked up sperm and scrambled egg DNA.

Those numbers aren't included in the cancer stats.


The same amount that would be born by their parents getting irradiated just by flying.
 
2010-11-24 08:41:12 PM
A little radiation is ok, so a little more is even better!

/This sounds like a Fallout thread...
 
2010-11-24 08:44:38 PM
TSA: Short waits, few opt-outs
By Washington Post Editors

The Transportation Security Administration provided this listing of wait times and numbers of people who opted-out of using body scans Wednesday.

Operational Updates as of 5 p.m. EST:

Atlanta: 39 total advanced imaging technology opt-outs today (out of 47,000 fliers). All were screened and continued to their flights.

Boston: Approximately 56,000 passengers screened with 300 AIT opt-outs, which is less than 1 percent of all travelers and less than a normal day at the airport's 17 AITs. All were screened and continued to their flights. The longest wait time was 12 minutes in terminal A in very early morning.

Colorado Springs: 5-minute average wait time, and no AIT opt-outs.

Charlotte: 18,000 passengers screened, and estimated 24,000 will be screened by end of day. 1 AIT opt-out today.

Chicago O'Hare: The longest wait was 15 minutes at one checkpoint, and has been under 10 minutes airport-wide for the most part.

Cincinnati: The peak wait time was 10 minutes, and average is 5 minutes.

Cleveland: Under 20 minutes for wait times all day, with a 10-minute average. Current wait times are less than 5 minutes.

Dallas/Fort Worth: One opt-out today, and wait times consistently under 12 minutes.

Dallas Love Field: Wait times under 3 minutes.

Denver: Current wait times are 3-4 minutes per checkpoint.

Detroit: 25,000 passengers screened today, and 57 AIT opt-outs. All were screened and continued to their flights. No wait time over 20 minutes all day.

Green Bay: Wait time is 3 minutes.

Indianapolis: 24-minute peak this morning at 6 a.m. Nothing near since.

Iowa and Kansas: No disruptions, no wait times greater than 10 minutes. According to federal security director, lots of passenger compliments.

Louisville: 5-10 minute wait times.

Los Angeles: 113 AIT opt-outs across LAX's 8 terminals, which is less than 1 percent of the approximately 50,000 travelers screened at LAX today. All AIT opt-outs were screened and continued to their flights.

Minneapolis: Wait times are currently 5-10 mins. No incidents.

Newark: Average wait times today by terminal were 6 minutes for A and C, 11 minutes for B.

New Orleans: The longest reported wait time was approximately 13 minutes. Six passengers opted out of AIT screening. All were screened and continued to their flights.

Salt Lake City: Wait times no more than 5 minutes at both checkpoints one and two; when open, checkpoint 3 has a 2-minute wait time. Across the airport, we have all lanes open and 6 AITs in operation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2010/11/tsa_waits_what_waits.html
 
2010-11-24 08:44:51 PM
The herp derp in these treads is mind boggling.
 
2010-11-24 08:47:32 PM
It all comes down to are you willing to kill 20ish people per year and harm 20ish more almost to death in exchange for MAYBE saving lives later? Not to mention collateral rights damage. Sadly, I think the answer from the govt is we'll take the chances and scan.
 
2010-11-24 08:49:18 PM
ThisNameSux: The herp derp in these treads is mind boggling.

I know, I wasn't aware that you and zabadu could crank out the TSA-fellating crap that fast.
 
2010-11-24 08:50:04 PM
Avenger: It all comes down to are you willing to kill 20ish people per year and harm 20ish more almost to death in exchange for MAYBE saving lives later? Not to mention collateral rights damage. Sadly, I think the answer from the govt is we'll take the chances and scan.

No it doesn't and you're a goddamn farking moron. You are exposed to a lot more radiation on a daily basis so I guess the only way to keep from dying from it is to put a bullet in your stupid head. Yep, that's the only way to be sure.
 
2010-11-24 08:51:47 PM
I see zabadu is reduced to just spamming the thread for attention. I think he goes through airport security so somebody will touch his groin.
 
2010-11-24 08:53:38 PM
ThisNameSux: You are exposed to a lot more radiation on a daily basis

Radiation exposure is cumulative. Not really weighing in on the matter, but that particular argument makes no sense.
 
2010-11-24 08:53:54 PM
ThisNameSux: No it doesn't and you're a goddamn farking moron. You are exposed to a lot more radiation on a daily basis so I guess the only way to keep from dying from it is to put a bullet in your stupid head. Yep, that's the only way to be sure.

If you're so afraid of terrorists why not take your own advice and relieve yourself of any chance a terrorist might kill you?
 
2010-11-24 08:54:19 PM
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.


OMG thank you, thank you, thank you for this. I was beginning to think that simply reading this thread was detrimental to my intelligence.
 
2010-11-24 08:57:04 PM
ThisNameSux: Avenger: It all comes down to are you willing to kill 20ish people per year and harm 20ish more almost to death in exchange for MAYBE saving lives later? Not to mention collateral rights damage. Sadly, I think the answer from the govt is we'll take the chances and scan.

No it doesn't and you're a goddamn farking moron. You are exposed to a lot more radiation on a daily basis so I guess the only way to keep from dying from it is to put a bullet in your stupid head. Yep, that's the only way to be sure.


well what about the multiple non-radiation objections? starting with the fact this shiat doesn't stop anything...it's just security theater at the taxpayers' expense.
 
2010-11-24 08:57:46 PM
jingks: ThisNameSux: You are exposed to a lot more radiation on a daily basis

Radiation exposure is cumulative. Not really weighing in on the matter, but that particular argument makes no sense.


Flying exposes you to a lot more radiation that a scan does and yet you wait in line to be scanned so you can fly. Does that make any farking sense?
 
2010-11-24 08:57:58 PM
zabadu: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Getting the grope/Nude-o-scope is not a "regular screening" here, either. Many passengers are still sent through the metal detectors and on their way, as they always were.

It's completely unclear why or how people are chosen for the NoS, and then, what exactly can trigger the further groping (you have the option to skip straight to the groping, however at least one TSA manager has been disciplined in Atlanta for failing to grok that; she apparently gets it now).

One observer said it was 70% women who were sent through the NoS, which sounded like propaganda until the story about the airport security rapist guy broke:

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO137343/

Gotta be an attractive job for perverts.

And no, they don't *have* to have a GED, and they don't have to have a clean criminal record either.

Bullshiat.

TSA Transportation Security Officers, who conduct passenger, baggage, and cargo screening at airports, undergo a two-part background investigation process. TSO applicants are first subject to a pre-employment background investigation. This investigation features the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Special Agreement Check which is a fingerprint based criminal history check that is processed through the FBI. If the pre-employment investigation is favorable and the applicant accepts a position with TSA, the individual then is subject to further background checks through OPM's Access National Agency Check with Inquiries (ANACI). The TSO is permitted to begin employment while the ANACI is underway. If derogatory information is developed, the individual is afforded an opportunity to address the information obtained during the investigation. If the information is not favorably resolved, the individual is removed from Federal service.

Other TSA employees undergo a similar investigation process. A pre-employment check is conducted to determine suitability, followed by a second, more in-depth investigation. The particulars of the second investigation are determined by the level of access required for the position (e.g., Secret or Top Secret) after the employee begins employment. According to OPM's quarterly report for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 (October 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005) a Minimum Background Investigation for TSA employees who require access to Secret information takes approximately 27 days when priority service is required, and 106 days when standard service is needed.

All airline and airport employees and contractors who require unescorted access to secure areas of the airport are subject to both fingerprint-based criminal history record checks and name-based background checks. Prior to employment, airlines and airports send fingerprints and other biographical information to the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Transportation Security Clearinghouse, which conducts quality control on the information, accepts paper and electronic fingerprint submissions, converts the paper fingerprint submissions into an electronic format, and formats all data received into a single format for TSA. TSA then transmits to the FBI the necessary biographical information and fingerprint data to conduct a criminal history records check. The FBI returns the results of its criminal history records check to TSA's secure Fingerprint Results Distribution website, where airline and airport employer security representatives can access the information and adjudicate the results based on 28 disqualifying criminal offenses, which include forgery, unlawful possession of a weapon or explosive material, interfering with a flight crew or flight attendants, certain violent crimes causing bodily injury or death, treason, extortion, arson, and conspiracy. The disqualifying offenses are identified in section 44936(b) of Title 49 United States Code and implemented by 49 CFR 1542.209(d).

Simultaneous with the FBI's criminal history records check, TSA conducts a name-based security threat assessment against approximately ten databases that include information related ...


You're very naive (and more longwinded even than me).

In California, a person can go to community college without a GED. They can enroll in Transitional Studies. If they have 6 units, the TSA will hire them. There are many people hired in this category.

They only screen for the past 10 years of a TSA worker's life, and misdemeanors may be discounted. I know this because I know a TSA worker who has 2 misdemeanors from when he was 18, he's now 33 and has been working both TSA and airport side security for 8 years.

Also, my brother is an airline pilot, and we both know several miscreants who work for TSA in our home state. But don't just take my brother's word for it (or mine), do your own research.

You can start here:

http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/11/22/tsa_screening_of_pilot s /index.html

They will fire a TSO if they are charged with a crime after a hire, but their screenings only going back 10 years.

And then there's this story (again involving a felony committed at an early age):

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2010/feb/04/tsa_orders_richmond_airport_to_give_secur i ty_clear-ar-371878/

Here where I live, we had a superior court judge still on the bench with two misdemeanor drunk driving convictions. It wasn't until he got a felony conviction for driving his car through his ex-wife's house and went to jail that he was permanently removed from the bench (he was paid on administrative leave right up until the day of conviction, although I believe they are trying to get some money back from him).

I spent years working for a law firm here in town that discretely handled criminal misdemeanor cases for a wide variety of folk.

If you had an honest poll of farkers, you'd be surprised how many engineers, pilots, teachers, doctors, nurses and Indian chiefs have a misdemeanor...
 
2010-11-24 08:59:04 PM
jingks: ThisNameSux: You are exposed to a lot more radiation on a daily basis

Radiation exposure is cumulative. Not really weighing in on the matter, but that particular argument makes no sense.


It kinda does make sense. Yes, you are technically exposed to more radiation from this machine than if you weren't going through the scanner, but proportionately it's the equivalent of just standing around for, what was it, 17 minutes? If you're terrified of that then you're also one of those idiots who lost their shiat over the RADIOACTIVE granite kitchen counters story (could your kitchen counters be exposing YOUR KIDS to DEADLY RADIATION? More at 11).

The whole argument becomes moot when it is also brought up that these scanners do nothing to make us any safer. The damn thing could be turned off and it would be equally effective. Why bicker about the piddly amount of radiation these things expose you to when the end result is that these stupid machines do nothing to make us safer? How can THAT not be the main topic of conversation?
 
2010-11-24 08:59:34 PM
zabadu: TSA: Short waits, few opt-outs
By Washington Post Editors

The Transportation Security Administration provided this listing of wait times and numbers of people who opted-out of using body scans Wednesday.

Operational Updates as of 5 p.m. EST:

Atlanta: 39 total advanced imaging technology opt-outs today (out of 47,000 fliers). All were screened and continued to their flights.

Boston: Approximately 56,000 passengers screened with 300 AIT opt-outs, which is less than 1 percent of all travelers and less than a normal day at the airport's 17 AITs. All were screened and continued to their flights. The longest wait time was 12 minutes in terminal A in very early morning.

Colorado Springs: 5-minute average wait time, and no AIT opt-outs.

Charlotte: 18,000 passengers screened, and estimated 24,000 will be screened by end of day. 1 AIT opt-out today.

Chicago O'Hare: The longest wait was 15 minutes at one checkpoint, and has been under 10 minutes airport-wide for the most part.

Cincinnati: The peak wait time was 10 minutes, and average is 5 minutes.

