User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 3:57:21 PM EDT
[#1]
you forgot to mention how this scanner crap wouldve been absolutely useless against underwear bomber.
 yay dave, the champion of the right to privacy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 4:24:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: you forgot to mention how this scanner crap wouldve been absolutely useless against underwear bomber. yay dave, the champion of the right to privacy. Uh, it would have worked just fine... Or are you one of those guys who insist he had the bomb up his ass, rather than in front of his crotch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 4:24:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: So if you were to shove 5 pounds of semtex up your ass then choose a seat directly over a vulnerable aircraft component would it act as a shaped charge?  I highly doubt you could get 5lb of semtex up your ass... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 4:43:32 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
you forgot to mention how this scanner crap wouldve been absolutely useless against underwear bomber.
yay dave, the champion of the right to privacy. Uh, it would have worked just fine... Or are you one of those guys who insist he had the bomb up his ass, rather than in front of his crotch? What does the GAO know anyways? http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-raises-questions-about-effectiveness-full-body-scanners GAO: "While [TSA] officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT (advanced imaging technology) would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 5:09:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
if some dude squeezes my nuts at the airport you are going to see me on the news.
Oh, it gets better. Two airports are testing 'enhanced' pat downs. Where they will then squeeze your nuts to make sure they are real. I'm so glad I live in a free country. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 5:12:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Oh, it gets better. Two airports are testing 'enhanced' pat downs. Where they will then squeeze your nuts to make sure they are real. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 5:23:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Easy solution, stop flying. Haven't been on a plane since before 9-11. I was on one shortly after, not going to again unless have to. Stupid terrorists ruined it for the rest of us. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 7:10:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Easy solution, stop flying. Haven't been on a plane since before 9-11. I was on one shortly after, not going to again unless have to. Stupid terrorists ruined it for the rest of us. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No. We did this to ourselves by being afraid of our own shadows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 10:43:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I recently came across one of these new backscatter x-ray systems at a relatively small airport when returning from vacation. A thorough pat down was threatened if you refused to go through the machine. To smooth things along I went through the backscatter machine and they demanded that I take my belt off and remove everything from my pockets. What the fuck is the point of this gizmo if it can't tell what is in my pockets is!!!!!!! Then I had to stand in a specific spot under personal guard getting airport foot fungus while someone looked at the image for a minute. I saw Total Recall and the idea of passing through security without having to disrobe or empty your pockets seemed pretty reasonable. Instead we have a system that is apparently totally worthless and just increases my risk of cancer without being able to see anything. As with most things TSA, a gigantic CF. BTW, my pregnant wife decided not to go through the backscatter machine and was whisked through a standard metal detector with no pat down. Because the machine does not take 'naked pictures', it merely shows if you're hiding anything. 'Remove everything from your pockets' is just like 'remove your laptop and electronics from their bags - it eliminates false positives... And the 'increased risk of cancer' is just as  as the 'naked' crap...
Dave, if there's "nothing to see here, Move along", then why have TSA employees gotten in trouble for saving and sharing images of attractive women who went thru it? Besides that, 99% of the flying public think they are too damned invasive and don't want them. That alone should tell the .gov to get rid of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:18:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Because the machine does not take 'naked pictures', it merely shows if you're hiding anything. 'Remove everything from your pockets' is just like 'remove your laptop and electronics from their bags - it eliminates false positives... And the 'increased risk of cancer' is just as as the 'naked' crap...
