User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 4:54:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-11-tsa-scans_N.htm The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that itwould retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizingradiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records onsome of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher thanexpected. more radiation at link. Well, are you surprised? 10 times what? They didn't say what, so smart money would bet that it's 10 times zilch. Just sayin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 4:58:17 PM EDT
[#2]
That's been the problem all along - TSA won't say how much radiation is emitted, and has avoided and delayed so far.
Here is a thread where we see who works for TSA! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 4:59:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-11-tsa-scans_N.htm The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that itwould retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizingradiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records onsome of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher thanexpected. more radiation at link.o Well, are you surprised? 10 times what? They didn't say what, so smart money would bet that it's 10 times zilch. The actual dose does not matter as much as the fact that they're using untested, poorly controlled, potentially dangerous devices whose long-term effects are not tested or understood. Just sayin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:03:15 PM EDT
[#4]
The full-body scanners, called backscatter devices, are supposed to deliver only a tiny amount of radiation — about as much as an airplane passenger gets during two minutes of a typical flight. I hate this line. The TSA loves you use this but it doesn't take into account the different energy levels involved in cosmic rays that pass right though you and x-rays that are designed to bounce off your skin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:03:37 PM EDT
[#5]
10x could be dangerous for the lowly TSA screeners.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:05:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
10x could be dangerous for the lowly TSA screeners. That sure would be ... karmic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:10:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
The full-body scanners, called backscatter devices, are supposed to deliver only a tiny amount of radiation — about as much as an airplane passenger gets during two minutes of a typical flight. I hate this line. The TSA loves you use this but it doesn't take into account the different energy levels involved in cosmic rays that pass right though you and x-rays that are designed to bounce off your skin. It's like saying it's the same as sitting under a lightbulb for 10 seconds. well, sure it may be technically correct, but obviously not all photons have the same biological impact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:11:15 PM EDT
[#8]
F the TSA. I'll be pissed when my taxes go up to cover the cancer treatment for TSA security guards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:11:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Clearly a socialist plot to sterilize our essence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:12:26 PM EDT
[#10]
really who would have thought
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:24:00 PM EDT
[#11]
In before the "well it probably lets the tsa keep you safer from terrorists by letting them see more detail of your child's genitals anyway" crowd.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:24:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Dave_A is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:24:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-11-tsa-scans_N.htm The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that itwould retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizingradiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records onsome of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher thanexpected. more radiation at link. Well, are you surprised? 10 times what? They didn't say what, so smart money would bet that it's 10 times zilch. Just sayin. If the machines emitted no radiation, they would not work at all.
Just sayin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:29:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
F the TSA. I'll be pissed when my taxes go up to cover the cancer treatment for TSA security guards.
I am hoping it is an extreme case of cock&balls cancer with amputation being the only life saving option. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 3:24:46 AM EDT
[#15]
From the article:
The TSA "has repeatedly assured me that the machines that emit radiation do not pose a health risk," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a written statement Friday. "Nonetheless, if TSA contractors reporting on the radiation levels have done such a poor job, how can airline passengers and crew have confidence in the data used by the TSA to reassure the public?" My comment: The TSA officials say that the radiation levels were not necessarily that high...that the maintenance logs likely just reflected clerical errors. Pardon me, but if the maintenance logs are off by an order of magnitude, then how am I supposed to trust this agency with ionizing radiation? Would you ride on a train or bus if the driver told you he couldn't tell if he was driving at 12mph or 120 mph? Would you ride in an airliner that couldn't tell if it were at 600 feet or 6000 feet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 3:26:48 AM EDT
[#16]
fuckin A.
If you are reading this Dave. I just want to say that I won the argument. You lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 3:28:23 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: fuckin A. If you are reading this Dave. I just want to say that I won the argument. You lose. You're still taking about him so he's still winning. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:15:44 AM EDT
[#18]
Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University, voiced fears about the potential for a passenger to get an excessive dose of radiation or even a radiation burn if the X-ray scanning beam were to malfunction and stop on one part of a person's body for an extended period of time. "What happens in times of failure, when they can give very, very high radiation doses. I'm totally unconvinced they (TSA) have thought that through,"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:19:49 AM EDT
[#19]
After careful consideration I decided on the second NO down since I am only 1% surprised. I am about 99% not surprised.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:22:12 AM EDT
[#20]
I'll say that I just went through a TSA screening checkpoint and am now posting from McCarran. These fuckwits should be trusted with nothing more sinister than play doh. Opting out of the automated strip search, I was subjected to a very degrading patdown seeming at the leisure of the shitsack administering said patdown. Fuck me running, at least be cordial when you are feeling my waistband and my ass.