Cleveland: Under 20 minutes for wait times all day, with a 10-minute average. Current wait times are less than 5 minutes.

Dallas/Fort Worth: One opt-out today, and wait times consistently under 12 minutes.

Dallas Love Field: Wait times under 3 minutes.

Denver: Current wait times are 3-4 minutes per checkpoint.

Detroit: 25,000 passengers screened today, and 57 AIT opt-outs. All were screened and continued to their flights. No wait time over 20 minutes all day.

Green Bay: Wait time is 3 minutes.

Indianapolis: 24-minute peak this morning at 6 a.m. Nothing near since.

Iowa and Kansas: No disruptions, no wait times greater than 10 minutes. According to federal security director, lots of passenger compliments.

Louisville: 5-10 minute wait times.

Los Angeles: 113 AIT opt-outs across LAX's 8 terminals, which is less than 1 percent of the approximately 50,000 travelers screened at LAX today. All AIT opt-outs were screened and continued to their flights.

Minneapolis: Wait times are currently 5-10 mins. No incidents.

Newark: Average wait times today by terminal were 6 minutes for A and C, 11 minutes for B.

New Orleans: The longest reported wait time was approximately 13 minutes. Six passengers opted out of AIT screening. All were screened and continued to their flights.

Salt Lake City: Wait times no more than 5 minutes at both checkpoints one and two; when open, checkpoint 3 has a 2-minute wait time. Across the airport, we have all lanes open and 6 AITs in operation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2010/11/tsa_waits_what_waits.html


Are you trying to set a record for longest quoted post? Because I don't think you're going to win (see above).
 
2010-11-24 09:00:47 PM
Adding some fuel to the fire.

/would still opt out
//not a necessary dose; yes you get a dose when you fly, but scanners are nothing but security theater
//also believe it's no different than random strip searches on the street without probable cause
 
2010-11-24 09:03:39 PM
jingks: ThisNameSux: You are exposed to a lot more radiation on a daily basis

Radiation exposure is cumulative. Not really weighing in on the matter, but that particular argument makes no sense.


Moving from a seaside area to a mountainous area with a lot of granite around would expose you to much more on a daily basis than going through one of these machines over and over.

Radon gas, emitted by granite, is the #2 cause of lung cancer.

I do think the concern about local skin dose is worthy of study and comment, as are the hardware failsafes to prevent machine failure and localized overexposure. Technical information regarding these two things should be released.
 
2010-11-24 09:04:53 PM
ThisNameSux: Flying exposes you to a lot more radiation that a scan does and yet you wait in line to be scanned so you can fly. Does that make any farking sense?

Still doesn't apply. It's sort of parallel to prostate cancer (over)screening using PSA. If the problems caused by the screening outweigh the benefits it's in general public best interest not to screen.

Why not just outlaw planes? That way no one is exposed to radiation at all. The reason that won't happen is because the benefits (be it economic or not) of flying out weight the costs. X-ray screening doesn't.

Anyhow, why are the states even using backscatter X-ray and not millimeter wave scanners? That would clear up any radiation exposure health risks. Many countries use the latter.
 
2010-11-24 09:05:24 PM
jake3988: 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.


You get cosmic radiation even on the surface. The atmosphere doesn't stop all of it.

bangmaid: I wonder how much radiation you get from standing in front of a microwave or putting a cell phone to your head?

In the sense "radiation" is commonly used, none. The frequency involved is very different.
 
2010-11-24 09:07:54 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: I see zabadu is reduced to just spamming the thread for attention. I think he goes through airport security so somebody will touch his groin.

Gee, posting FACTS is spamming? You guys just can't stand that you didn't win. That travel wasn't stopped. That no one caused a scene.

PS: You might want to determine someones sex before making a stupid comment.
 
2010-11-24 09:07:59 PM
We could get rid of the scanners and extend all flights by 5 minutes and none of you farks would have a problem. But remember, it's all about the health risks, right?
 
2010-11-24 09:08:32 PM
The air at ground zero was safe.
 
2010-11-24 09:10:45 PM
darkvstar:
www.radprotect.com
fashion accessory for the frequent traveler...


Unfortunately, such things don't read at the levels involved. Note the lowest exposure bar is 2 rads.
 
2010-11-24 09:11:10 PM
jingks: If the problems caused by the screening outweigh the benefits it's in general public best interest not to screen.

You can drive to your destination so we need to ban all air travel.
 
2010-11-24 09:11:48 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: zabadu: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Getting the grope/Nude-o-scope is not a "regular screening" here, either. Many passengers are still sent through the metal detectors and on their way, as they always were.

It's completely unclear why or how people are chosen for the NoS, and then, what exactly can trigger the further groping (you have the option to skip straight to the groping, however at least one TSA manager has been disciplined in Atlanta for failing to grok that; she apparently gets it now).

One observer said it was 70% women who were sent through the NoS, which sounded like propaganda until the story about the airport security rapist guy broke:

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO137343/

Gotta be an attractive job for perverts.

And no, they don't *have* to have a GED, and they don't have to have a clean criminal record either.

Bullshiat.

TSA Transportation Security Officers, who conduct passenger, baggage, and cargo screening at airports, undergo a two-part background investigation process. TSO applicants are first subject to a pre-employment background investigation. This investigation features the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Special Agreement Check which is a fingerprint based criminal history check that is processed through the FBI. If the pre-employment investigation is favorable and the applicant accepts a position with TSA, the individual then is subject to further background checks through OPM's Access National Agency Check with Inquiries (ANACI). The TSO is permitted to begin employment while the ANACI is underway. If derogatory information is developed, the individual is afforded an opportunity to address the information obtained during the investigation. If the information is not favorably resolved, the individual is removed from Federal service.

Other TSA employees undergo a similar investigation process. A pre-employment check is conducted to determine suitability, followed by a second, more in-depth investigation. The particulars of the second investigation are determined by the level of access required for the position (e.g., Secret or Top Secret) after the employee begins employment. According to OPM's quarterly report for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 (October 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005) a Minimum Background Investigation for TSA employees who require access to Secret information takes approximately 27 days when priority service is required, and 106 days when standard service is needed.

All airline and airport employees and contractors who require unescorted access to secure areas of the airport are subject to both fingerprint-based criminal history record checks and name-based background checks. Prior to employment, airlines and airports send fingerprints and other biographical information to the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Transportation Security Clearinghouse, which conducts quality control on the information, accepts paper and electronic fingerprint submissions, converts the paper fingerprint submissions into an electronic format, and formats all data received into a single format for TSA. TSA then transmits to the FBI the necessary biographical information and fingerprint data to conduct a criminal history records check. The FBI returns the results of its criminal history records check to TSA's secure Fingerprint Results Distribution website, where airline and airport employer security representatives can access the information and adjudicate the results based on 28 disqualifying criminal offenses, which include forgery, unlawful possession of a weapon or explosive material, interfering with a flight crew or flight attendants, certain violent crimes causing bodily injury or death, treason, extortion, arson, and conspiracy. The disqualifying offenses are identified in section 44936(b) of Title 49 United States Code and implemented by 49 CFR 1542.209(d).

Simultaneous with the FBI's criminal history records check, TSA conducts a name-based security threat assessment against approximately ten databases that include information ...


Can you show me proof that they only scan 10 years, or do I have to believe your friend?

Again, it is against the law to discriminate for a criminal misdemeanor. So you're for violating THAT persons civil rights so he can have a job?
 
2010-11-24 09:13:20 PM
zabadu: Gee, posting FACTS is spamming?

Copy/pasting pages of dialogue from other sites into a post? Yes, that's spamming. Post a link next time, if you can figure out how.
 
2010-11-24 09:14:44 PM
TheSilverOne: People have no clue how probability works.

Why do you think Las Vegas is still a going concern?


jake3988: 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


Leaving so soon? Well, scratch one dumbass.
 
2010-11-24 09:14:52 PM
Come to think about it, we'd be a lot safer if we only left our homes to go to work and never traveled. It's all about personal safety, right?
 
2010-11-24 09:15:10 PM
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?


They're not calibrated to medical specs either.

1 in 30 million is way higher than getting cancer in a terroist attack.
 
2010-11-24 09:15:24 PM
ThisNameSux: You can drive to your destination so we need to ban all air travel.

And obviously a troll since I just explained there are reasons the cost of air travel would outweigh the risks of air travel. Oh, I got one:

Millimeter wave scanners are non-genotoxic, so all backscanner X-ray machines should be banned.
 
2010-11-24 09:16:15 PM
http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=160476&catid=45

I posted the link you won't biatch about long post (and your short attention span).

Dr. James O'Donnell, a professor of radiology at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine and the Director of University Hospitals Division of Nuclear Medicine, says you're naturally exposed to higher levels of radiation every day than what you'd get in an airport scanner.
 
2010-11-24 09:17:09 PM
ThisNameSux: Come to think about it, we'd be a lot safer if we only left our homes to go to work and never traveled. It's all about personal safety, right?

Yup. That's why the TSA will begin performing random stop-and-searches of all cars on interstate highways.
 
2010-11-24 09:18:26 PM
The anti TSA crowd has not made one valid argument in any of the treads and all I'm getting from them is "waaaaaaaaaah I don't wanna".

Sorry kids, this isn't 2nd grade.
 
2010-11-24 09:18:49 PM
zabadu: http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=160476&catid=45

I posted the link you won't biatch about long post (and your short attention span).


Wow. You don't know how to link? There's a farking button right there at the top of the comment box that will do 99% of it for you.
 
2010-11-24 09:18:51 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: zabadu: Gee, posting FACTS is spamming?

Copy/pasting pages of dialogue from other sites into a post? Yes, that's spamming. Post a link next time, if you can figure out how.


Well, gee, let me go back to the 400 other TSA threads and show you where "your side" did the same.

You can't deal with the facts, so you cry about the method of posting.

How about commenting on what the article actually says, as opposed to regurgitating your pat lines?
 
2010-11-24 09:19:21 PM
Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

And how long have these been in airports? A couple of months, if that?

That's like saying the car I bought last week has "never had a problem".
 
2010-11-24 09:19:39 PM
ThisNameSux: Really this shiat again?

A scan is the equivalent of...


To start there is reason to suspect that the rate of cancer can vary when it is primarily absorbed by different tissues.

But more importantly, a lesson in risk analysis:

You need to get from point A to point B, your options are by car or by plane.

All risks taken into consideration flying is safer.

Because you're flying you have a choice between a pat down and a scanner.

The pat down poses no risk to your health, the scanner in best case circumstances will result in 18 deaths.

Flying, but opting for the pat down, is the safest option.

/If your driving a car why wear a seatbelt? You could still die from a car crash...
 
2010-11-24 09:20:19 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: zabadu: http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=160476&catid=45

I posted the link you won't biatch about long post (and your short attention span).

Wow. You don't know how to link? There's a farking button right there at the top of the comment box that will do 99% of it for you.


Oh man, then you better go shout out Atypical Farker, because he didn't link either!!

Again, address the FACTS instead of repeating your posting etiquette complaints.
 
2010-11-24 09:21:30 PM
Jensaarai: The air at ground zero was safe.

8/10
 
2010-11-24 09:22:20 PM
zabadu: Well, gee, let me go back to the 400 other TSA threads and show you where "your side" did the same.

You can't deal with the facts, so you cry about the method of posting.

How about commenting on what the article actually says, as opposed to regurgitating your pat lines?


Man, the pwnage here is so delicious. Do you want me to laugh at you first, and then show you what an idiot you are? Or do you want me to show you what an idiot you are first, and then laugh at you?

Your call.
 
2010-11-24 09:23:48 PM
ThematicDevice: Flying, but opting for the pat down, is the safest option.

Pretty much this. Besides, free handjob.
 
2010-11-24 09:24:17 PM
ThisNameSux: The anti TSA crowd has not made one valid argument in any of the treads and all I'm getting from them is "waaaaaaaaaah I don't wanna".