Not true. I've worked with this technology. You can see twigs berries nurples beef curtains and everything. It's Black&white nekkid pics but it's nekkid pics just the same. Use it to take naughty pics of the wrong people and you're still going to jail. The whole quest for "security" is a bad joke. Just mount a hicory baton in every head rest for use in emergencies and have done with it. No more hijacking. All this new tech being inserted into our collective rectum is just a way to get us accustomed to more sureveillance so we'll be easier to rule. It buys zero actual security and can be argued to actually work against it because it creates a false sense of safety. IDK why the hell we put up with the feds taking over airport security in the first place. I guess we deserve the police state we begged for. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2010 11:21:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: Because the machine does not take 'naked pictures', it merely shows if you're hiding anything. 'Remove everything from your pockets' is just like 'remove your laptop and electronics from their bags - it eliminates false positives... And the 'increased risk of cancer' is just as as the 'naked' crap...Not true. I've worked with this technology. You can see twigs berries nurples beef curtains and everything. It's Black&white nekkid pics but it's nekkid pics just the same. Use it to take naughty pics of the wrong people and you're still going to jail. The whole quest for "security" is a bad joke. Just mount a hicory baton in every head rest for use in emergencies and have done with it. No more hijacking. All this new tech being inserted into our collective rectum is just a way to get us accustomed to more sureveillance so we'll be easier to rule. It buys zero actual security and can be argued to actually work against it because it creates a false sense of safety. IDK why the hell we put up with the feds taking over airport security in the first place. I guess we deserve the police state we begged for. It seems quite obvious that the systems in use in Iraq are set up differently to the ones in US airports... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 3:14:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Millions of dollars and lost rights, just to prevent something that could be stopped by requiring passengers to either eat bacon or use koran urinal cakes.
The terrorists won. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 3:18:23 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: if some dude squeezes my nuts at the airport you are going to see me on the news. Oh, it gets better. Two airports are testing 'enhanced' pat downs. Where they will then squeeze your nuts to make sure they are real. I'm so glad I live in a free country. I lol'ed, but seriously.... THIS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 3:20:44 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW, my pregnant wife decided not to go through the backscatter machine and was whisked through a standard metal detector with no pat down. there's your solution Sounds nice until it's not an option. You're also missing the threat of the thorough feel-up. I just remembered that on the outbound flight, the guy in charge of the carry-on x-ray machine required further screening of about every 5th or 6th bag. My bag had to be opened because of what I assume was an unusual rectangular homogeneous substance, a loaf of homemade bread. The plus was that the supervisor that handled that secondary review was very quick and courteous. Its too bad they let the slow guy operate the machine and slow the process down so much. If that had been at a small airport with a single security line it would have been a nightmare. Be glad you weren't going through with a backpack full of camera gear...I offered to open it for them and reached for the bag. This apparently triggered some kind of problem. Arguing ensued, and I almost got arrested. I even got to meet the German Shephard. The TSA is the most worthless group of misfits and losers the world has ever assembled under one organization. We'd be safer and happier if they were all fired, and all security was completely rescinded immediately. Of course, allowing open carry on the plane would be a part of the deal. I consider open carry to be security enough  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 3:24:39 AM EDT
[#15]
Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology?
There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 3:24:51 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
So does anyone know of any explanation why one would need to remove their belt and empty their pockets first? ETA: While googling "backscatter x-ray take off belt" to try and find out more info on this, this thread was the third result. Ah yes, another story from the same trip: TSA sack of shit: "Sir, why is your hand at your waist?" Me: "So my pants don't fall down...." It was obvious that they wanted to know if I had a weapon, but logic SHOULD have dictated that if I was holding my damn pants up and being that fucking obvious about it, there wasn't an issue. Next time, I'm letting the fucking pants fall down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 3:26:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: I recently came across one of these new backscatter x-ray systems at a relatively small airport when returning from vacation. A thorough pat down was threatened if you refused to go through the machine. To smooth things along I went through the backscatter machine and they demanded that I take my belt off and remove everything from my pockets. What the fuck is the point of this gizmo if it can't tell what is in my pockets is!!!!!!! Then I had to stand in a specific spot under personal guard getting airport foot fungus while someone looked at the image for a minute. I saw Total Recall and the idea of passing through security without having to disrobe or empty your pockets seemed pretty reasonable. Instead we have a system that is apparently totally worthless and just increases my risk of cancer without being able to see anything. As with most things TSA, a gigantic CF. BTW, my pregnant wife decided not to go through the backscatter machine and was whisked through a standard metal detector with no pat down. Because the machine does not take 'naked pictures', it merely shows if you're hiding anything. 'Remove everything from your pockets' is just like 'remove your laptop and electronics from their bags - it eliminates false positives... And the 'increased risk of cancer' is just as as the 'naked' crap...So, someone no longer has the right to privacy just because it doesn't take "pictures"?  And don't give that BS about "just not flying..." There's more than a handful of reasons why people have to fly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 6:36:51 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the machine does not take 'naked pictures', it merely shows if you're hiding anything. 'Remove everything from your pockets' is just like 'remove your laptop and electronics from their bags - it eliminates false positives... And the 'increased risk of cancer' is just as as the 'naked' crap...
