I could have filed her vagina with drug free urine.

wyldkard: LeroyBourne: Victorinox: C'mon everybody knows it's a hoo ha...duh.

That's right, it's hoo ha, and the preferred counterpart i.e. male genitalia is: 'hey now.'

All you sinners better put your lights on...

I lol'd.

+1

Who would hide urine in a yoohoo?

profplump: nd they are (or at least should be) only used when there's a greater risk from not having an image than from the x-ray itself.

There is a greater risk here. The risk of contraband entering the jail is more dangerous that the X-ray.

profplump: instead of fining you we'll just break your right leg because it's faster and a better deterrent.

Yes, that's exactly the same thing.

pute kisses like a man: [mmimageslarge.moviemail-online.co.uk image 496x377]
Link (new window) goes to scene where he tried something similar

/ interested

You beat me to it, you perfumed ponce, but even so:



"At some point I want to stop and get hold of a child."

- What do you want a child for?

"To tutor it in the ways of righteousness and procure some uncontaminated child's piss."

Doctor! Take a look at this!

I don't know about you,

but I think something smells fishy.

9beers: profplump: nd they are (or at least should be) only used when there's a greater risk from not having an image than from the x-ray itself.

There is a greater risk here. The risk of contraband entering the jail is more dangerous that the X-ray.

I doubt you can even quantify the risk of contraband in the jail. You're also talking about risk to two separate groups, so even if you had numbers the comparison is conceptually flawed.

You're also ignoring the option actually exercised in medical imaging -- the use of alternate detection techniques. There are perfectly functional methods to detect contraband that don't cause cancer.

And good job ignoring the "voluntary" point.

profplump: instead of fining you we'll just break your right leg because it's faster and a better deterrent.

Yes, that's exactly the same thing.

It's honestly not clear to me how the situations are signficantly different. They're both cases of forcing bodily harm on criminals -- what do you see as being the primary differentiator? Are you just complaining about a perceived difference in scale? I'd be happy to reframe the argument with the injury as "2-inch incision" instead of "broken leg" if that helps you see the point.

The Vagatini

2 1/2 oz. Vodka
1/4 oz. Dry Vermouth
6 ice cubes
2 pimento olives (or lemon peel)

Put all ingredients into a vagina. Stir well with your finger (shaking will bruise the vodka)
Pour directly into mouth.

The meth is strong with this one. . . Kinda plump for a tweaker tho!

profplump: I doubt you can even quantify the risk of contraband in the jail.

But you know the risk of a person receiving an X-ray? With contraband, it's not just about the risk, it's about the fact that certain items aren't allowed in jail. Jails have the right to make sure a person isn't smuggling an 8 ball of cocaine or something else inside their body. X-rays are an effective way of doing that with no real risk to the person being searched.

9beers: But you know the risk of a person receiving an X-ray?

Yes, with some accuracy. Just ask google:
X-ray Cancer Risk (new window)

With contraband, it's not just about the risk, it's about the fact that certain items aren't allowed in jail. Jails have the right to make sure a person isn't smuggling an 8 ball of cocaine or something else inside their body. X-rays are an effective way of doing that with no real risk to the person being searched.

But there is a real risk, and there are other equally effective methods that don't have the same risks.

And my broader point is that "because the rules say so" is not a valid reason for causing harm to human being, even if they have been convicted of a crime. There must actually be some offsetting danger to society before you can even get to ends-justify-the-means justification.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3oebga/

Am I doing it right?

delphi_ote: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3oebga/

Am I doing it right?

Memeness: +8
Relevance: +5
Link Formatting: -3

Well, well, well you just can't tell
Well, well, well my Michelle
Well, well, well you never can tell
Well, well, well my Michelle
(new window)

/first thing I thought of upon seeing the name

profplump: 9beers: OMG they gave them an X-ray! Seriously dude, find something worthwhile to biatch about.