Sorry kids, this isn't 2nd grade.


Indeed. You're wrong, see, "I don't wanna" is a totally valid reason in this country unless you come up with some rock solid justifications for the intrusion. Neither you, zabadu, nor the entirety of the DHS or TSA has aside from handwaving "oooh the terrists will getcha!" scare tactics.
 
2010-11-24 09:25:21 PM
jingks: ThematicDevice: Flying, but opting for the pat down, is the safest option.

Pretty much this. Besides, free handjob.



More like an UFIA.
 
2010-11-24 09:25:32 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: zabadu: Well, gee, let me go back to the 400 other TSA threads and show you where "your side" did the same.

You can't deal with the facts, so you cry about the method of posting.

How about commenting on what the article actually says, as opposed to regurgitating your pat lines?

Man, the pwnage here is so delicious. Do you want me to laugh at you first, and then show you what an idiot you are? Or do you want me to show you what an idiot you are first, and then laugh at you?

Your call.


Whatever makes you hard.
 
2010-11-24 09:27:22 PM
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?

Yes, THIS!!! What about the Frequent Flyers, who are gonna increase their odds of getting cancer every time they fly after going through scanners?!! What about people who already have greater odds of contracting cancer whether due to heredity or something such as smoking?!! Seems like their odds increase every time they fly. And, let's not forget, you get scanned twice each trip: on the outbound flight, and on the return flight. Now, what about when you have a connecting flight, rather than a straight thru flight?

/just say NO (thanks)
 
2010-11-24 09:30:15 PM
zabadu: Whatever makes you hard.

Alright. I'll laugh first, then show you what an idiot you are. Then I'll laugh again.

i53.tinypic.com

I agree with you that these scanners pose a meaninglessly small health risk. You only assume I don't because you haven't read a single post I've made in here, and you're so blind with nerd-rage that you can't think straight.

i53.tinypic.com

/was it good for you?
 
2010-11-24 09:30:59 PM
microlith: "I don't wanna" is a totally valid reason in this country

Nope, it's not
 
2010-11-24 09:31:48 PM
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?


Ok! apparently I need to get out more. Regardless, a few notes;
1.) Cancers per million DOES NOT EQUAL deaths per year.
2.) There are inherent risks in most everything we do, particularly flying. Do a quick search for flying related pulmonary embolisms.
3.) The 1 in 30 million probability is meaningless without frequency, predisposition and other relevant qualifiers.
4.) There would be just as much whining if they didn't take extraordinary steps and we get a repeat of 9/11. Could still happen but that's the world we've created. Do over the top stuff or incur the wrath of the second guessers.

/aimed at the bulk of this thread not Tetzlaff.
//hangs head over previous, enthusiastic endorsement of unsubstantiated claims.
 
2010-11-24 09:32:11 PM
hockeyfarker: moothemagiccow: . What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

the odds of them getting cancer are now 12 in 30 million, or even 52 in 30 million. they might as well end it now!


So when people fly, they only fly one-way?
 
2010-11-24 09:32:14 PM
ThisNameSux: microlith: "I don't wanna" is a totally valid reason in this country

Nope, it's not


Wait, so I have to what you and the government say, no matter what?
 
2010-11-24 09:33:41 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: zabadu: Whatever makes you hard.

Alright. I'll laugh first, then show you what an idiot you are. Then I'll laugh again.



I agree with you that these scanners pose a meaninglessly small health risk. You only assume I don't because you haven't read a single post I've made in here, and you're so blind with nerd-rage that you can't think straight.



/was it good for you?


//smoking cigarette

I didn't look at your posts because you came out swinging at me.

Maybe next time you can buy me a drink first, then accuse me of something.
 
2010-11-24 09:34:00 PM
microlith: Wait, so I have to what you and the government say, no matter what?

So far, yep.
 
2010-11-24 09:34:57 PM
microlith: ThisNameSux: microlith: "I don't wanna" is a totally valid reason in this country

Nope, it's not

Wait, so I have to what you and the government say, no matter what?


You want to drive? Take the test and get insurance.
You want to fly? Walk through this scanner.

I don't wanna! OK, then you don't wanna fly.
 
2010-11-24 09:35:37 PM
ThisNameSux: Nope, it's not

According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

According to what national security wants, no.

I'm not, in any event, stating either side is the right one. Ideally, it would be the first.
 
2010-11-24 09:38:20 PM
microlith: ThisNameSux: microlith: "I don't wanna" is a totally valid reason in this country

Nope, it's not

Wait, so I have to what you and the government say, no matter what?


Only if you're a total pussy and are prepared to kowtow to whatever they tell you to do because we live in a "post-9/11 world".

/OMG, terrorists! Here's my anus, use the whole fist!
 
2010-11-24 09:38:54 PM
"Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

You know what else had "multiple safety mechanisms and never had a problem"?

www.starway.org
 
2010-11-24 09:38:55 PM
corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
 
2010-11-24 09:39:47 PM
whatshisname: You want to drive? Take the test and get insurance.
You want to fly? Walk through this scanner.


The test and insurance actually accomplish something. Using these scanners is as about as effective as having travelers recite the Pledge of Allegiance before boarding. Is it too much to ask that security procedures at the airport actually perform some useful function for security?
 
2010-11-24 09:40:06 PM
A Fark Handle: fizzix_is_fun: that's a known unknown i believe...thanks dick cheney

I thought that was Rumsfeld
 
2010-11-24 09:41:10 PM
HA HA
I'm too poor to fly anyway
 
2010-11-24 09:41:23 PM
ForgotMyTowel: "Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

You know what else had "multiple safety mechanisms and never had a problem"?


You're using a ship made in 1911 as a model?
 
2010-11-24 09:42:33 PM
ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.


They did have a very clear idea on how much of a bad idea it is to treat your own citizens like criminals.
 
2010-11-24 09:42:37 PM
The internet has created a generation of whiny biatches. Farking shiat.
 
2010-11-24 09:43:44 PM
ThisNameSux: LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Since they were themselves terrorists, they probably did have terrorism in mind.

5/10?
 
2010-11-24 09:44:26 PM
tacmakr:
Keep on herping that derp.


2.) There are inherent risks in most everything we do, particularly flying. Do a quick search for flying related pulmonary embolisms.

There is a difference between a risk I choose to take and one that is imposed on me by others.


4.)[...]Do over the top stuff or incur the wrath of the second guessers.

That's what you're concerned about?


/Not cherry-picking, just can't argue with your other points.
 
2010-11-24 09:45:46 PM
ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

I LOVE THAT ARGUMENT! They didn't have X therefore the entire constitution is null and void, it's so clever!

Perhaps you are an idiot, you should get that checked out.
 
2010-11-24 09:48:07 PM
ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.


I only said they wanted you to be free to decide. I never said they where prepared for the 21st century. I also said ideally. Ideals aren't real, they're hopes certain people strive for.
 
2010-11-24 09:48:16 PM
BlippityBleep: ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

They did have a very clear idea on how much of a bad idea it is to treat your own citizens like criminals.


When the United States first created the Constitution, most of the black people in America were actually slaves.

Since women had no role in government, politics, or society other than as homemakers and supporters for their husbands or fathers, most did not feel that they should have the ability to vote. For over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, women had no way to vote. In some places, it was actually illegal for women to vote.

One of the biggest reasons a lot of people opposed the original Constitution was because it lacked a bill of rights.

Yeah, the forefathers didn't even write the bill of rights in their first publication. It came after three other amendments.
 
2010-11-24 09:48:23 PM
God almighty folks, I'd think you guys would eventually run out of TSA energy by now after all the green-lit threads lately.

I could just leave it at that as a meaningless comment, but since I took the time out to say the meaningless comment, I may as well say something that's not so meaningless.

I do not get a kick out of the speculation regarding the radiation, because we don't know. We can't know what - if any - long term adverse health reactions will be. Anyone claiming otherwise is full of shiat.

It also doesn't help that when anyone tries to voice up about possible radiation harm (the high-tension power line crowds) they're instantly labeled as a nut and marginalized into the same crowd that thinks rainbows in sprinklers are caused by the government's evil conspiracies to poison everyone.

The same people touting the scientific methodology, ironically, are the ones that should also know that giving a rat 500 x the amount of normal ambient radiation in one hour is NOT THE SAME as slightly elevated doses of radiation conducted over prolonged periods of time, such as, you know, decades or even centuries.

The experiment IS NOT THE SAME, and therefore, any data collected that proves or disproves the danger(s) of radiation exposure should be categorically dismissed because the scientific method is not accurately adhered to: Test, observe, document, replicate. The whole "time" variable makes this difficult if not impossible.

Dismissing the politics of the TSA outright due to the enormous result of wharrgarbl, I find it particularly offensive that the same nation that's banning happy meals for safety, has no problem herding us through a radiation device without first conducting a thorough study on the affects of radiation on the human body over the span of many years. Somehow, "they", "magically" just "know" that it's "safe." They can't know -- it is scientifically impossible to know if the scientific method is rigorously followed.

No one studies this shiat because you instantly become a full-blown derp-infested tin-foil hat nutter if you even suspect it.

While it is highly unlikely rainbows are from chemical poisoning, it is true that radiation affects human tissue. The problem is with time; we do not have the data OVER TIME to draw any scientific conclusions, except, perhaps, remaining survivors from Japan. So, we're filling in that scientific shortcoming with educated guesses, and we all know those are never wrong, right?

There's a big farking difference between evolving natural protection against naturally occurring ambient cosmic radiation versus having your living tissue cells frequently bombarded by concentrated beams of unnaturally occurring radiation in unnaturally higher doses.

I expect to get murdered in the face now with a fork over the internet for posting this.
 
2010-11-24 09:49:04 PM
Think of it like this. Supposedly, the more often you play the Lottery, the better your odds of winning, right? Can't we also say that the more often you fly after getting scanned, the greater your odds of getting cancer? Perhaps someone who is better schooled on statistics could comment.
 
2010-11-24 09:49:28 PM
BlippityBleep: ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

They did have a very clear idea on how much of a bad idea it is to treat your own citizens like criminals.


The original Constitution had no bill of rights. Many of the Framers did not think it was necessary. But to get the Constitution to pass in some of the states, promises were made to add a bill of rights once the new government was up and running.
 
2010-11-24 09:50:22 PM
zabadu: ForgotMyTowel: "Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

You know what else had "multiple safety mechanisms and never had a problem"?

You're using a ship made in 1911 as a model?


I'm sure if you tried real hard you could come up with some modern examples of engineers and their spokesmen claiming their product never had a problem prior to their product having a catastrophic problem.
 
2010-11-24 09:50:30 PM
zabadu: One of the biggest reasons a lot of people opposed the original Constitution was because it lacked a bill of rights.

Yeah, the forefathers didn't even write the bill of rights in their first publication. It came after three other amendments.


Indeed, because they would fear that people would see that as the list of rights they had rather than ones the government COULD NOT INFRINGE ON. Unfortunately their pessimistic view seems to have come true; and despite holding those sacrosanct not only are they regularly infringed upon but idiots like you argue that it's A-ok!
 
2010-11-24 09:51:15 PM
zabadu: Yeah, the forefathers didn't even write the bill of rights in their first publication. It came after three other amendments.

Thanks for the history lesson?

How does that make outlawing unreasonable searches and seizures a bad idea? That's what this is about... you know this, right?
 
2010-11-24 09:52:48 PM
microlith: zabadu: One of the biggest reasons a lot of people opposed the original Constitution was because it lacked a bill of rights.

Yeah, the forefathers didn't even write the bill of rights in their first publication. It came after three other amendments.

Indeed, because they would fear that people would see that as the list of rights they had rather than ones the government COULD NOT INFRINGE ON. Unfortunately their pessimistic view seems to have come true; and despite holding those sacrosanct not only are they regularly infringed upon but idiots like you argue that it's A-ok!