Not true. I've worked with this technology. You can see twigs berries nurples beef curtains and everything. It's Black&white nekkid pics but it's nekkid pics just the same. Use it to take naughty pics of the wrong people and you're still going to jail. The whole quest for "security" is a bad joke. Just mount a hicory baton in every head rest for use in emergencies and have done with it. No more hijacking. All this new tech being inserted into our collective rectum is just a way to get us accustomed to more sureveillance so we'll be easier to rule. It buys zero actual security and can be argued to actually work against it because it creates a false sense of safety. IDK why the hell we put up with the feds taking over airport security in the first place. I guess we deserve the police state we begged for. It seems quite obvious that the systems in use in Iraq are set up differently to the ones in US airports... How is it that obvious? Have you seen the full resolution images that these machines are capable of putting out? I know I haven't and I've looked for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 9:42:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Millions of dollars and lost rights, just to prevent something that could be stopped by requiring passengers to either eat bacon or use koran urinal cakes. The terrorists won. No measure of 'anti-muslin cartoon bullshit' would stop anything... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 9:44:07 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology? There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Dave regards folks who think X-rays will give them cancer, in the same category as those who scoff at vaccines, and think cell phones cause cancer too.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 9:45:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Even more reason to drive.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 9:46:35 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because the machine does not take 'naked pictures', it merely shows if you're hiding anything. 'Remove everything from your pockets' is just like 'remove your laptop and electronics from their bags - it eliminates false positives... And the 'increased risk of cancer' is just as as the 'naked' crap...Not true. I've worked with this technology. You can see twigs berries nurples beef curtains and everything. It's Black&white nekkid pics but it's nekkid pics just the same. Use it to take naughty pics of the wrong people and you're still going to jail. The whole quest for "security" is a bad joke. Just mount a hicory baton in every head rest for use in emergencies and have done with it. No more hijacking. All this new tech being inserted into our collective rectum is just a way to get us accustomed to more sureveillance so we'll be easier to rule. It buys zero actual security and can be argued to actually work against it because it creates a false sense of safety. IDK why the hell we put up with the feds taking over airport security in the first place. I guess we deserve the police state we begged for. It seems quite obvious that the systems in use in Iraq are set up differently to the ones in US airports... How is it that obvious? Have you seen the full resolution images that these machines are capable of putting out? I know I haven't and I've looked for them. Based on the published output of the 2 different systems in question... Now, you can claim that the government is secretly 'altering' them to make the photos look 'better' and 'less nude' than they really are... I would find it more logical, that the machines in airports are not configured to take 'naked-picture' resolution images.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:21:46 AM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:26:43 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology? There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Dave regards folks who think X-rays will give them cancer, in the same category as those who scoff at vaccines, and think cell phones cause cancer too.... What excessive exposure to radiation such as is found in X-Rays can cause is severe damage to your thyroid, which can fuck up your whole life. I'm not saying this backscatter will cause that unless you stand in it for 24 hours, but is TSA going to give you a radiation badge if you are a frequent flyer? No they won't. Harm from repeated exposure to X-Rays is well documented in medical X-Ray technicians. That and levels of radiation from X-rays from years past that were though safe then, have been found to be harmless today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:32:09 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
