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.

(Info Wars)   Contrary to media reports last week, TSA not eliminating body scanners. In fact it is significantly increasing the amount of body scanners in all airports   (infowars.com) divider line 82
    More: Followup, TSA, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Paul Joseph Watson, American Science, Rapiscan, DNA replication  
•       •       •

4716 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 1:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 12:27:03 PM
The scanners they will provide to the TSA are the same x-ray backscatter version that have been linked with cancer by numerous prestigious health bodies.

But hey, cancer is worth it so that Billy-Jo doesn't bring water on the plane, and Brandi-Sue feels safe from the theater security.
 
2013-01-23 12:28:50 PM

Gig103: The scanners they will provide to the TSA are the same x-ray backscatter version that have been linked with cancer by numerous prestigious health bodies.

But hey, cancer is worth it so that Billy-Jo doesn't bring water on the plane, and Brandi-Sue feels safe from the theater security.


Are you actually using Alex Jone's Infowars as a credible source?
 
2013-01-23 12:28:55 PM
News, brought to you by a crazy person!
 
2013-01-23 12:41:12 PM

Rincewind53: Are you actually using Alex Jone's Infowars as a credible source?


Not by itself. The European Union banned backscatter machines in November 2011, citing the potential for health risks.

In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports
Source
 
2013-01-23 12:41:38 PM
Don't worry.

/anyone that follows Infowars will be protected by their foil hat
 
2013-01-23 12:41:55 PM
Just keep opting out.
 
2013-01-23 01:18:49 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Don't worry.

/anyone that follows Infowars will be protected by their foil hat


Those are banned on flights.  Which improves the effectiveness of the mind control chemicals from contrails that they also pump into the plane cabins.
 
2013-01-23 01:25:43 PM

Rincewind53: Are you actually using Alex Jone's Infowars as a credible source?


Cancer issues aside, it's definitely security theater. Or some scheme to increase sunscreen sales by making people throw out tons of it.
 
2013-01-23 01:25:55 PM
OH GOD Infowars. *grabs popcorn* this is gonna be good. He's been quiet since Monday when he said the government is using chemicals in the water to make kids gay.
 
2013-01-23 01:27:06 PM
I'm still waiting for images from those scanners to get leaked onto the internet.
 
2013-01-23 01:31:40 PM
The guy writes for prisonplanet.

I'll wait to hear from a more reputable source.
 
2013-01-23 01:35:00 PM

Gig103: The scanners they will provide to the TSA are the same x-ray backscatter version that have been linked with cancer by numerous prestigious health bodies.

But hey, cancer is worth it so that Billy-Jo doesn't bring water on the plane, and Brandi-Sue feels safe from the theater security.


The type of backscatter scanners used in airport security create an exposure so low that even an average citizen that works with nothing radioactive ever would leave it off their exposure tally sheet were they to make one. I'm not talking "less than walking around in the sun", I'm talking several orders of magnitude less than walking around in the sun.

If you wanted to get cancer from one of these machines, you'd have to take it apart and drink the cooling fluid or something, because the radiation involved is essentially nil.

//It has a statistical correlation with cancer because being in a plane at 30k feet is a significant source of radiation exposure. Has nothing to do with the machine and a lot to do with the fact that they're situated in airports. You could easily find the same correlation for duty-free scotch or 800+ page paperbacks.
 
2013-01-23 01:35:35 PM
I've seen corroborating reports elsewhere. Off the top of my head I don't remember where. But the basic gist is that the contract is being shifted from one congressman's nephew's company to another congressman's nephew's company because the new machines are more profitable than the old machines or something like that. Anyway, they just want your weed.

Insamuch as the tinfoil hats go, I've always preferred to wear a tinfoil parabolic antenna. The brain satellites have better ideas than I do anyway.
 
2013-01-23 01:35:51 PM

doczoidberg: I'm still waiting for images from those scanners to get leaked onto the internet.


http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans
 
2013-01-23 01:46:00 PM

Jim_Callahan: //It has a statistical correlation with cancer because being in a plane at 30k feet is a significant source of radiation exposure. Has nothing to do with the machine and a lot to do with the fact that they're situated in airports. You could easily find the same correlation for duty-free scotch or 800+ page paperbacks.


You must work for the TSA if you actually believe this line of bullshiat.
 