Don't I have a list of rights that the government can not infringe on? How is it two things?
 
2010-11-24 09:54:46 PM
PlatypusPuke: The problem is with time; we do not have the data OVER TIME to draw any scientific conclusions, except, perhaps, remaining survivors from Japan. So, we're filling in that scientific shortcoming with educated guesses, and we all know those are never wrong, right?

How about we ask retired airline pilots? They're exposed to many times more radiation over a longer time from just being in a plane all of the time than someone getting hit up by one of these useless scanners five times per year.

There's a big farking difference between evolving natural protection against naturally occurring ambient cosmic radiation versus having your living tissue cells frequently bombarded by concentrated beams of unnaturally occurring radiation in unnaturally higher doses.

What, different flavors? We're exposed to natural radiation over the entire spectrum of frequencies.
 
2010-11-24 09:54:56 PM
corronchilejano: I only said they wanted you to be free to decide.

So you have the right to decide everything in your life? There isn't anything in your daily life where you've given the power to decide your actions to somebody else?
 
2010-11-24 09:57:21 PM
Rich Cream: Don't I have a list of rights that the government can not infringe on? How is it two things?

Err, literacy isn't your strong suit, I see. The Bill of Rights is the list of rights the government cannot infringe upon. They -feared- people would see it as a list of the only rights they had.
 
2010-11-24 09:57:33 PM
ThisNameSux: So you have the right to decide everything in your life? There isn't anything in your daily life where you've given the power to decide your actions to somebody else?

To decide your actions to somebody else?
 
2010-11-24 09:58:17 PM
ThisNameSux: So you have the right to decide everything in your life?

Yes.

There isn't anything in your daily life where you've given the power to decide your actions to somebody else?

Generally no, unless it was considered mutually beneficial. The TSA is not proving itself to be beneficial in any way, these scanners much more so.
 
2010-11-24 10:02:31 PM
ThisNameSux: corronchilejano: According to what your founding fathers wanted, yes.

LOL yep, they clearly had airplanes and terrorism in mind when they wrote the Constitution.


No kidding. Those guys had real problems to deal with. They had just won a war against the most powerful empire on earth. If they wanted to travel anywhere, they dealt with the very real threat of privateers and deadly storms. They would have laughed themselves silly at our fear of terrorism.
 
2010-11-24 10:02:33 PM
www.pwnage.ro

Take me to your scanner.
 
2010-11-24 10:02:35 PM
jingks: ThisNameSux: You can drive to your destination so we need to ban all air travel.

And obviously a troll since I just explained there are reasons the cost of air travel would outweigh the risks of air travel. Oh, I got one:

Millimeter wave scanners are non-genotoxic, so all backscanner X-ray machines should be banned.


They also have crappy penetration.
 
2010-11-24 10:02:39 PM
microlith: Generally no, unless it was considered mutually beneficial.

Did you have to apply for a drivers license? Did you have to register your vehicle? Did you have to register for the draft? Do you have to be 21 to drink? Do you need a passport to travel outside of the US? I can go on all farking night.
 
2010-11-24 10:06:06 PM
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.


Cars aren't capable of instantly and irrevocably giving someone cancer. And the people driving around you went through a licensing procedure. I guarantee none of these TSA agents have been certified to operate these machines by an accredited institute that also trains X-Ray techs. At least you were licensed by someone that also licenses other drivers.
 
2010-11-24 10:09:31 PM
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.


You know how I know you dont know shiat about radiation in ANY spectrum?
 
2010-11-24 10:10:56 PM
Breygon: A Fark Handle: fizzix_is_fun: that's a known unknown i believe...thanks dick cheney

I thought that was Rumsfeld


yeah, i think you're right. whatever same breed of neocon stupid trying to enrich themselves off government action.
 
2010-11-24 10:12:55 PM
Rich Cream: tacmakr:
Keep on herping that derp.


2.) There are inherent risks in most everything we do, particularly flying. Do a quick search for flying related pulmonary embolisms.

There is a difference between a risk I choose to take and one that is imposed on me by others.

4.)[...]Do over the top stuff or incur the wrath of the second guessers.

That's what you're concerned about?


am I accused of derpitiness? not sure how to read that.

anyhow. 1.)most people aren't aware of the vast majority of the risks they are taking (see embolisms) so is the foul in actually telling them or in the risk itself? Doesn't bother me either way, there are far to many of them out there, voluntary and otherwise. Vaccines for example. Not a conspiracy theorist by any definition. Just saying, we live in a world where certain things do have to be done for the greater good. Which leads nicely into...

4.) yeah, that does scare me. The people we elect are not allowed to make rational, informed decisions. They absolutely have to react to opinion polls. So I'm left with not knowing with any certainty if things like the scanners are actually needed or done to quell the fears of people who think they know something. Conversely, they may well be needed and have their use minimized for the same reasons. Mix in disinformation campaigns, pundits and partisans.. man... we're screwed

/reasonable discourse will be punished.
 
2010-11-24 10:14:04 PM
jmaster306: 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.

You do realize how many people drive the 'idiot proof' cars into the ground because they don't change their oil, don't you?
 
2010-11-24 10:15:53 PM
FTA: Millimeter wave scanners, which use radio waves, have no proven adverse health effects and don't expose passengers to any X-rays, but they haven't been widely studied.

Bullshiat. Millimeter emissions have been studied heavily as they're in the microwave/infrared frequency ranges. The low-power exposure to those frequencies are clearly documented. He's probably meant the millimeter wave scanners haven't been widely studied though.

rst.gsfc.nasa.gov
 
2010-11-24 10:17:16 PM
ThisNameSux: Did you have to apply for a drivers license?

Yes, but I don't have to consent to a search at any time I'm on the road.

Did you have to register your vehicle?

Yes. What does that have to do with anything?

Did you have to register for the draft?
Yes, as is required by law. However, I don't see how any of those violate the constitution.

Do you have to be 21 to drink?
Yes, and as we've seen it's a mostly ineffective law.

Do you need a passport to travel outside of the US?
Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? I'm not asking my government permission to travel, I'm providing identity so the OTHER country will give me permission.

I can go on all farking night.
Rambling like an idiot? I can believe it.
 
2010-11-24 10:18:46 PM
iq_in_binary: jmaster306:

Cars aren't capable of instantly and irrevocably giving someone cancer. And the people driving around you went through a licensing procedure. I guarantee none of these TSA agents have been certified to operate these machines by an accredited institute that also trains X-Ray techs. At least you were licensed by someone that also licenses other drivers.


This made me smile - thank you
 
2010-11-24 10:21:53 PM
zabadu: darth_shatner: jshine:

But only an idiot would assume a risk -- even a small one -- if there is absolutely no benefit to be had.

Don't mind the scanners, but agree the whole "we're going to risk your health by a tiny amount so we can protect your health by an even smaller amount" isn't terribly bright.

And yet both of you will get however many 20 min x length of your flight zapped, because the benefit is seeing grandma.

Your logic makes no sense. Okay to zap if it benefits me, but if it benefits the whole country, fark it.


as someone with dwindling love, and no faith to speak of in, his fellow countrymen anymore that sounds about right...
 
2010-11-24 10:22:30 PM
ThisNameSux: microlith: Generally no, unless it was considered mutually beneficial.

Did you have to apply for a drivers license? Did you have to register your vehicle? Did you have to register for the draft? Do you have to be 21 to drink? Do you need a passport to travel outside of the US? I can go on all farking night.


to show the minimum ability to operate a dangerous vehicle. to show minimum maintenance of a several ton machine and to allow for taxation to cover negative externalities. for the defense of the nation in case of major war. to prevent "the children" from harming themselves (though it's clearly a failed policy). to prove you're a citizen when dealing with foreign governments. i can go on all farking night...

do you still not realize that the difference is that scanners provide NO benefit and are solely being used as security theater while more effective options are available? they are a simply a plan to transfer tax dollars into the hands of the homeland security industrial complex and have possible health risk and clear violate the 4th amendment since no probable cause is needed and done just so the TSA can say they are doing something.

people like you are way we have so many issues in this nation. "oh look they are doing something, that's great." well, maybe we should ask some more questions: is it effective? is it safe? is it needed? is it a waste of limited resources? but no the tards are happy that there's something being done. sometime doing nothing is appropriate. sometimes doing something low tech is appropriate.
 
2010-11-24 10:23:04 PM
ForgotMyTowel: "Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

You know what else had "multiple safety mechanisms and never had a problem"?


www.ourtimelines.com
Yep.
 
2010-11-24 10:24:59 PM
i56.tinypic.com
 
2010-11-24 10:28:13 PM
Chimperror2: They also have crappy penetration.

What do you need to penetrate other than clothing? If the person has a odd looking, high density object on them, I'm guessing it would be checked by hand.
 
2010-11-24 10:28:48 PM
LiteWerk: Think of it like this. Supposedly, the more often you play the Lottery, the better your odds of winning, right? Can't we also say that the more often you fly after getting scanned, the greater your odds of getting cancer? Perhaps someone who is better schooled on statistics could comment.

Do a search for 'jshine' and read all of his posts below.
 
2010-11-24 10:29:14 PM
ThisNameSux: The anti TSA crowd has not made one valid argument in any of the treads and all I'm getting from them is "waaaaaaaaaah I don't wanna".

Sorry kids, this isn't 2nd grade.


SECURITY THEATER, you dolt.
 
2010-11-24 10:30:01 PM
Are those of you who oppose the scanners on 3rd amendment grounds also against random police road blocks/checkpoints? The Arizona "make sure you have your papers" law?

Just curious cause I can't stand the thought of a random police checkpoint (unless they're lookin for someone specific), but don't have a problem with the public safety search at an airport.
 
2010-11-24 10:31:01 PM
torch: 1) NOBODY flies just once.

Suicide bombers do.
 
2010-11-24 10:34:06 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: PlatypusPuke: The problem is with time; we do not have the data OVER TIME to draw any scientific conclusions, except, perhaps, remaining survivors from Japan. So, we're filling in that scientific shortcoming with educated guesses, and we all know those are never wrong, right?

How about we ask retired airline pilots? They're exposed to many times more radiation over a longer time from just being in a plane all of the time than someone getting hit up by one of these useless scanners five times per year.

There's a big farking difference between evolving natural protection against naturally occurring ambient cosmic radiation versus having your living tissue cells frequently bombarded by concentrated beams of unnaturally occurring radiation in unnaturally higher doses.

What, different flavors? We're exposed to natural radiation over the entire spectrum of frequencies.


True.

However, if I put a thimble full of chocolate syrup in an 8oz glass of milk, and then put a thimble full of milk in an 8oz glass of chocolate syrup, stir them both, I could argue (and still be technically correct) that I'm selling "chocolate milk" from both glasses.

My point is, drinking the glass that's mostly chocolate syrup in one sitting is not equal to drinking a glass a day of the other over the course of a year, and whether it's strawberry or banana is moot.

If you moved closer to the sun, that "same" benign sunlight you've evolved against would start feeling a little different and tingly, and by that, I mean all hurty and disintegraty.

Same fundamental shiat, yes. Same result? How about no.
 
2010-11-24 10:36:23 PM
tacmakr: Are those of you who oppose the scanners on 3rd amendment grounds also against random police road blocks/checkpoints? The Arizona "make sure you have your papers" law?

1) 4th amendment, not 3rd.
2) You mean verifying citizenship after being stopped/arrested for another unrelated crime? Just like Mexico's own laws require? That one?

1/10

img.photobucket.com
 
2010-11-24 10:37:28 PM
Wow. So many farking idiots the mind boggles.

The 1 in 30 million estimate is a number pulled out of a hat. The risk could be better, or it could be a whole lot worse. And that says nothing about the health risk of going into one of these machines if it is malfunctioning.