So does anyone know of any explanation why one would need to remove their belt and empty their pockets first? ETA: While googling "backscatter x-ray take off belt" to try and find out more info on this, this thread was the third result. I don't know, but when I got digitally strip-searched they could even see the folded up receipt I forgot to take out of my pocket. Maybe with all your pockets empty, they don't have to waste time playing 20 questions to find out what something is? ETA: must read whole thread before posting Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:38:59 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology? There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Dave regards folks who think X-rays will give them cancer, in the same category as those who scoff at vaccines, and think cell phones cause cancer too.... Nice third person referral there, Hulk |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:39:22 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I recently came across one of these new backscatter x-ray systems at a relatively small airport when returning from vacation. A thorough pat down was threatened if you refused to go through the machine. To smooth things along I went through the backscatter machine and they demanded that I take my belt off and remove everything from my pockets. What the fuck is the point of this gizmo if it can't tell what is in my pockets is!!!!!!! Then I had to stand in a specific spot under personal guard getting airport foot fungus while someone looked at the image for a minute. I saw Total Recall and the idea of passing through security without having to disrobe or empty your pockets seemed pretty reasonable. Instead we have a system that is apparently totally worthless and just increases my risk of cancer without being able to see anything. As with most things TSA, a gigantic CF. BTW, my pregnant wife decided not to go through the backscatter machine and was whisked through a standard metal detector with no pat down. Because the machine does not take 'naked pictures', it merely shows if you're hiding anything. 'Remove everything from your pockets' is just like 'remove your laptop and electronics from their bags - it eliminates false positives... And the 'increased risk of cancer' is just as as the 'naked' crap...
really?... not naked by it's true definition, but if'n i can see yur little dick in the image i am taking, it's just the same as nekid... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:41:44 AM EDT
[#28]
i wonder what would happen if you had on an undershirt that is woven with silver fibers running through it... like they do...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:49:34 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Plain 'fabric' is not an x-ray shield, which is why 'TSA-certified' laptop bags are now being sold. - you don't have to take your laptop out of one of those. Almost. The 'TSA certified' laptop bags are just able to be folded out flat, or have the laptop 'moved' so that no other devices are on top of it during the xray. It doesn't have anything to do with the construction materials. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:49:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
if some dude squeezes my nuts at the airport you are going to see me on the news.
Oh, it gets better. Two airports are testing 'enhanced' pat downs. Where they will then squeeze your nuts to make sure they are real. I'm so glad I live in a free country. No kidding. Yes, and the TSA asshat will have a hard time saying, "Empty your pockets, sir!!" with no frakking teeth from your Clenched Fist Twitch Disorder to his pie hole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:50:45 AM EDT
[#31]
If kids go through it, is it child porn?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:51:36 AM EDT
[#32]
Unless I fly charter or recreationally I just don't fly anymore. I don't care how far as long as it's in the US I just drive. No place I can't be in the lower 48 in 2 days of driving or less. I used to fly a lot but it's just not worth the hassle to me anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:03:40 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology? There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Dave regards folks who think X-rays will give them cancer, in the same category as those who scoff at vaccines, and think cell phones cause cancer too.... Dave is wrong. The risk from exposure to radiation is from cumulative exposure and it makes sense to avoid needless exposure to x-rays. That's why they don't give you a chest x-ray every time you have a cough and don't x-ray your teeth at every visit. Doing it once is only a marginal increase in risk. Doing it every day for 20 years is a different issue. No, it's not going to make your hair fall out or give you radiation burns, but saying it does not increase risk of cancer at all is just flat wrong. Easy Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:12:03 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
I've often wondered about terrorists surgically implanting bombs into their bodies. I wonder if that would be even possible. Sure would make the backscatter x-ray useless Entirely possible, and yes, the machine would never know it's there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:12:52 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the machine does not take 'naked pictures', it merely shows if you're hiding anything. 'Remove everything from your pockets' is just like 'remove your laptop and electronics from their bags - it eliminates false positives... And the 'increased risk of cancer' is just as as the 'naked' crap...