2013-01-23 01:46:04 PM
We can see your weewee
we can touch your junk
we call this crap security
but fact is, y'alls got punked

We steal your leet 'lecronics
we boost your cash and jewels
and if you try and call us on it
we say "terr'ist tools!"

12 years ago some planes were flown
into some lofty towers
and that sure caused some problems
but none of them are ours

We wipe our ass with dignity
and the constitution, too
and if you start complaining
we'll wipe our ass with you

We ain't what you'd call literate
we ain't management material
but this badge lets us grope your kids
so we feel quite imperial

So don't all us on our thieving
or pedophile like ways
just keep hiding 'neath your beds
and submit to our one act plays

And if you ask how this could be
we'll jess shout "911!"
cause in case y'all ain't noticed
the terr'ists have won
 
2013-01-23 01:49:22 PM
According to Beck/Jones society as we know it is coming to an end, and you will need gold and dried foods to survive. And guess what Beck/Jones has to sell you? Such humanitarians.
 
2013-01-23 01:50:40 PM
What media reports? All the ones I saw only said they were getting rid of the "show you balls-naked" ones and replacing them with the "person-shaped box that highlights anything suspicious" ones.
 
2013-01-23 01:51:01 PM

NallTWD: OH GOD Infowars. *grabs popcorn* this is gonna be good. He's been quiet since Monday when he said the government is using chemicals in the water to make kids gay.


I'm torn. Infowars is nuts. Then again backscatter x-rays are a needlessly intrusive and ridiculously expensive boondoggle.

Honest question - if they are going to use x-rays that allow them to see detail fine enough to distinguish my individual testicles and a tiny screw in my knee, why in god's name do I have to take off my farking shoes and remove my laptop from its case?
 
2013-01-23 01:52:34 PM

Jim_Callahan: Gig103: The scanners they will provide to the TSA are the same x-ray backscatter version that have been linked with cancer by numerous prestigious health bodies.

But hey, cancer is worth it so that Billy-Jo doesn't bring water on the plane, and Brandi-Sue feels safe from the theater security.

The type of backscatter scanners used in airport security create an exposure so low that even an average citizen that works with nothing radioactive ever would leave it off their exposure tally sheet were they to make one. I'm not talking "less than walking around in the sun", I'm talking several orders of magnitude less than walking around in the sun.

If you wanted to get cancer from one of these machines, you'd have to take it apart and drink the cooling fluid or something, because the radiation involved is essentially nil.

//It has a statistical correlation with cancer because being in a plane at 30k feet is a significant source of radiation exposure. Has nothing to do with the machine and a lot to do with the fact that they're situated in airports. You could easily find the same correlation for duty-free scotch or 800+ page paperbacks.


Ya, but the scotch has such a NICE burn to it.....
 
2013-01-23 01:53:00 PM

doczoidberg: I'm still waiting for images from those scanners to get leaked onto the internet.


You are going to have to wait all the way until almost three years ago.
 
2013-01-23 01:56:23 PM
This is unreal. They have a non-radiation machine in use and available.

Just do what 100% OF ALL AMERICANS WANT and get rid of the radiation machines.
 
2013-01-23 01:58:20 PM
Because I just put a sample in and am gonna be bored for half an hour, here are actual numbers posts:

The relevant NRC limit for radiation exposure for members of the public, form their website:

(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003, and

So, remember, 100 mRem or 1 Sv occupational (i.e. produced intentionally or as a byproduct of human activity, not things like the sun) exposure is allowed for members of the public. If you're curious, the actual "safe limit" used for radiation workers is 5 Rem (i.e. 5000 mRem or 50 mSv). The opinion of pretty much everyone in science is that the "general public" limit is farking OCD-level low and completely absurd, but it was set during the cold war and doesn't really hurt anyone so we don't care enough to lobby to fix it.

Now, some typical exposures:
500 mRem - living in a room with a running x-ray machine for a year (i.e. what you get typically if you're operating a MEDICAL x-ray machine)
80 mRem - an extensive chest x-ray or a couple dental x-ray imaging intended to examine your skeleton
60 mRem - average exposure from environmental emitters (granite, etc) in a year
25 mRemn - average exposure from your food in a year (natural)
45 mRem - average yearly exposure from solar and cosmic radiation
0.3 to 1.0 mRem - one hour of flight at 30000 feet, depending on time of day and location (above surface exposure)

So there's your context. Now, you ready to hear the number for the horrifying, deadly x-ray exposure from an airport backscatter imager?