A software bug in this thing could give you a dose orders of magnitude stronger what you're supposed to have. And just how the fark are you to knoow that there is no bug in the software running these things?

We really are a nation of pussies. You win, Osama.
 
2010-11-24 10:38:27 PM
tacmakr: Are those of you who oppose the scanners on 3rd 4th amendment grounds also against random police road blocks/checkpoints? The Arizona "make sure you have your papers" law?

Just curious cause I can't stand the thought of a random police checkpoint (unless they're lookin for someone specific), but don't have a problem with the public safety search at an airport.


FTFY...and yeah i actually do have a problem with the checkpoints. but at least those checkpoints can claim to stop drunk driving, unlike the useless security theater that happens at airports. further, they don't search the car they just check the driver. you can have the naughtiest porn imaginable in the trunk, and if you're sober the cops won't know. as for 'zona, i'm ok with the law. basically it's only when there's cause or the individual has committed another crime. of course i'm concern it will cause people in need not to reach out the police because of fear. but if you've committed a crime and might not be here legally that would be good to determine.

/again, my main objection to the scanners/gropings is that they do not secure and can possibly harm while wasting tax dollars
 
2010-11-24 10:39:30 PM
ocschwar: A software bug in this thing could give you a dose orders of magnitude stronger what you're supposed to have.

It could? Show me one shred of evidence to back that up. Oh wait, you're one of the idiots who thinks there's a big dial and all it takes to give you cancer is for the TSA guy to turn it to 11.
 
2010-11-24 10:44:02 PM
"
It could? Show me one shred of evidence to back that up. Oh wait, you're one of the idiots who thinks there's a big dial and all it takes to give you cancer is for the TSA guy to turn it to 11."

You spend 10 seconds in the machine, at least. You are supposed to get scanned for only around 50 miliseconds. If the beam fails to turn off at the end of the programmed pulse (oops) and you get scanned continuously, congratulations, you've just 200 scans.

That's just the pulse duration, whcih is easy to fark up. If the beam intensity is also messed up, you really lose.

Xrays and software are very, very easy to ffark up. It's happened before. People have died.
 
2010-11-24 10:45:39 PM
Oh fark it, I give up. This argument will never be about whether or not these scanners help with security, and will always be about whether or not they have any chance whatsoever of giving you cancer. Americans miss the point so goddamn much I swear to god most are trying to do it on purpose.
 
2010-11-24 10:46:11 PM
ocschwar: you've just 200 scans.

Accidentally the whole thing?
 
2010-11-24 10:47:06 PM
ThisNameSux: ocschwar: A software bug in this thing could give you a dose orders of magnitude stronger what you're supposed to have.

It could? Show me one shred of evidence to back that up. Oh wait, you're one of the idiots who thinks there's a big dial and all it takes to give you cancer is for the TSA guy to turn it to 11.


yeah machines never malfunction. but as a TSA suck up troll (or zabadu)...i would love to hear your take on any of the following non-irradiation, non-4th amendment objections:

cost a tremendous amount of tax dollars for no security gain.
in order to detect explosives dogs are much more cost effective.
cause security lines, which make juicy terrorism targets.
will cause more deaths and injuries from auto accidents.
are clearly an sign of corruption on behalf of the homeland security industrial complex (see chertoff, michael).
the actual threat of terrorism is minimal.
and are done solely as security theater because americans are tards that want action.

/troll that...
 
2010-11-24 10:49:14 PM
zahadum party planner: 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.

spoken a derp who can't spell.

biology training? is that, like, a college course or sumthin'? i assume you can take that after your Noledge of Cancer 301 class.


I think that comes after "Cells n' Stuff 101". :)
 
2010-11-24 10:50:59 PM
A Fark Handle: yeah machines never malfunction.

What's your proof, the scene from Watchmen where Dr Manhattan comes to be?
 
2010-11-24 10:57:12 PM
LiteWerk: Think of it like this. Supposedly, the more often you play the Lottery, the better your odds of winning, right? Can't we also say that the more often you fly after getting scanned, the greater your odds of getting cancer? Perhaps someone who is better schooled on statistics could comment.

About two weeks...
wizbangblog.com
 
2010-11-24 11:00:03 PM
ThisNameSux: A Fark Handle: yeah machines never malfunction.

What's your proof, the scene from Watchmen where Dr Manhattan comes to be?


Therac-25
 
2010-11-24 11:04:14 PM
Gleeman: tacmakr: Are those of you who oppose the scanners on 3rd amendment grounds also against random police road blocks/checkpoints? The Arizona "make sure you have your papers" law?

1) 4th amendment, not 3rd.
2) You mean verifying citizenship after being stopped/arrested for another unrelated crime? Just like Mexico's own laws require? That one?

1/10


oh come now, seems it was a highly successful troll, particularly for a non-troll post. It was a genuine question not a statement. Did get the amendment wrong though.

/ hell I even rated a toon troll
 
2010-11-24 11:04:48 PM
People should refuse to be irradiated. They should insist on the pat down. After all, the TSA person's hand is probably still warm from the last person he groped.
 
2010-11-24 11:08:15 PM
ThisNameSux: A Fark Handle: yeah machines never malfunction.

What's your proof, the scene from Watchmen where Dr Manhattan comes to be?


Well they, but its highly irregular...

www.wired.com
 
2010-11-24 11:08:45 PM
A Fark Handle: tacmakr: Are those of you who oppose the scanners on 3rd 4th amendment grounds also against random police road blocks/checkpoints? The Arizona "make sure you have your papers" law?

Just curious cause I can't stand the thought of a random police checkpoint (unless they're lookin for someone specific), but don't have a problem with the public safety search at an airport.

FTFY...and yeah i actually do have a problem with the checkpoints. but at least those checkpoints can claim to stop drunk driving, unlike the useless security theater that happens at airports. further, they don't search the car they just check the driver. you can have the naughtiest porn imaginable in the trunk, and if you're sober the cops won't know. as for 'zona, i'm ok with the law. basically it's only when there's cause or the individual has committed another crime. of course i'm concern it will cause people in need not to reach out the police because of fear. but if you've committed a crime and might not be here legally that would be good to determine.

/again, my main objection to the scanners/gropings is that they do not secure and can possibly harm while wasting tax dollars


thanks for the fix, noticed it after the click. Again, not trolling, but how can you be so very certain that the scanners are useless?
 
2010-11-24 11:09:21 PM
Adalius: Luse: bangmaid: I wonder how much radiation you get from standing in front of a microwave or putting a cell phone to your head?

Standing in front of a microwave exposes you to 0 xrays.
The hint is in the name.

/Electromagnetic spectrum, look it up

OP said radiation, not xrays. A microwave does expose you to a very very minor dose of radiation but it's not harmful.

/Non-ionizing radiation, look it up.


Ummm microwave IS Ionizing radiation, which is why it can boil water.

However, the microwave in your kitchen uses a faraday cage to prevent any microwave radiation escaping.
 
2010-11-24 11:11:29 PM
hockeyfarker: moothemagiccow: . What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

the odds of them getting cancer are now 12 in 30 million, or even 52 in 30 million. they might as well end it now!


Well what are the 1 in 30 million? Is that per year, per year per scanner, per scanner lifetime, per human lifetime? It's bandied about with no real grounding in reality
 
2010-11-24 11:14:47 PM
iq_in_binary: Adalius: Luse: bangmaid: I wonder how much radiation you get from standing in front of a microwave or putting a cell phone to your head?

Standing in front of a microwave exposes you to 0 xrays.
The hint is in the name.

/Electromagnetic spectrum, look it up

OP said radiation, not xrays. A microwave does expose you to a very very minor dose of radiation but it's not harmful.

/Non-ionizing radiation, look it up.

Ummm microwave IS Ionizing radiation, which is why it can boil water.

However, the microwave in your kitchen uses a faraday cage to prevent any microwave radiation escaping.


www.antonine-education.co.uk

The EM spectrum. how the fark does it work?

Notice how X-rays are right next to Gamma rays, which will kill you for sure.

a microwave is somewhere way on the other side around where radar is. you know, with the shiat that doesn't kill you.

This is why I wouldn't object nearly as much to a millimeter wave scanner. I already bombard myself with 802.11.

Now if they would just use millimeter wave scanners and let me bring weed on the airplane I would be a happy little sheep.
 
2010-11-24 11:17:35 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: Oh fark it, I give up. This argument will never be about whether or not these scanners help with security, and will always be about whether or not they have any chance whatsoever of giving you cancer. Americans miss the point so goddamn much I swear to god most are trying to do it on purpose.

Have you been living in a cave? There are several threads this past week filled with the very wharrgarbl which you seek.

Of course it doesn't do anything for security. It's theater designed to either make the guys who make the machines rich or to desensitize the public towards a police state.

Saying it's for our safety when the very thing keeping us safe could potentially be more dangerous than what the thing is keeping us safe from is a valid point I think.

Sorta like if airbags caused an equal or greater amount of damage to people during an accident as opposed to people driving without airbags.

That kinda thing.

/I'm not saying airbags kill people, I'm saying IF they did, we'd be getting murdered by safety.
 
2010-11-24 11:18:02 PM
helix400: trerro: Radiation is cumulative, and your body purges it very, very slowly.

No, some radioactive particles are difficult to purge. Radioactivity itself is NOT cumulative.


"Radiation is cumulative" doesn't even make any sense. What he most likely meant is that radiation damage is cumulative.

There are two mechanisms of radiation damage:
- Direct action (radiation directly strikes DNA, causing strand breaks), which happens 1/3 of the time
- Indirect action (radiation ionizes free radicals, which bond to DNA and cause transcription errors), which happens 2/3 of the time

Like all DNA damage, given time, the body can repair it. However, if someone receives a radiation dose, then another dose after a short time, but before the damage from the first irradiation has had time to recover, the total damage will be higher. Still, since the damage from the first dose has been repaired somewhat, the total damage is less than if both doses were delivered consecutively with no waiting time.

This is used all the time to kill tumors. If you need to deliver a dose of 70 Gy to kill a tumor and try to deliver it all at once, even if you try your best to localize it to the tumor, you will kill the patient. So instead, you split the dose across multiple irradiations, waiting for a while after each irradiation. That way you can deliver a higher total dose to kill the tumor. It's called dose fractionation.
 
2010-11-24 11:20:47 PM
tacmakr: thanks for the fix, noticed it after the click. Again, not trolling, but how can you be so very certain that the scanners are useless?

well they will catch people who are smuggling something with no knowledge of the security plans. however, any smart terrorist will know and plan accordingly. and since we have finite resources and there are more cost effective, less intrusive, without possible health risks methods available perhaps we should use those. i'm not suggesting no security, but an approach that weigh benefits to warm. a couple of dogs would do the same job for a fraction of the cost. and there's still the issue that airport employees and TSA employees are not searched at the same level. every story of an airport employee getting caught smuggling drugs one flight could be a bomb. and worse is the fact that increased security will cause more to decide to drive which is many folds more dangerous (though the deaths aren't as dramatic or well covered).
 
2010-11-24 11:21:50 PM
iq_in_binary:

Ummm microwave IS Ionizing radiation, which is why it can boil water.

However, the microwave in your kitchen uses a faraday cage to prevent any microwave radiation escaping.


No, microwaves are not ionizing radiation. To quote, "Near ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwave, radio waves, and low-frequency RF (longwave) are all examples of non-ionizing radiation."

Microwaves and other non ionizing radiation are completely capable of exciting electrons and in the case of microwaves heating things up by the friction caused through excitation, they do not completely bump electrons out of an atom, ergo not ionizing radiation.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
 
2010-11-24 11:22:00 PM
Since we're throwing around X-rays now. Can we bring back the X-ray Fluoroscope to shoe stores? (new window)
 
2010-11-24 11:25:03 PM
ThisNameSux: A Fark Handle: yeah machines never malfunction.