Not true. I've worked with this technology. You can see twigs berries nurples beef curtains and everything. It's Black&white nekkid pics but it's nekkid pics just the same. Use it to take naughty pics of the wrong people and you're still going to jail. The whole quest for "security" is a bad joke. Just mount a hicory baton in every head rest for use in emergencies and have done with it. No more hijacking. All this new tech being inserted into our collective rectum is just a way to get us accustomed to more sureveillance so we'll be easier to rule. It buys zero actual security and can be argued to actually work against it because it creates a false sense of safety. IDK why the hell we put up with the feds taking over airport security in the first place. I guess we deserve the police state we begged for. It seems quite obvious that the systems in use in Iraq are set up differently to the ones in US airports... How is it that obvious? Have you seen the full resolution images that these machines are capable of putting out? I know I haven't and I've looked for them. Based on the published output of the 2 different systems in question... Now, you can claim that the government is secretly 'altering' them to make the photos look 'better' and 'less nude' than they really are... I would find it more logical, that the machines in airports are not configured to take 'naked-picture' resolution images.... You are too simplistic in your thinking - you seem to believe that the machine is analogous to a camera. It's not. The hardware used in the machines at the airport is the same as that used in non-airport functions. They ALL produce high resolution data from the sensors. What's different is the software. The TSA machines had a software mod added that is supposed to mask the naughty bits automatically, and show THAT image on the screen. The software also shuts off the capability for outside data links, and for image storage. But the hard drive and the ethernet port are still there. Here's the problem - there can be a BIG difference between what software is supposed to do and what it actually does. Programmers can leave back doors, easter eggs, diagnostic overrides. They are supposed to remain secret, but they ALWAYS leak out. Shortly after these get into wide use, we WILL start seeing full resolution pictures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:14:46 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if you were to shove 5 pounds of semtex up your ass then choose a seat directly over a vulnerable aircraft component would it act as a shaped charge? I highly doubt you could get 5lb of semtex up your ass... Google "goatse.cx". And (one assumes) that guy did it for fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:19:16 AM EDT
[#37]
I'm waiting for the first guy to pop a Viagra, look at some pr0n on his smartphone, and go through the scanner with aluminum foil stuck to his chest that says: "SWM Seeking TSA Agents for a good time!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:26:58 AM EDT
[#38]
I have mixed feeling about body scanning. Having a metal knee I get subjected to the scan and/or secondary check every time I fly. When I went to Scotland this summer we flew to Amsterdam first and had to go through scanners to move on to Scotland. Those scanners had a outline of a person but no detail. When you went through they would show you on the other side if you had a piece of paper in your pocket etc. It would also show clothing tags and stuff but no body parts. That seemed pretty reasonable particularly when the security chicks were all hot blonds. When I went through Heathrow in London coming back, they pulled me aside and took me to a room and gave me the full Monty x-ray treatment. That seemed unreasonable but at the least the security people were very nice about it.