The high-end estimate, and I mean this in the sense that this estimate is double the next-highest measurement published, is .01 mRem per scan.

Or, to put it in relative terms, that's about a one percent increase over that day's radiation dose from solely natural sources. Yes, that day's natural radiation dose, not talking in units of years anymore.

Or, to put it in terms that better emphasize how farking stupid the people that worry about this are, that's one hundredth the amount of radiation you get from one hour of flying in an airplane, i.e. the entire damned reason you came to the airport in the first place.
 
2013-01-23 02:03:39 PM
Or, to put it in terms that better emphasize how farking stupid the people that worry about this are, that's one hundredth the amount of radiation you get from one hour of flying in an airplane, i.e. the entire damned reason you came to the airport in the first place.

ASSUMING the machine is operating correctly. The testing instrumentation/monitoring program has been questionable.

/never been scanned
//opt out EVERY time
 
2013-01-23 02:04:20 PM
This is mommy trying to make us feel guilty for bringing up the fact that daddy beats her. This is making Americans believe that 9/11 was OUR fault when every agency we pay taxes to track and prevent sh*t like that had their collective heads conveniently tucked up their asses that day. This is "you better not say anything we don't like, because we are SO mad at terrists!" A first year psych major could pin this up on the 101 diagnosis board and get a B.
 
2013-01-23 02:05:57 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Don't worry.

/anyone that follows Infowars will be protected by their foil hat


The joke is on them. The government has been working with the tinfoil people for the past 30 years. Every bit of foil manufactured has microcircuits embedded in the foil that amplify and focus the mind control frequencies.
 
2013-01-23 02:09:16 PM

Jim_Callahan: Because I just put a sample in and am gonna be bored for half an hour, here are actual numbers posts:

The relevant NRC limit for radiation exposure for members of the public, form their website:

(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003, and

So, remember, 100 mRem or 1 Sv occupational (i.e. produced intentionally or as a byproduct of human activity, not things like the sun) exposure is allowed for members of the public. If you're curious, the actual "safe limit" used for radiation workers is 5 Rem (i.e. 5000 mRem or 50 mSv). The opinion of pretty much everyone in science is that the "general public" limit is farking OCD-level low and completely absurd, but it was set during the cold war and doesn't really hurt anyone so we don't care enough to lobby to fix it.

Now, some typical exposures:
500 mRem - living in a room with a running x-ray machine for a year (i.e. what you get typically if you're operating a MEDICAL x-ray machine)
80 mRem - an extensive chest x-ray or a couple dental x-ray imaging intended to examine your skeleton
60 mRem - average exposure from environmental emitters (granite, etc) in a year
25 mRemn - average exposure from your food in a year (natural)
45 mRem - average yearly exposure from solar and cosmic radiation
0.3 to 1.0 mRem - one hour of flight at 30000 feet, depending on time of day and location (above surface exposure)

So there's your context. Now, you ready to hear the number for the horrifying, deadly x-ray exposure from an airport backscatter imager?

The high-end estimate, and I mean this in the sense that this estimate is double the next-highest measurement published, is .01 mRem per scan.

Or, to put it in relative terms, that's about a one percent increase over that day's radiation dose from solely natural sources. Yes, that day's natural radiation dose, not talking in units of years anymore.

Or, to put it in terms that better emphasize how farking stupid the people that worry about this are, that's one hundredth the amount of radiation you get from one hour of flying in an airplane, i.e. the entire damned reason you came to the airport in the first place.


From a rad worker - thanks.

The amount of derp that goes around about radiation is incredibly aggravating.

If you live near clay or granite, have fiesta ware, or fly regularly, your annual dose is higher than mine...and I work with a machine that produces 1000 Rem/minute. The dose from a backscatter machine is negligible.
 
2013-01-23 02:10:29 PM

heili skrimsli: Jim_Callahan: //It has a statistical correlation with cancer because being in a plane at 30k feet is a significant source of radiation exposure. Has nothing to do with the machine and a lot to do with the fact that they're situated in airports. You could easily find the same correlation for duty-free scotch or 800+ page paperbacks.

You must work for the TSA if you actually believe this line of bullshiat.