What's your proof, the scene from Watchmen where Dr Manhattan comes to be?


i see your still ignoring the other reasons scanners are objectionable...

/and others have provided the examples of machines farking up
//great trolling though
 
F42
2010-11-24 11:28:28 PM
fluffy2097: Notice how X-rays are right next to Gamma rays, which will kill you for sure.

Not if I become giant, green and angry!
 
2010-11-24 11:31:14 PM
Adalius: iq_in_binary:

Ummm microwave IS Ionizing radiation, which is why it can boil water.

However, the microwave in your kitchen uses a faraday cage to prevent any microwave radiation escaping.

They are radio waves, I think a Chocolate bar gets some of the credit for it becoming a household item but its been too long since I've read about it.
No, microwaves are not ionizing radiation. To quote, "Near ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwave, radio waves, and low-frequency RF (longwave) are all examples of non-ionizing radiation."

Microwaves and other non ionizing radiation are completely capable of exciting electrons and in the case of microwaves heating things up by the friction caused through excitation, they do not completely bump electrons out of an atom, ergo not ionizing radiation.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
 
2010-11-24 11:32:43 PM
Ok, so if the TSA people are just standing around and getting multiple does every shift how soon before they start dropping like flies from Cancer?
 
2010-11-24 11:33:54 PM
meintx2001: Ok, so if the TSA people are just standing around and getting multiple does every shift how soon before they start dropping like flies from Cancer?

I'm guessing its like the dentist and places like that, they put you on the X and get out of the way before the machine starts.
 
2010-11-24 11:36:51 PM
These scanners will not kill you.

You'll just become a genetic dead end, that's all.
 
2010-11-24 11:37:12 PM
meintx2001: Ok, so if the TSA people are just standing around and getting multiple does every shift how soon before they start dropping like flies from Cancer?

3 weeks if Farkers are to be believed.
 
2010-11-24 11:37:30 PM
protectyourlimbs: I'm guessing its like the dentist and places like that, they put you on the X and get out of the way before the machine starts.

Doubt it. There's always a screener standing directly beyond the machine to make sure you don't try and bolt through it. I'd imagine they'd be catching reflected doses all shift long.
 
2010-11-24 11:51:00 PM
fluffy2097: Since we're throwing around X-rays now. Can we bring back the X-ray Fluoroscope to shoe stores? (new window)

Hope nobody is still eating off of their Grandma's Fiestaware either!
 
2010-11-24 11:55:11 PM
Yeah, I should have said "the effects of radiation" or "radiation damage" rather than just "radiation." Sorry about that.

Basically, if you take another hit of radiation before you recovered from the last, the damage of that second dose is added to what hasn't healed yet from the first, and therefore, the total damage (and your risk of cancer) are higher than if you had taken that second hit later, after you fully recovered from the first hit. The levels of radiation that cause cancer do NOT have to be high enough to cause immediate symptoms, which means it's basically impossible to tell if you're suffering this cumulative risk.

I have no idea how much radiation a single scan hits you with (and even if I did, it could vary with state of repair of the machine, how long you were in there, etc.), but I would think there's a very good chance that pilots getting scanned multiple times per day are at serious risk - and if the dose is high enough, even frequent business travelers could potentially face heightened risk.

Additionally, even if this turns out to NOT be the case, and it's a flat 1:30 mil chance, that means the TSA is killing a small number of people with a process that saves none. That one point alone should be all it takes to ban the scanners... but of course, politics and corporate greed will ensure that's not the case.
 
2010-11-25 12:01:52 AM
ThisNameSux: meintx2001: Ok, so if the TSA people are just standing around and getting multiple does every shift how soon before they start dropping like flies from Cancer?

3 weeks if Farkers are to be believed.


you're an idiot...why didn't the enhanced pat downs start right after the christmas underwear bomber? after all, if effective that would have been the secure idea? but instead a year later once a good contract for expensive, yet useless machinery could be signed we have scanners and pat downs (solely to encourage compliance with scanners). further, since it wasn't a high density explosive in the underwear bomber might not have been spotted with a scanner. even further, i'll leave this:

A leading Israeli airport security expert says the Canadian government has wasted millions of dollars to install "useless" imaging machines at airports across the country.

"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.


/anyday now on the retort to the other objections...
 
2010-11-25 12:02:14 AM
meintx2001: Ok, so if the TSA people are just standing around and getting multiple does every shift how soon before they start dropping like flies from Cancer?

30 years. there will be a big court case which the USA will lose because obviously they knew about it right now. there will be the TSA Back Scattered Cancer Fund. the TSA is disbanded, and the kidz on the net are laughing at us for knowing there was an issue and just doing it anyway because we were scared of the Muslims (which will be a laughable threat compared to what they fear then). hind site is a judgement biatch.

just imagine if hiding under your desk in the 50s and 60s was known to likely cause cancer occasionally. and now we were paying for it, to put yourself in futurekidz shoes.

/puts away crystal ball.
 
2010-11-25 12:10:15 AM
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.


Uh, no. The expected value is 17.7 people getting cancer. Since we're dealing with discrete events, this is best described as a Poisson distribution.

To calculate the odds of NOBODY getting cancer, you're calculating the Poisson function with mean=17.7, k=0, which is equal in this case to e^-17.7, which is about 2 x 10^-8.

In other words, the odds of NOBODY getting cancer from this is 0.000002%, and the odds that at least one person per year develops cancer is 99.999998%. Likewise, the odds that at least 10 people per year develop cancer is 98%.

The odds are most certainly NOT in favor of nobody getting cancer.
 
2010-11-25 12:13:14 AM
hockeyfarker: moothemagiccow: . What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

the odds of them getting cancer are now 12 in 30 million, or even 52 in 30 million. they might as well end it now!


And yet xray technicians, nurses and doctors wear lead aprons and even opt to leave the room when scans are performed by licensed, educated medical professionals.

Are they just being paranoid?
 
2010-11-25 12:20:53 AM
Sum Dum Gai: 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.

Uh, no. The expected value is 17.7 people getting cancer. Since we're dealing with discrete events, this is best described as a Poisson distribution.

To calculate the odds of NOBODY getting cancer, you're calculating the Poisson function with mean=17.7, k=0, which is equal in this case to e^-17.7, which is about 2 x 10^-8.

In other words, the odds of NOBODY getting cancer from this is 0.000002%, and the odds that at least one person per year develops cancer is 99.999998%. Likewise, the odds that at least 10 people per year develop cancer is 98%.

The odds are most certainly NOT in favor of nobody getting cancer.


I'd like to see a comparison of this to the expected number of lives SAVED, although of course there's too many unknown variables to actually calculate that statistic. Still, I'm pretty sure the number is very, VERY close to 0, vs the 18/year they're killing.
 
2010-11-25 12:40:18 AM
huntercr: hockeyfarker: moothemagiccow: . What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

the odds of them getting cancer are now 12 in 30 million, or even 52 in 30 million. they might as well end it now!

And yet xray technicians, nurses and doctors wear lead aprons and even opt to leave the room when scans are performed by licensed, educated medical professionals.

Are they just being paranoid?


No, because they wear badges that show the amount of radiation exposure if they spend a long time around such machines, and are aware of how much exposure they have had.

There's also a large difference between an xray machine and a backscanner. Pretending they're the same thing is just dumb.
 
2010-11-25 12:45:30 AM
Two words: Birth Defects.

People won't likely get cancer because there's too much DNA in an adult for the impact of a low-yield x-ray to show up on a macro scale.

However, if you're a woman who thinks you might at some point in the future want to have children, each of your eggs is already there with its half of a human DNA set. Any damage to the egg propagates to the entire child, assuming the child survives to term. Unless you're hoping for a deaf mute with six toes, opt out.
Men are only somewhat less at risk, as while the sperm will cycle out, there's still the chance that a man will lose the ability to produce genetically usable sperm due to radiation exposure.

There's a reason you shouldn't even get a dental x-ray without your pelvis (and, generally, your chest as well) covered in lead.
 
2010-11-25 12:53:06 AM
jmaster306: 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.


You need to take a closer look at the cars of people you share the road with. If you know a little about cars you'll soon wonder why they there aren't more problems. But as far as problems go, a malfunctioning scanner is going to expose people to high doses of radiation while if the driver of the beater behind you doesn't have a brake failure that very moment you'll suffer no penalty whatsoever. That's the difference. That brake failure will happen once. The high radiation levels can happen tens of thousands of times before any one notices.
 
2010-11-25 12:53:37 AM
MacGabhain: Two words: Birth Defects.

People won't likely get cancer because there's too much DNA in an adult for the impact of a low-yield x-ray to show up on a macro scale.

However, if you're a woman who thinks you might at some point in the future want to have children, each of your eggs is already there with its half of a human DNA set. Any damage to the egg propagates to the entire child, assuming the child survives to term. Unless you're hoping for a deaf mute with six toes, opt out.
Men are only somewhat less at risk, as while the sperm will cycle out, there's still the chance that a man will lose the ability to produce genetically usable sperm due to radiation exposure.

There's a reason you shouldn't even get a dental x-ray without your pelvis (and, generally, your chest as well) covered in lead.


I wonder if ultrasound devices have any affect on a developing brain stem?

/Serious Horse "Hrm", ala, Ren & Stimpy
 
2010-11-25 12:54:07 AM
I can't do this again.

/leaving thread
 
2010-11-25 01:02:59 AM
tacmakr: 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?

Ok! apparently I need to get out more. Regardless, a few notes;
1.) Cancers per million DOES NOT EQUAL deaths per year.


We are using the mortality numbers, not the cancer numbers. x2 for the cancers.

2.) There are inherent risks in most everything we do, particularly flying. Do a quick search for flying related pulmonary embolisms.

So? That's no reason to add risk for no reason.

3.) The 1 in 30 million probability is meaningless without frequency, predisposition and other relevant qualifiers.

No qualifiers are needed. That's for an average person.

4.) There would be just as much whining if they didn't take extraordinary steps and we get a repeat of 9/11. Could still happen but that's the world we've created. Do over the top stuff or incur the wrath of the second guessers.

And you wouldn't see this whining if they actually were taking effective steps. The problem is this is just theater. It's killing people for no reason.

Gleeman: ForgotMyTowel: "Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

You know what else had "multiple safety mechanisms and never had a problem"?

www.ourtimelines.com
Yep.


A bad example. That was an example of an inherently unsafe design and it had a madman at the controls. All those safeties don't do squat when you turn them off as part of a test to prove the reactor is safe even without them and then persist in continuing your test even when things are going wrong. He waited until the last instant to order the reactor scram and then was undone by one more bit of insane design--the control rods were graphite-tipped which momentarily turned up the heat as they dropped in place. The reactor went prompt critical--the dividing line between a reactor and a very lousy version of an atomic bomb.

ocschwar: Wow. So many farking idiots the mind boggles.

The 1 in 30 million estimate is a number pulled out of a hat. The risk could be better, or it could be a whole lot worse. And that says nothing about the health risk of going into one of these machines if it is malfunctioning.

A software bug in this thing could give you a dose orders of magnitude stronger what you're supposed to have. And just how the fark are you to knoow that there is no bug in the software running these things?

We really are a nation of pussies. You win, Osama.


It's not pulled from a hat. It's TSAs numbers combined with the standard numbers for radiation risk. These numbers are solid at high doses (nuked city etc--they're mostly from the Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors) but unproven at low doses.

It's also too low because a greater percentage of the low-energy x-rays are absorbed and it's what's absorbed that counts, not the total energy.

pizen: ThisNameSux: A Fark Handle: yeah machines never malfunction.

What's your proof, the scene from Watchmen where Dr Manhattan comes to be?