I do believe that there is still a significant threat from terrorists on airplanes. They are still trying and will continue to try and take down planes if they can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:47:55 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology? There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Dave regards folks who think X-rays will give them cancer, in the same category as those who scoff at vaccines, and think cell phones cause cancer too.... Dave is wrong. The risk from exposure to radiation is from cumulative exposure and it makes sense to avoid needless exposure to x-rays. That's why they don't give you a chest x-ray every time you have a cough and don't x-ray your teeth at every visit. Doing it once is only a marginal increase in risk. Doing it every day for 20 years is a different issue. No, it's not going to make your hair fall out or give you radiation burns, but saying it does not increase risk of cancer at all is just flat wrong. Easy Link While I strongly disagree with the use of these machines for security screening, the x-ray dosage just doesn't rank. The X-ray exposure is many times lower then that of increased cosmic radiation simply from being in an airplane at 30k feet for a few hours. As a cumulative radiation exposure it just isn't a concern. You get more exposure walking out side on a sunny day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 11:54:22 AM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 12:06:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: I'm waiting for the first guy to pop a Viagra, look at some pr0n on his smartphone, and go through the scanner with aluminum foil stuck to his chest that says: "SWM Seeking TSA Agents for a good time!" If I have to go through one of these things I'm totally doing it with a hard on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 12:31:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology? There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Dave regards folks who think X-rays will give them cancer, in the same category as those who scoff at vaccines, and think cell phones cause cancer too.... Dave is wrong. The risk from exposure to radiation is from cumulative exposure and it makes sense to avoid needless exposure to x-rays. That's why they don't give you a chest x-ray every time you have a cough and don't x-ray your teeth at every visit. Doing it once is only a marginal increase in risk. Doing it every day for 20 years is a different issue. No, it's not going to make your hair fall out or give you radiation burns, but saying it does not increase risk of cancer at all is just flat wrong. Easy Link While I strongly disagree with the use of these machines for security screening, the x-ray dosage just doesn't rank. The X-ray exposure is many times lower then that of increased cosmic radiation simply from being in an airplane at 30k feet for a few hours. As a cumulative radiation exposure it just isn't a concern. You get more exposure walking out side on a sunny day. It does increase cumulative exposure, which increases risk. If there is a benefit to the exposure that outweighs that increased risk, then fine. I decide that traveling to Hawaii or Europe is worth the extra exposure. However, given that these scanners are apparently useless, there seems to be no benefit outweighing the risk. If we had technology that would allow a detailed screening without requiring that I unpack all of my shit, then it would be worth some increased risk. technology that requires that I empty my pockets and take off my belt to be able to see anything offers no meaningful benefit to either security or convenience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 1:05:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Oh, it gets better. Two airports are testing 'enhanced' pat downs. Where they will then squeeze your nuts to make sure they are real. I'm so glad I live in a free country. If they have concern about my nuts being explosives then what about my eyes?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 1:17:59 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
I've often wondered about terrorists surgically implanting bombs into their bodies. I wonder if that would be even possible. Sure would make the backscatter x-ray useless. They did it in Saudi a few years back.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 1:39:10 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, it gets better. Two airports are testing 'enhanced' pat downs. Where they will then squeeze your nuts to make sure they are real. I'm so glad I live in a free country. But questioning Hispanics about their citizenship is offensive. Hax "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene! " |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 1:46:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
It does increase cumulative exposure, which increases risk. If there is a benefit to the exposure that outweighs that increased risk, then fine. I decide that traveling to Hawaii or Europe is worth the extra exposure. However, given that these scanners are apparently useless, there seems to be no benefit outweighing the risk. If we had technology that would allow a detailed screening without requiring that I unpack all of my shit, then it would be worth some increased risk. technology that requires that I empty my pockets and take off my belt to be able to see anything offers no meaningful benefit to either security or convenience. Sort of. Do you know what the actual exposure is? About .01 mrem. Humans, like all mammals, have evolved in a radiation filled environment. Our bodies are adapted to accommodate some ionizing radiation and it even plays a critical role in evolution. So cumulative radiation exposure is not necessarily a good way to weigh risks of future cancer cases. The type, dose, dose length and frequency of dose are equally important as cumulative dose over a long time period because below some threshold the radiation isn't causing enough damage to increase the odds of cancer. So lets be clear- the dose from a backscatter x-ray scan is tiny. Very, very very tiny. you'd have to go through it about 1000 times a year before you got the same sort of dose that you got on a flight to Hawaii. It simply does not add up to a