That or I'm a licensed radiation worker that also works in a branch of research science whose analytical tools depend on an in-depth knowledge of the behavior of various types of radiation, and have years of experience with equipment safety.

One of those.

//TSA workers aren't typically licensed radiation techs, because there is no way mathematically that they could possibly hit the 500 mRem exposure limit even if they left the machine running and slept next to it.
 
2013-01-23 02:11:50 PM
"Contrary to reports last week that the TSA is eliminating its expensive fleet of x-ray body scanners from airports, the federal agency signed a contract months ago with a separate company to provide the very same machines.

When Rapiscan, the company responsible for providing the TSA with the x-ray scanners, failed to adhere to a congressional demand to install software which disguised images of travelers' naked bodies, the media announced that the TSA was abandoning x-ray body scanners in airports altogether.
"

All the media reports I read indicated that a specific type of scanning machine would be discontinued at airports because Rapiscan didn't leave up to certain contractual agreements. They are also the only ones that make this style of scanning machine; other style machines made by other companies are still in use, and there were no plans to stop their use. Infowars doesn't bother to differentiate the two in common usage. To them, they're all the same. Which, they aren't.

Way to bust out the "Media lies" strawman, Mr. Jones.
 
2013-01-23 02:14:26 PM

Contents Under Pressure: The guy writes for prisonplanet.

I'll wait to hear from a more reputable source.


Prison Planet and InfoWars aren't the same thing???

/Buncha Ron Paul voters
 
2013-01-23 02:17:53 PM

Kingly Weevil: If you live near clay or granite, have fiesta ware, or fly regularly, your annual dose is higher than mine...and I work with a machine that produces 1000 Rem/minute. The dose from a backscatter machine is negligible.


So we're told. They're verified to be safe by.. the DHS and the company that built them.

Although what you won't find is any independent testing or verification. The DHS declined to purchase maintenance and calibration services, and refuses to allow any of its employees to wear dosimeters while working near them. There is absolutely no way to verify that what you're told about the radiation exposure from these machines is actually true. They don't have to undergo any of the same regulation as a medical device, and none of the people who operate them have any training whatsoever in radiation safety.

Now, you can call this derp an claim I'm a tinfoil hatter if you like, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I will, however, ask you to keep in mind the answer to this question if you think that it's impossible that the federal government wouldn't deliberately cause a negative impact on the health of citizens while lying to them about it.

Who conducted the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment?
 
2013-01-23 02:19:53 PM

mark12A: ASSUMING the machine is operating correctly. The testing instrumentation/monitoring program has been questionable.

/never been scanned
//opt out EVERY time


You can set the things' intensity about an order of magnitude higher than regular operating power, max. Anything beyond that involves actual modification of the equipment by someone that knows what they're doing and I guess really loves x-rays. Additionally, even if your theoretical radiation-themed Batman villain got to the scanner, going much higher than 10x normal would start screwing up the image, because there'd be penetration creating a secondary peak that would swiftly overwhelm the scattering effect they're looking for, and the equipment would be shut down while a repair guy was called.

So, let's say, theoretically, that the people running the equipment do the maximum stupid thing. You're now getting 0.02 to 0.1 mRem of exposure from that scan instead of .002 to .01.

While I applaud that you're taking the effort to at least root your fear in something reasonable (TSA agents being incompetent), that's still an incredibly trivial exposure. Skip the in-flight meal and you'll have more than made up for it in total exposure.

//You are, of course, welcome to opt out if you feel your dignity is being trespassed. You just aren't saving yourself any radiation exposure, realistically speaking.
 
2013-01-23 02:23:32 PM

Jim_Callahan: Now, you ready to hear the number for the horrifying, deadly x-ray exposure from an airport backscatter imager?

The high-end estimate, and I mean this in the sense that this estimate is double the next-highest measurement published, is .01 mRem per scan.


Wiki- Opponents of backscatter x-ray scanners, including the head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[76][77][78] Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[79][80][81]

..oh, and that assumes the machines are actually putting out what the TSA says they are putting out. The TSA has a very poor record for telling the truth.
 
2013-01-23 02:30:35 PM

heili skrimsli: Although what you won't find is any independent testing or verification.


... really.