Therac-25


And note that the lethal bug in the Therac-25 software could only be exposed by an experienced operator. It was timing dependent, it only happened if you made a certain error and then fixed it quickly. The window was narrow enough that nobody who didn't routinely use the machine would correct it fast enough.

tacmakr: thanks for the fix, noticed it after the click. Again, not trolling, but how can you be so very certain that the scanners are useless?

There has been plenty of intelligent discussion of whether they could catch the underwear bomber, the general opinion being they couldn't. Even the TSA only says they might have caught him. They're also completely useless against stuff hidden in body cavities.

moothemagiccow: hockeyfarker: moothemagiccow: . What about frequent flyers - folks who fly monthly or weekly? Are they just farked?

the odds of them getting cancer are now 12 in 30 million, or even 52 in 30 million. they might as well end it now!

Well what are the 1 in 30 million? Is that per year, per year per scanner, per scanner lifetime, per human lifetime? It's bandied about with no real grounding in reality


Per scan.

protectyourlimbs: meintx2001: Ok, so if the TSA people are just standing around and getting multiple does every shift how soon before they start dropping like flies from Cancer?

I'm guessing its like the dentist and places like that, they put you on the X and get out of the way before the machine starts.


Except they have proper shields (those aren't ordinary walls around the x-ray rooms and while there might be openings the operators make sure nobody is in the path of the opening before pushing the button) and wear dosimeters.

The nude-o-scopes have no shields. The operators have no dosimeters. By the TSAs data spending all your working hours next to one gives you the yearly dose limit for a radiation worker--and in 5 years of that you'll hit the lifetime limit and never be allowed to work around radiation, period.
 
2010-11-25 01:28:36 AM
A Fark Handle: tacmakr: thanks for the fix, noticed it after the click. Again, not trolling, but how can you be so very certain that the scanners are useless?

well they will catch people who are smuggling something with no knowledge of the security plans. however, any smart terrorist will know and plan accordingly. and since we have finite resources and there are more cost effective, less intrusive, without possible health risks methods available perhaps we should use those. i'm not suggesting no security, but an approach that weigh benefits to warm. a couple of dogs would do the same job for a fraction of the cost. and there's still the issue that airport employees and TSA employees are not searched at the same level. every story of an airport employee getting caught smuggling drugs one flight could be a bomb. and worse is the fact that increased security will cause more to decide to drive which is many folds more dangerous (though the deaths aren't as dramatic or well covered).


That all sounds very reasonable and ty for the classy lack-o-flamage. I do question the long term safety of the equipment though not for the reasons in the article. On the other hand we Americans are a super spoiled whiny bunch. Certainly no proceedure ever implemented was/is even close to fullproof so to me the question comes down to whether we trust the safety of the design and whether it is reasonable.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be able to demonstrate that I'm not hiding something under my cloths before boarding a vehicle that can so easily be converted into a missile. That leaves trust in the design - not there yet. Would probably go with the scan though. I'm lazy and dont fly much. Also had 3 dental x-rays in the last 2 weeks. Wasn't consulted on any of them. My heads feelin a bit funny come to think of it.

/trains
//better ones
///soon
 
2010-11-25 01:56:34 AM
damn libruls, and their fancy math
 
2010-11-25 02:01:03 AM
MacGabhain: Two words: Birth Defects.

Two words: Super powers.

One of those babies is going to be the first super hero to kick his way out of the uterus. It will not end well for the mother giving birth, but we will have a superman among us.
 
2010-11-25 02:12:00 AM
Loren:
And note that the lethal bug in the Therac-25 software could only be exposed by an experienced operator. It was timing dependent, it only happened if you made a certain error and then fixed it quickly. The window was narrow enough that nobody who didn't routinely use the machine would correct it fast enough.


It's more widespread and serious a problem than Therac 25


There has been plenty of intelligent discussion of whether they could catch the underwear bomber, the general opinion being they couldn't. Even the TSA only says they might have caught him. They're also completely useless against stuff hidden in body cavities.


Very true.

On the other hand, it's worse than that. Underwear bomber didn't board in an airport in the US. So no, it would not have caught him, period. Nor would they have caught the more recent parcel bombing attempt.

The scanners are like the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlamp, not because he dropped them there, but because it's better lit there.
 
2010-11-25 02:26:34 AM
Gleeman: Adding some fuel to the fire.

/would still opt out
//not a necessary dose; yes you get a dose when you fly, but scanners are nothing but security theater
//also believe it's no different than random strip searches on the street without probable cause


Yep, yep.
 
2010-11-25 02:30:30 AM
ocschwar: Xrays and software are very, very easy to fark up. It's happened before. People have died

And here I thought the techs were wearing those lead aprons because the Xrays were turning that lead into gold!

/Obviously, they didn't want to be gifted with the "Midas Touch."
 
2010-11-25 02:32:17 AM
sseye: Loren:
And note that the lethal bug in the Therac-25 software could only be exposed by an experienced operator. It was timing dependent, it only happened if you made a certain error and then fixed it quickly. The window was narrow enough that nobody who didn't routinely use the machine would correct it fast enough.

It's more widespread and serious a problem than Therac 25


There has been plenty of intelligent discussion of whether they could catch the underwear bomber, the general opinion being they couldn't. Even the TSA only says they might have caught him. They're also completely useless against stuff hidden in body cavities.

Very true.

On the other hand, it's worse than that. Underwear bomber didn't board in an airport in the US. So no, it would not have caught him, period. Nor would they have caught the more recent parcel bombing attempt.

The scanners are like the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlamp, not because he dropped them there, but because it's better lit there.


Brilliant.

I also like the way the thread had some intelligent discussion of the unborn.

Can you imagine the future Jenny McCarthy's trying to explain their autistic children?

Blame it all on small doses of radiation while exercising the right to travel these United Stations.
 
2010-11-25 02:32:44 AM
Loren: tacmakr:
There has been plenty of intelligent discussion of whether they could catch the underwear bomber, the general opinion being they couldn't. Even the TSA only says they might have caught him. They're also completely useless against stuff hidden in body cavities.


I'll take this one for rhetorical value as I could argue semantics with you on all of them, but it would undermine my point. Saying that the scanners would not have been usefull against the underwear bomber "in general opinion" and that they're useless against stuff hidden in body cavities is not the same as saying they are useless (which they may well be). My question is, how can we know they are useless. As with any preventative measure, if something has been prevented and we dont know about it, there is nothing to measure.

It seems that individual risk (comparison to lightning strikes or death by terrorists) is the only thing being considered when in fact 9/11 changed that for air travel. I dont believe the scanners have anything to do with minimizing the risk to individuals from the treat of terrorist but rather minimizing the chance of an individual being able to gain control of the plane and using it as a weapon. I am not arguing that it is definitely effective in that regard, simply that the scope is greater than 17 individuals a year (even if I conceed that point).

1 passenger plane, passengers and crew plus one metropolitan center, the resulting damage to industry, the national economy, rescue, military engagements etc... Would preventing even one incident of that nature be worth it? One a year? We love mocking the TSA, but I havent seen another plane flying into a building, doubt that can be attributed to luck.

I do not trust them when they say its safe, but I don't know otherwise either (Im certainly not gonna take anybody's word in this thread for it). They can grope me all they like though. Who am I kidding, I'll get scanned.

Cheers, I enjoyed reading all your remarks btw
 
2010-11-25 03:04:04 AM
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.


Biology is just applied chemistry. Chemistry is just applied physics.
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2010-11-25 03:25:32 AM
Assuming the odds are correct for arguments sake, if you happen to be one of the 18 people each year that get cancer from the scanner then your chances just became 100%.
 
2010-11-25 03:39:45 AM
jimw: Assuming the odds are correct for arguments sake, if you happen to be one of the 18 people each year that get cancer from the scanner then your chances just became 100%.

Well damn, you nailed that one. It made me realize that all the people who die from car crashes do so 100% of the time. That's an eye opener.
 
2010-11-25 04:43:00 AM
Ways that we are still completely vulnerable to terrorists:

Explosives smuggled through airport security in rectum/vagina. Remove in terminal bathroom and assemble bomb before getting on plane.

Improvised weapons on planes (ask any prison inmate for details). Though arming the pilots and locking the door has made this pointless.

Suicide bomb attack on crowded bus/subway/security line/night club.

Coordinated night-time attacks on water towers or power lines (especially during winter or heat waves).

Blow up key bridges after blocking up traffic.

Coordinated train derailments.

DC sniper type attacks.

Kill American tourists abroad.

Does Bin Laden actually have to do all of this? No. He only has to do enough to remind us that we're not perfectly safe from some idiot living in a cave on the other side of the world so that we completely overreact and give up the freedoms that we think he wants to take away. So every time some TSA agent gropes or takes a naked photo of someone, or takes some 3 year old child's shoes and teddy bear, Bin Laden wins.
 
2010-11-25 05:07:01 AM
The crux of the problem seems to boil down to security measures that are already in place. The 911 hijackers were here on expired visas, doing extremely suspicious activities. The man with the bomb in his pants should've been stopped multiple times on his way out of Yemen. Groping citizens going from Los Angeles to New York is completely ridiculous. If terrorists are already in LA, why wouldn't they commit a terrorist act in LA? Why do they have to fly to New York?
The terrorists have won in a way, they've made our government cower in fear, made a large portion of the US and the world cower in fear over a few dipshiats who managed to break rules already in place and crashed some planes into buildings and plant bombs on subway cars. The people who created these disasters were breaking laws already, but the laws weren't enforced. Enforce existing laws on expiring visas, and background checks on people coming from countries known to have Islamic terrorist organizations such as Yemen and Saudi Arabia, and profile them. I guarantee that middle aged white guy with his wife and two kids probably isn't going to take an airplane hostage. Profile where it needs it, if you're coming from a country that has hostile Islamic fundamentalist groups, you get a check.
 
2010-11-25 05:21:13 AM
A good example of just how effective this scanning system is.

Link (new window)
 
2010-11-25 05:29:08 AM
relhak: Ways that we are still completely vulnerable to terrorists:

Explosives smuggled through airport security in rectum/vagina. Remove in terminal bathroom and assemble bomb before getting on plane.

Improvised weapons on planes (ask any prison inmate for details). Though arming the pilots and locking the door has made this pointless.

Suicide bomb attack on crowded bus/subway/security line/night club.

Coordinated night-time attacks on water towers or power lines (especially during winter or heat waves).

Blow up key bridges after blocking up traffic.

Coordinated train derailments.

DC sniper type attacks.

Kill American tourists abroad.

Does Bin Laden actually have to do all of this? No. He only has to do enough to remind us that we're not perfectly safe from some idiot living in a cave on the other side of the world so that we completely overreact and give up the freedoms that we think he wants to take away. So every time some TSA agent gropes or takes a naked photo of someone, or takes some 3 year old child's shoes and teddy bear, Bin Laden wins.


Sorry, did you say take away a 3 yr old's shoes and teddy bear?

Are you referring to the 30 second time period where the child is without these items?

Not a very good example.
 
2010-11-25 06:17:15 AM
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: For reference, what are the odds that your plane gets hijacked and/or gets blown up?

If someone didn't feel like blowing up a plane before, the odds that they're going to after a fisting from the TSA is going to be significantly bigger.
 
2010-11-25 06:24:55 AM
Badgers: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: For reference, what are the odds that your plane gets hijacked and/or gets blown up?

If someone didn't feel like blowing up a plane before, the odds that they're going to after a fisting from the TSA is going to be significantly bigger.


No fisting. Ufia perhaps but no fisting.
 
2010-11-25 06:29:56 AM
Vern: I guarantee that middle aged white guy with his wife and two kids probably isn't going to take an airplane hostage. Profile where it needs it, if you're coming from a country that has hostile Islamic fundamentalist groups, you get a check.

What about middle aged white guys and girls who have already blown up multiple russian airliners ? You do know where the Caucasian heartland is, their religion and who the word Caucasian specifically refers to, yes ?