real public health risk. It's like freaking out about living near a nuclear power plant. Yes, there is some measurable increase in background radiation but it's also entirely academic. Let's put it this way- if you managed to break a tritium vial from a luminescent night sight, would you freak out? How about if you touched a lantern mantle and wiped your eyes right after? These things will all dose you in significantly more damaging ways but because they are also very tiny sources they just don't present a realistic hazard. Radiation is just not a real argument against these machines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 1:51:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology? There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Dave regards folks who think X-rays will give them cancer, in the same category as those who scoff at vaccines, and think cell phones cause cancer too.... Dave is wrong. The risk from exposure to radiation is from cumulative exposure and it makes sense to avoid needless exposure to x-rays. That's why they don't give you a chest x-ray every time you have a cough and don't x-ray your teeth at every visit. Doing it once is only a marginal increase in risk. Doing it every day for 20 years is a different issue. No, it's not going to make your hair fall out or give you radiation burns, but saying it does not increase risk of cancer at all is just flat wrong. Easy Link Google 'vaccines and autsim' and you'll get a bunch of hits too, doesn't make it right... And from my experience (3 years worth of treatment for an arm injury, and more X-rays than I can count), docs are very, very eager to get as many x-rays as they can, when you have certain conditions... Same for dentists - every visit.... They don't seem too concerned about anything beyond a lead shield for your nuts, but that's more a liability thing than a real medical issue... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 2:37:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol, Dave now as an advanced degree in molecular biology? There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Dave regards folks who think X-rays will give them cancer, in the same category as those who scoff at vaccines, and think cell phones cause cancer too.... Dave is wrong. The risk from exposure to radiation is from cumulative exposure and it makes sense to avoid needless exposure to x-rays. That's why they don't give you a chest x-ray every time you have a cough and don't x-ray your teeth at every visit. Doing it once is only a marginal increase in risk. Doing it every day for 20 years is a different issue. No, it's not going to make your hair fall out or give you radiation burns, but saying it does not increase risk of cancer at all is just flat wrong. Easy Link Google 'vaccines and autsim' and you'll get a bunch of hits too, doesn't make it right... And from my experience (3 years worth of treatment for an arm injury, and more X-rays than I can count), docs are very, very eager to get as many x-rays as they can, when you have certain conditions... Same for dentists - every visit.... They don't seem too concerned about anything beyond a lead shield for your nuts, but that's more a liability thing than a real medical issue... The lead shield prevents sterility. a known affect of x-rays. Done for your own good, though I find the use of shielding on you rather disturbing.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 3:14:54 PM EDT
[#49]
I laughed my ass off at that! - thanks... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2010 3:29:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It does increase cumulative exposure, which increases risk. If there is a benefit to the exposure that outweighs that increased risk, then fine. I decide that traveling to Hawaii or Europe is worth the extra exposure. However, given that these scanners are apparently useless, there seems to be no benefit outweighing the risk. If we had technology that would allow a detailed screening without requiring that I unpack all of my shit, then it would be worth some increased risk. technology that requires that I empty my pockets and take off my belt to be able to see anything offers no meaningful benefit to either security or convenience. Sort of. Do you know what the actual exposure is? About .01 mrem. Humans, like all mammals, have evolved in a radiation filled environment. Our bodies are adapted to accommodate some ionizing radiation and it even plays a critical role in evolution. So cumulative radiation exposure is not necessarily a good way to weigh risks of future cancer cases. The type, dose, dose length and frequency of dose are equally important as cumulative dose over a long time period because below some threshold the radiation isn't causing enough damage to increase the odds of cancer. So lets be clear- the dose from a backscatter x-ray scan is tiny. Very, very very tiny. you'd have to go through it about 1000 times a year before you got the same sort of dose that you got on a flight to Hawaii. It simply does not add up to a real public health risk. It's like freaking out about living near a nuclear power plant. Yes, there is some measurable increase in background radiation but it's also entirely academic. Let's put it this way- if you managed to break a tritium vial from a luminescent night sight, would you freak out? How about if you touched a lantern mantle and wiped your eyes right after? These things will all dose you in significantly more damaging ways but because they are also very tiny sources they just don't present a realistic hazard. Radiation is just not a real argument against these machines. A valid point presented cogently. I have always understood that this was not a significant risk. I have a bachelor's degree in physics and have observed Cherenkov radiation with nothing between me and the reactor core but a pool of water. Despite me pointing out others misstatements, I am not some kook who is scared shitless of radiation. I personally doubt there is any significant long term risk associated with a normal air traveler's exposure to these machines as they are currently used. My point is just that the machine appears to be worthless so it doesn't matter how safe it is compared to useful activities. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