Can I take that as an offer to pay for cancer treatment for the inmates forcibly subjected to this radiation?

you already do.

profplump: Yes, with some accuracy. Just ask google:

A standard X-ray exposes you to the same radiation levels as 3 months of being alive so lets not go crazy with the cancer claims. Other studies show that 300 X-rays might increase your risk of developing some forms of cancer by 1%.

profplump: But there is a real risk, and there are other equally effective methods that don't have the same risks.

Yes, lets get ass spreaders and flashlights to see if somebody has a bag of cocaine up there.

profplump: And my broader point is that "because the rules say so" is not a valid reason for causing harm to human being, even if they have been convicted of a crime. There must actually be some offsetting danger to society before you can even get to ends-justify-the-means justification.

Keeping contraband out of jails is for the safety of those who are being held. The rules are in place for a very good reason and an X-ray is a perfectly reasonable way of enforcing them. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

macadamnut: You beat me to it, you perfumed ponce, but even so:

i didn't find the picture in a format that I could quickly and lazily hotlink to fark... so, where I won in timeliness, you won in content.

"I fark arses"? Who farks arses? Maybe he farks arses! Maybe he's written this in some moment of drunken sincerity! I'm in considerable danger here, I must get out of here at once.

9beers: A standard X-ray exposes you to the same radiation levels as 3 months of being alive so lets not go crazy with the cancer claims. Other studies show that 300 X-rays might increase your risk of developing some forms of cancer by 1%.

Since we only get somewhere around 50-100 years to live, I'd rather have my 3 months of being alive instead of the x-ray.

tbyte: 9beers: A standard X-ray exposes you to the same radiation levels as 3 months of being alive so lets not go crazy with the cancer claims. Other studies show that 300 X-rays might increase your risk of developing some forms of cancer by 1%.

Since we only get somewhere around 50-100 years to live, I'd rather have my 3 months of being alive instead of the x-ray.

You don't die 3 months earlier than you would have per x-ray, you get as much radiation in one x-ray as 3 months of living.

tbyte: 9beers: A standard X-ray exposes you to the same radiation levels as 3 months of being alive so lets not go crazy with the cancer claims. Other studies show that 300 X-rays might increase your risk of developing some forms of cancer by 1%.

Since we only get somewhere around 50-100 years to live, I'd rather have my 3 months of being alive instead of the x-ray.

So you're saying that if we stayed indoors and wore lead lined clothing when we went outside, we could live to be 300? You're obviously implying that the radiation we receive on a daily basis is shortening our life span.

I had a x-ray 9 mo. ago. Is that why I'm peeing green lately?
Had a brain scan too.They found nothing,zip, zero.
What did they mean?

9beers: tbyte: 9beers: A standard X-ray exposes you to the same radiation levels as 3 months of being alive so lets not go crazy with the cancer claims. Other studies show that 300 X-rays might increase your risk of developing some forms of cancer by 1%.

Since we only get somewhere around 50-100 years to live, I'd rather have my 3 months of being alive instead of the x-ray.

So you're saying that if we stayed indoors and wore lead lined clothing when we went outside, we could live to be 300? You're obviously implying that the radiation we receive on a daily basis is shortening our life span.

Well, technically speaking...

Ionizing radiation can damage DNA to the point where replication/transcription is affected. It's certainly not going to make you live any longer (except radiation therapy, etc). But to imply that radiation is the sole cause of aging by assuming "x-ray being equiv to 3 months exposure" = "x-ray takes 3 months off your life" is pretty far into pants-on-head territory.

I'm gonna save everybody a lot of trouble. If you want to pass a drug screen, all you have to do is drink a lot of water before the test. Tahdaa! You can even be high while you take it if you want.

luktti: I had a x-ray 9 mo. ago. Is that why I'm peeing green lately?
Had a brain scan too.They found nothing,zip, zero.
What did they mean?

You're a hungry zombie.

basemetal: Do they routinely subject inmates to full body radiation like that?

Well, it's either that or a cavity search. Really. I'm guessing that's why they use the x-ray.

Which would you rather have?

/also, they did this only once to her: upon entry to jail after her arrest.

tricycleracer: basemetal: Do they routinely subject inmates to full body radiation like that?

That was my question.

Airport scanners I understand, but a full x-ray?