That's what you're going with, because... you somehow don't have access to any part of internet but FARK? Because all the independent testing has been published and is pretty readily accessible. Here's a couple:

Rez, P., Metzger, R. L. & Mossman, K. L. The Dose From Compton Backscatter Screening. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1-7 (2010).

PDF of Johns Hopkins assessment

It's not exactly rocket science to step into a machine with a dosimeter and then look at the readout, man. Lots of people have done it with varying levels of rigor (from it literally being some guy with a dosimeter to full monitoring rundowns like the ones above). This is some of the most well-examined shiat on the planet.
 
2013-01-23 02:37:05 PM

fredklein: Jim_Callahan: Now, you ready to hear the number for the horrifying, deadly x-ray exposure from an airport backscatter imager?

The high-end estimate, and I mean this in the sense that this estimate is double the next-highest measurement published, is .01 mRem per scan.

Wiki- Opponents of backscatter x-ray scanners, including the head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[76][77][78] Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[79][80][81]

..oh, and that assumes the machines are actually putting out what the TSA says they are putting out. The TSA has a very poor record for telling the truth.


Those references:

"Cancer risk is low, but possible in airport scanners". CNN. March 28, 2011. Retrieved 2011-03-31.
Cohen, Elizabeth (March 31, 2011). "Airport security scans: What would your doctor do?". CNN.
Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners, by Michael Grabell, ProPublica, May 16, 2011
a b c d npr.org - Protests Mount Over Safety And Privacy Of Airport Scanners, 2010-11-12
npr.org - Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners, 2010-05-17
"US government SAFETY act website".

... consist entirely of shiatty news articles doing fearmongering and one reference to a website that doesn't make the claim the sentence is saying it does.

Though, thanks for explaining why I was under the impression that half the thread is idiots and conspiracy theorists, I hadn't realized I was speaking with the equivalent of undergrads that think Wikipedia is an infallible primary source.
 
2013-01-23 02:38:30 PM

Barfmaker: doczoidberg: I'm still waiting for images from those scanners to get leaked onto the internet.

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans



Well, sock me sideways.

Too bad we can't really see anything in those, though.
 
2013-01-23 02:52:28 PM
Article 404'd for me... anyone else?
 
2013-01-23 02:54:52 PM

fredklein: Jim_Callahan: Now, you ready to hear the number for the horrifying, deadly x-ray exposure from an airport backscatter imager?

The high-end estimate, and I mean this in the sense that this estimate is double the next-highest measurement published, is .01 mRem per scan.

Wiki- Opponents of backscatter x-ray scanners, including the head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[76][77][78] Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[79][80][81]

..oh, and that assumes the machines are actually putting out what the TSA says they are putting out. The TSA has a very poor record for telling the truth.


For fark's sake.

I'm with you on not trusting DHS and the TSA. I just got done LOL'ing with some friends over our collective (tongue in cheek, mostly) inability to listen to any government official speak without hearing the Imperial March playing in our heads. But you've got two rad techs who know just a wee bit more about this shiat than I do and I'll wager just a wee bit more than anyone in the government does explaining - rather calmly - that, short of an evil supervillian who is better at villainy than the Joker, the Riddler, Loki, Vader, and Palpatine combined farking with the machines without anyone's knowledge, they're less harmful than a steady diet of hot pockets, Mountain Dew, and reheated pizza on Fiestaware plates. In short, if I understand them right (because it's about as much my area of expertise as rocket science), your microwave gives off more rads when you cook your hot pocket and heat lukewarm coffee in a fiestaware mug.

To be honest, I'm more inclined to believe the random Fark-posting rad tech than I am anyone whose work title has a GS-<number> before or after it. The Farker gains nothing by bullshiatting you regarding the safety or lack thereof of the machine except derision - both have made it clear that they don't even work with these machines or for the companies that make them. The government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in bullshiatting you and everyone else.
 
2013-01-23 02:57:08 PM

Jim_Callahan: I hadn't realized I was speaking with the equivalent of undergrads that think Wikipedia is an infallible primary source.


I never said it was. But it does link to other sources, so it's often a good place to start.

And I hadn't realized I was speaking with someone who thinks calling cites "shiatty news articles doing fearmongering" is an actual counterargument. (As opposed to actually, you know, countering the argument.)
 
2013-01-23 03:00:50 PM

Contents Under Pressure: The guy writes for prisonplanet.

I'll wait to hear from a more reputable source.