//of course you don't
//and it's not just the chechens either.
//I'm presuming you'd let a blonde syrian or red haired green eyed North Afghani through, no problem, they are white after all.
 
2010-11-25 06:43:31 AM
tonguedepressor: Badgers: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: For reference, what are the odds that your plane gets hijacked and/or gets blown up?

If someone didn't feel like blowing up a plane before, the odds that they're going to after a fisting from the TSA is going to be significantly bigger.

No fisting. Ufia perhaps but no fisting.


dysonology.files.wordpress.com

/Moooon Riveeer...
 
2010-11-25 07:25:51 AM
tacmakr: Loren: tacmakr:
There has been plenty of intelligent discussion of whether they could catch the underwear bomber, the general opinion being they couldn't. Even the TSA only says they might have caught him. They're also completely useless against stuff hidden in body cavities.

I'll take this one for rhetorical value as I could argue semantics with you on all of them, but it would undermine my point. Saying that the scanners would not have been usefull against the underwear bomber "in general opinion" and that they're useless against stuff hidden in body cavities is not the same as saying they are useless (which they may well be). My question is, how can we know they are useless. As with any preventative measure, if something has been prevented and we dont know about it, there is nothing to measure.


The TSA themselves have said that the scanners will only provide a surface scan and not internal, and would henceforth been useless against an internally concealed explosive device. A video posted earlier proves this point.

Here is a Link for convenience sake.



It seems that individual risk (comparison to lightning strikes or death by terrorists) is the only thing being considered when in fact 9/11 changed that for air travel. I dont believe the scanners have anything to do with minimizing the risk to individuals from the treat of terrorist but rather minimizing the chance of an individual being able to gain control of the plane and using it as a weapon. I am not arguing that it is definitely effective in that regard, simply that the scope is greater than 17 individuals a year (even if I conceed that point).

1 passenger plane, passengers and crew plus one metropolitan center, the resulting damage to industry, the national economy, rescue, military engagements etc... Would preventing even one incident of that nature be worth it? One a year? We love mocking the TSA, but I havent seen another plane flying into a building, doubt that can be attributed to luck.


This has been addressed in the months following 9/11. Cockpits were locked with secured doors, pilots were armed with firearms as well as fire axes.
Furthermore since hijacking itself changed from diverting a flight to another location to suicide bombings, the public itself adapted to meet the threat. Virtually all aircraft bombing attempts since 9/11 have been thwarted by passengers, not TSA.


I do not trust them when they say its safe, but I don't know otherwise either (Im certainly not gonna take anybody's word in this thread for it). They can grope me all they like though. Who am I kidding, I'll get scanned.

Cheers, I enjoyed reading all your remarks btw
 
2010-11-25 08:06:00 AM
I don't get it. I thought these things were suppose to be based on ultrasound with no radiation?
 
2010-11-25 08:21:27 AM
I still love that the pilot's union is suggesting that in order to save time that pilots not have to go through the full body scanner! Yeah, to save time.
 
2010-11-25 08:21:58 AM
Smurfme: I don't get it. I thought these things were suppose to be based on ultrasound with no radiation?

Well, technically it's all radiation. As an example, visible light is radiation as well, just in a different part of the spectrum.
www.antonine-education.co.uk

The thing about radiation is, the shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy of that wave.
As an example, we are bathed in radio waves on a near constant basis. Visible light also is ever present and yet seems to not harm us. These are relatively low energy waves. Now as you move past visible light the first stop is Ultraviolet.
This is where we start taking serious precautions, sunglasses, sunscreen etc to protect ourselves. One step higher and you have X-rays. These are very short wave, very high energy waves. They can be applied in "relative" safety but no ammount of xray radiation is considered good for the human body.
Next up you have Gamma rays, which will kill you dead, or turn you into the hulk.

The new scanners use X-ray radiation. Relatively low power ones, but still X-rays. The major issue is that they are not penetrating, by the TSA's own admission. Since they are not penetrating, most of their energy is absorbed by the skin and the tissues immediately below it. Think of it this way.
If you have two watermelons, and shoot them both with the same gun. However on one you use an armor piercing bullet, on the other you use a hollow point. The melon shot w/ the armor piercer will have 2 neat holes, one entry, one exit, but will be mostly intact. The one that is hit with the hollow point will explode like a Gallagher victim.
 
2010-11-25 08:28:57 AM
In conclusion. Whereas the claim is that the amount of energy these xrays are exerting is minimal compared to a medical xray, the issue is, in a medical xray, much of the energy is actually piercing the body, and not being absorbed by it, ie, armor piercer. In the backscatter, your body is absorbing most of what's being fired, ie, hollow point. Your skin, and immediately underlying tissues, eyes, testes, etc. are not happy about this.
 
2010-11-25 09:12:27 AM
Loren:
Gleeman: ForgotMyTowel: "Kant added that the system has multiple safety mechanisms, and that "we have never had a problem."

You know what else had "multiple safety mechanisms and never had a problem"?


Yep.

A bad example. That was an example of an inherently unsafe design and it had a madman at the controls. All those safeties don't do squat when you turn them off as part of a test to prove the reactor is safe even without them and then persist in continuing your test even when things are going wrong. He waited until the last instant to order the reactor scram and then was undone by one more bit of insane design--the control rods were graphite-tipped which momentarily turned up the heat as they dropped in place. The reactor went prompt critical--the dividing line between a reactor and a very lousy version of an atomic bomb.


To be honest the Chernobyl photo was a troll. It was late and I was feeling trolly.

(nuke radiographer, former staff at NPTU Charleston)

Except they have proper shields (those aren't ordinary walls around the x-ray rooms and while there might be openings the operators make sure nobody is in the path of the opening before pushing the button) and wear dosimeters.

The nude-o-scopes have no shields. The operators have no dosimeters. By the TSAs data spending all your working hours next to one gives you the yearly dose limit for a radiation worker--and in 5 years of that you'll hit the lifetime limit and never be allowed to work around radiation, period.


I know the TSA says they stay at or below the yearly limit for dosimetry to be required, but it still seems sketchy to me. How far away are they standing? How long a shift? Is this standardized between airports or even between gates? What about the above mentioned software/hardware errors? (yes, that still happens sometimes even with medical x-ray gear)

Reminds me of how the US Navy says their reactors don't expose the personnel to neutron radiation, but then they don't monitor for neutron exposure even though dosimeters that detect neutron are commonly available. (We used them as radiographers, but the 08 guys didn't)
 
2010-11-25 10:28:19 AM
Luse: In conclusion. Whereas the claim is that the amount of energy these xrays are exerting is minimal compared to a medical xray, the issue is, in a medical xray, much of the energy is actually piercing the body, and not being absorbed by it, ie, armor piercer. In the backscatter, your body is absorbing most of what's being fired, ie, hollow point. Your skin, and immediately underlying tissues, eyes, testes, etc. are not happy about this.

No that's not it either. 'Normal' medical x-rays are certainly absorbed in large amounts, that's how you get a negative on film - some makes it through less dense tissue, and much is absorbed by the bones and tissues. Technicians stand away because of backscatter actually, some of those x-rays bounce off and around, and that's why you wear an apron to lower overall absorbed dose.

Backscatter machines, are to take advantage of this low power backscatter and compute where and what they bounced off of. You need very little x-ray energy to accomplish this, though what doesn't scatter, and is absorbed, is by the skin. This is still a very small amount though, far less than what you would get next to a mountain or even on the flight itself.

I don't think a properly functioning machine is unsafe, but questions regarding the machine's design should be answered should it not be functioning correctly, what hardware interlocks are in place to prevent any abnormal dose. This would be the same question for millimeter wave machines as well.
 
2010-11-25 10:49:42 AM
TheDirtyNacho: Luse: In conclusion. Whereas the claim is that the amount of energy these xrays are exerting is minimal compared to a medical xray, the issue is, in a medical xray, much of the energy is actually piercing the body, and not being absorbed by it, ie, armor piercer. In the backscatter, your body is absorbing most of what's being fired, ie, hollow point. Your skin, and immediately underlying tissues, eyes, testes, etc. are not happy about this.

No that's not it either. 'Normal' medical x-rays are certainly absorbed in large amounts, that's how you get a negative on film - some makes it through less dense tissue, and much is absorbed by the bones and tissues. Technicians stand away because of backscatter actually, some of those x-rays bounce off and around, and that's why you wear an apron to lower overall absorbed dose.

Backscatter machines, are to take advantage of this low power backscatter and compute where and what they bounced off of. You need very little x-ray energy to accomplish this, though what doesn't scatter, and is absorbed, is by the skin. This is still a very small amount though, far less than what you would get next to a mountain or even on the flight itself.

I don't think a properly functioning machine is unsafe, but questions regarding the machine's design should be answered should it not be functioning correctly, what hardware interlocks are in place to prevent any abnormal dose. This would be the same question for millimeter wave machines as well.


I admit, it was a very crude analogy, and admittedly I'm not an expert, just an interested amateur. Thanks for the clarification.
The thing that concerns me is the lack of any sort of real data regarding these machines, other than "It's safe."
The other of course is a poorly trained operator at the controls.
Are adjustments possible to account for children, adults, the obese etc?
If so, what is the maximum possible setting? I'm sorry, call me a skeptic but I do NOT trust the average TSA employee to make the proper adjustment calls.
These folks are the same ones who have already shown a profound lack of professionalism through leaking images, ignoring medical conditions and ridiculing already humiliated travelers.
Added to this the multitude of experts also expressing concerns, my friends in the field doing the same.

Not to mention the fact that all of this provides incredibly little to no additional security.
 
2010-11-25 11:08:10 AM
tonguedepressor: ...or about the equivalent of breathing in second hand seal flatulence

Gat dang socialist pure research, why do we know this??
 
2010-11-25 11:11:55 AM
They aren't scanning all 532 million people.

I'll guess it's closer to 1 in 50 scanned, so, there is a chance that 1 person will get cancer from these things.
 
2010-11-25 12:42:46 PM
A hundred years from now people will be looking at what the TSA is doing in much in the same way what Marie Curie's workers were doing with radiation.
 
2010-11-25 12:48:28 PM
Michael Chertoff thanks you all for your generous contribution to his personal wealth. He has no conflict taking your money.

Has the whole country gone brain dead?

Hunt the war profiteer Chertoff with dogs.

The Federal approved dose of radiation deemed safe is ,,, ZERO.
Now, TSA states the laws of physics are repealed in the name of security and it is Just Allright.

This absurd waste of money and abrogation of common sense is Security Theatre at it's worst and it is bad for you.
 
2010-11-25 01:01:03 PM
ThisNameSux: meintx2001: Ok, so if the TSA people are just standing around and getting multiple does every shift how soon before they start dropping like flies from Cancer?

3 weeks if Farkers are to be believed.


Go ahead, laugh.
When these TSOs start suing and winning for every farking thing from warts to cancer and YOU THE TAXPAYER(not just the stupid flyiers) are paying for their support, you may lose that laughing feeling.
Every safety procedure for xray use is being ignored and deliberately avoided. This will end very well indeed.

This is monsterously irresponsible and will bite all Taxpayers in the ass.

Oh, you are right, they are patriots and will not exercise their litigation rights when they get sick and fired.
Never mind
 
2010-11-25 05:46:16 PM
greywolf: 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.


I have read that there are experts who disagree about the safety of back-scatter x-rays. So far, there have been no long-term studies. What are the health risks associated with dogs and chemical sniffers? It seems like dogs have been around a long time. Why not use them?
 
2010-11-26 06:50:20 PM
Aunt Crabby: greywolf: 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.

I have read that there are experts who disagree about the safety of back-scatter x-rays. So far, there have been no long-term studies. What are the health risks associated with dogs and chemical sniffers? It seems like dogs have been around a long time. Why not use them?


Michael Chertoff does not sell dogs.
He sells scanners.
 
Displayed 419 of 419 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report