I really don't trust cops with x-ray machines. Hell, doctors usually don't pay too close attention to how much dose they give people (unless they intend to do a shiatload of scans).

9beers: A standard X-ray exposes you to the same radiation levels as 3 months of being alive so lets not go crazy with the cancer claims. Other studies show that 300 X-rays might increase your risk of developing some forms of cancer by 1%.

Though I disagree with your numbers (particularly without considering the abdominal nature of the x-rays in question) I do agree that the risk isn't significant enough to absolutely preclude the use of x-rays.

The point is just that a genuine, measurable harm exists. Even if the harm is small it's still something we need to justify before forcing it on people.

Yes, lets get ass spreaders and flashlights to see if somebody has a bag of cocaine up there. Keeping contraband out of jails is for the safety of those who are being held. The rules are in place for a very good reason and an X-ray is a perfectly reasonable way of enforcing them. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's not at all clear that inmates or their captors are at greater risk from those around them using cocaine than they are from repeated, forced x-rays. But that's another debate entirely.

It's fairly easy to detect metal via induction, which is safe and non-invasive. There's also ultrasound. Or nMRI. Or any of dozen other methods that can be used to address the danger of "contraband". I'm not saying they're all equally effective or easy to use, but there are many options and I'm unwilling to accept that x-ray searches are the only reasonable choice, at least not without some data to back up that claim.

All I'm asking is A) you treat inmates as human beings and don't dismiss harms inflicted upon them simply because they've been convicted of a crime and B) that you attempt to evaluate the relative harms of the solution with respect to the problem. We won't necessarily agree on how the harms compare, but you're not going to convince anyone what you're worth listening to if you won't acknowledge the basis of the debate.

tricycleracer: basemetal: Do they routinely subject inmates to full body radiation like that?

That was my question.

Airport scanners I understand, but a full x-ray?

Yes all county jails have them

drjekel_mrhyde: tricycleracer: basemetal: Do they routinely subject inmates to full body radiation like that?

That was my question.

Airport scanners I understand, but a full x-ray?

Yes all county jails have them

The reason is because some people turn themselves in on traffic warrants(1-3 days) right after they swallowed 80 crack rocks
/Drugs are worth 50-100 times more in jail

profplump: don't dismiss harms inflicted upon them simply because they've been convicted of a crime

A single X-rays upon being booked into jail is not harmful, that's my point. Now if it was Henry Earl, we might have to rethink things.

9beers: profplump: don't dismiss harms inflicted upon them simply because they've been convicted of a crime

A single X-rays upon being booked into jail is not harmful, that's my point. Now if it was Henry Earl, we might have to rethink things.

A single x-ray is harmful. Your argument is a bird.

404 page not found: A single x-ray is harmful.

Show me documented cases of people developing cancer from a single X-ray.

9beers: 404 page not found: A single x-ray is harmful.

Show me documented cases of people developing cancer from a single X-ray.

You don't know what PRI, probablistic risk assessment, is...do you?

9beers: A single X-rays upon being booked into jail is not harmful, that's my point.

But that's factually wrong. While it may be hard to measure the harm from a single x-ray, it still exists, and we're still doing it on purpose.

You're also ignoring the probabilistic nature of the harm. It's not Subway stamps, where you get a fractional dose of cancer each time you step into the machine. Most people will not be harmed by the x-rays, even if they go through multiple times, but those that are harmed will develop full-on cancer from a single exposure.

profplump: It's not Subway stamps, where you get a fractional dose of cancer each time you step into the machine.

Though you may get a factional dose of cancer every time you eat a Subway sandwich. It certainly tastes like cancer.

profplump: but those that are harmed will develop full-on cancer from a single exposure.

300 X-rays give a person a 1% greater chance of developing cancer. You don't suddenly develop cancer as the result of a single x-ray.

9beers: 300 X-rays give a person a 1% greater chance of developing cancer. You don't suddenly develop cancer as the result of a single x-ray.

That's not how random interactions work. You can get cancer as the result of a single x-ray. The chances of it happening in any given x-ray are very small, but it's the same chance on every exposure, just like lottery tickets.

profplump: That's not how random interactions work. You can get cancer as the result of a single x-ray.