Like Fox News or Rupert Murdock?
 
2013-01-23 03:02:01 PM

fredklein: Jim_Callahan: Now, you ready to hear the number for the horrifying, deadly x-ray exposure from an airport backscatter imager?

The high-end estimate, and I mean this in the sense that this estimate is double the next-highest measurement published, is .01 mRem per scan.

Wiki- Opponents of backscatter x-ray scanners, including the head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[76][77][78] Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[79][80][81]

..oh, and that assumes the machines are actually putting out what the TSA says they are putting out. The TSA has a very poor record for telling the truth.


The government absolutely does not f*ck around when it comes to radiation. That's why the exposure limits are set so incredibly low.
 
2013-01-23 03:02:21 PM

heili skrimsli: Jim_Callahan: //It has a statistical correlation with cancer because being in a plane at 30k feet is a significant source of radiation exposure. Has nothing to do with the machine and a lot to do with the fact that they're situated in airports. You could easily find the same correlation for duty-free scotch or 800+ page paperbacks.

You must work for the TSA if you actually believe this line of bullshiat.


Of course it's true, otherwise the TSA would not prohibit agents from wearing radiation detection badges.
 
2013-01-23 03:03:44 PM

JohnBigBootay: doczoidberg: I'm still waiting for images from those scanners to get leaked onto the internet.

You are going to have to wait all the way until almost three years ago.


Or until the computers are fully depreciated and returned to the lessors.
 
2013-01-23 03:10:07 PM
I like them new scanners. So much more naked detail with the dozens of multi microwaves(lower powered since there are more) instead of the singular high powered microwave.

/Man you people are so stupid to believe the shiat about how the image is now a blurry person.
//I'd link to the nudy storage site but its behind a couple layers of authentication and fark you too.
 
2013-01-23 03:11:30 PM
Well, I guess if they increase the number of lines feeding into them, that's a good thing.  Will make the wait shorter.

They'll probably have 1 line feeding multiple machines that are operated one-at-a-time though.
 
2013-01-23 03:13:45 PM

Aigoo: But you've got two rad techs who know just a wee bit more about this shiat than I do


Yes, they know about radiation. I'm not arguing about that. 'X' amount of radiation is minute when you get 100'x' just walking around. What they say is correct... IFF they have the correct information themselves. If the TSA lies about how much radiation the machines give off, then any argument based on that lie is useless. If the machines are mis-calibrated, it's the same.

Again, I'm not questioning 'the random Fark-posting rad tech's, I'm questioning the TSA.
 
2013-01-23 03:22:11 PM

fredklein: Aigoo: But you've got two rad techs who know just a wee bit more about this shiat than I do

Yes, they know about radiation. I'm not arguing about that. 'X' amount of radiation is minute when you get 100'x' just walking around. What they say is correct... IFF they have the correct information themselves. If the TSA lies about how much radiation the machines give off, then any argument based on that lie is useless. If the machines are mis-calibrated, it's the same.

Again, I'm not questioning 'the random Fark-posting rad tech's, I'm questioning the TSA.


TSA might also be lying about not putting mind control chemicals in your drinking water, and not having been involved in the moon landing hoax.
 
2013-01-23 03:27:20 PM
This really makes all those assurances that the government isn't going to confiscate handguns sound hollow.

/you're not going to create a better world you know
//you're not even going to preserve the good life you have
///you're going to flush it all down the drain, wailing "why didn't anyone tell me this would happen" all the way, until your life ends in the sewer
 
2013-01-23 03:31:31 PM

fredklein: Aigoo: But you've got two rad techs who know just a wee bit more about this shiat than I do

Yes, they know about radiation. I'm not arguing about that. 'X' amount of radiation is minute when you get 100'x' just walking around. What they say is correct... IFF they have the correct information themselves. If the TSA lies about how much radiation the machines give off, then any argument based on that lie is useless. If the machines are mis-calibrated, it's the same.

Again, I'm not questioning 'the random Fark-posting rad tech's, I'm questioning the TSA.


If they're not calibrated, the dose goes down, or it stops working entirely (in general).

The reason TSA doesn't have to wear dosimeters is because their exposure is less than .05 mrem/hr, which is exempt from tracking according to ASNT.
 
2013-01-23 03:39:12 PM
Guess the Chertoff family needed to remodel their summer homes.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report