Lets see some examples of people being diagnosed with cancer after receiving a single x-ray.

You have to be able to prove that the X-ray caused the cancer.

9beers: profplump: That's not how random interactions work. You can get cancer as the result of a single x-ray.

Lets see some examples of people being diagnosed with cancer after receiving a single x-ray.

Trick question. The first step to diagnosing cancer is to x-ray the patient. Lots of x-rays.

9beers: profplump: That's not how random interactions work. You can get cancer as the result of a single x-ray.

Lets see some examples of people being diagnosed with cancer after receiving a single x-ray.

Will you accept malfunctioning equipment or are we only counting properly administered x-rays under ideal conditions. Otherwise, there's got to be at least one person out there who's been Therac-25'd by an imaging x-ray.

You don't need examples of specific exposure-symptom pairs because we have lots of data from cumulative exposures and the science of the underlying mechanism is well understood. We use it to build fairly impressive bombs and power plants for pete's sake. Unless you're suggesting that the particles in humans react differently to radiation than the particles in everything else.

Psycoholic_Slag: Ed Finnerty: Oh, vaginas. Is there anything you can't do?

Drive a stick shift?

I've seen videos to the contrary, but they're NSFW...

ProfessorOhki: Will you accept malfunctioning equipment or are we only counting properly administered x-rays under ideal conditions.

If you want to talk about what could happen, then I guess you should be making the argument that we shouldn't be locking people up at all. People are a lot more likely to be killed in prison than they are receiving an x-ray, agreed?

myinternetname: I could have filed her vagina with drug free urine.

I have to admit, that is one porn theme I have yet to see. I'm sure it is out there, but I've never randomly come by it.

9beers: ProfessorOhki: Will you accept malfunctioning equipment or are we only counting properly administered x-rays under ideal conditions.

If you want to talk about what could happen, then I guess you should be making the argument that we shouldn't be locking people up at all. People are a lot more likely to be killed in prison than they are receiving an x-ray, agreed?

First, equipment malfuctions, operator errors and other problems do occur. It is not just a theoretical outcome.

Second, we should consider the relative harm of putting someone in jail with respect to the harm of not putting them in jail. There likely are cases when we do more harm than good by jailing someone. Particularly if we give them cancer.

Ed Finnerty: 9beers: profplump: That's not how random interactions work. You can get cancer as the result of a single x-ray.

Lets see some examples of people being diagnosed with cancer after receiving a single x-ray.

Trick question. The first step to diagnosing cancer is to x-ray the patient. Lots of x-rays.

The problem with cancer is there's almost never a clear indicator of what the cause was. If an 80 year old guy that's been smoking all his life gets lung cancer, sure, it's reasonable to conclude it was the cigarettes. And something like 95% of all cases of ovarian cancer are caused by HPV (don't remember the exact figure but it was in the upper 90's). But most cases of cancer there's no way to tell exactly what caused it.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't most doctors use an MRI to check for tumors? Wouldn't that give them more detailed information than an X-ray?

Also, does it seem weird to anyone else that a jail even has an x-ray machine? That's an expensive piece of equipment, and you have to pay a licensed tech to operate it(at least you're supposed to). Sure it may be more convenient, but every other jail and prison in the country seems to have been getting by just fine without one.

kidsizedcoffin: myinternetname: I could have filed her vagina with drug free urine.

I have to admit, that is one porn theme I have yet to see. I'm sure it is out there, but I've never randomly come by it.

I have to assume you're not looking very hard, because it's disturbingly easy to find.

/start with German porn

Neondistraction: Ed Finnerty: 9beers: profplump: That's not how random interactions work. You can get cancer as the result of a single x-ray.

Lets see some examples of people being diagnosed with cancer after receiving a single x-ray.

Trick question. The first step to diagnosing cancer is to x-ray the patient. Lots of x-rays.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't most doctors use an MRI to check for tumors? Wouldn't that give them more detailed information than an X-ray?

You're right. I was just being silly.