I hope these airlines are pushing back hard against this bullshit, because if this is any indication of what the current state of flying is going to be, I'm opting out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:27:43 AM EDT
[#21]
and this is why tsa employees need a union. to ensure they are protected from these hazards. or at least compensated properly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:29:09 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: I'll say that I just went through a TSA screening checkpoint and am now posting from McCarran. These fuckwits should be trusted with nothing more sinister than play doh. Opting out of the automated strip search, I was subjected to a very degrading patdown seeming at the leisure of the shitsack administering said patdown. Fuck me running, at least be cordial when you are feeling my waistband and my ass. I hope these airlines are pushing back hard against this bullshit, because if this is any indication of what the current state of flying is going to be, I'm opting out. They aren't. You know why? People are still paying to be treated as criminals. Why the hell should they stop if they aren't hurting ticket sales? I have read on this very site the number of people that think the scanners are fine. That they will continue to fly, and a big fuck you to anyone that chooses not to fly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:29:57 AM EDT
[#23]
Radiation exposure of any type is bad and should be minimized if you want to stay healthy. This even includes unnecessary medical imaging. And the damage of radiation to your body is cumulative over your lifetime. Any exposure raises your long term risk of CANCER because it causes permanemt DNA damage that your body cannot repair.
ETA: even worse , they are even forcing pregnant women into those TSA scanners... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:32:02 AM EDT
[#24]
There's a member here who wouldn't say how much but that working above the scanners (i.e. floor above) might not be very healthy over a long period of time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:43:47 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
fuckin A. If you are reading this Dave. I just want to say that I won the argument. You lose. Dave A wasn't arguing with you to win the argument with you. He was arguing with you to get you banned. I had the same experience with him in some threads on the Fed. He'd argue something completely wrong. I'd respond with links to Fed data and charts, and he would deny the very facts the Fed published. He kept arguing his stupid points. I now understand why he did this. He was trying to elicit an overreaction on my part to get me banned. He was a troll in every sense of the word. He'd disrupt every thread he posted in. Good riddance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:52:39 AM EDT
[#26]
Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report.
FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:54:47 AM EDT
[#27]
I have money on Chaffetz completely neutering the TSA in coming months. He is a very, very anti-TSA individual.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:05:42 AM EDT
[#28]
I flew this week, for the first time since all this scanner shit has been going down.
they were not on @ DIA, so I didn't get to opt-out and flying out of LAS, I was lucky enough to get a lane w/o one. I've kept my flying to a minimum and will definitely opt out at every opportunity |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:20:55 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report. FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. The TSOs aren't allowed to wear dosimeters and neither are the passengers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:32:21 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report. FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. The TSOs aren't allowed to wear dosimeters and neither are the passengers. that should be a red flag right there |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:41:24 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report. FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. The TSOs aren't allowed to wear dosimeters and neither are the passengers. that should be a red flag right there Any official statement on why that is, or is it just "because we said so"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:51:44 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report. FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. The TSOs aren't allowed to wear dosimeters and neither are the passengers. that should be a red flag right there Any official statement on why that is, or is it just "because we said so"? You don't know you've been irradiated if they deny you the ability to know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:52:51 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report. FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. The TSOs aren't allowed to wear dosimeters and neither are the passengers. that should be a red flag right there Any official statement on why that is, or is it just "because we said so"? Because passengers seeing dosimeters would be scared - and that the amount of xrays is tiny - and that all good citizens "just trust their government' |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:53:38 AM EDT
[#34]
Oops, our bad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:56:36 AM EDT
[#35]
Poll fail. It wouldn't let me select ALL the "No"s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 7:02:04 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report. FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. The TSOs aren't allowed to wear dosimeters and neither are the passengers. So you think nobody has tried it since it is not permitted? It's like packing in a post office; while not allowed, if the need to present arises, damn the consequence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 11:31:29 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report. FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. The TSOs aren't allowed to wear dosimeters and neither are the passengers. that should be a red flag right there Any official statement on why that is, or is it just "because we said so"? having worked in xray depts, anytime you work in an area where ionizing radiation is present, rules (OSHA or whatever) are that you have to have a dosimeter. Used to be in the past those at the conveyor at the airport had dosimeters |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:56:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not condoning or defending the TSA's actions or existence in any way; but I'd figure there would be a bunch of burned up dosimeters all over the news if there was something to report. FBHO, TSA, ATF, ETC. The TSOs aren't allowed to wear dosimeters and neither are the passengers. that should be a red flag right there Any official statement on why that is, or is it just "because we said so"? having worked in xray depts, anytime you work in an area where ionizing radiation is present, rules (OSHA or whatever) are that you have to have a dosimeter. Used to be in the past those at the conveyor at the airport had dosimeters I used to service the checkpoint equipment and we wore dosimeter (?) (ICN exposure badges) and, IIRC, all the ops wore them too. edited for clarity |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 12:10:10 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: I agree. Ionizing radiation is to be avoided if necessary. If you're in a car crash and break some bones, you'll need some X-rays.Radiation exposure of any type is bad and should be minimized if you want to stay healthy. This even includes unnecessary medical imaging. And the damage of radiation to your body is cumulative over your lifetime. Any exposure raises your long term risk of CANCER because it causes permanemt DNA damage that your body cannot repair. ETA: even worse , they are even forcing pregnant women into those TSA scanners... Otherwise, not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 12:33:23 PM EDT
[#40]
last month i was flying from LAX to PHX. they picked me to go through the scanner. I told the TSA fatass (350lbs, black, clearly no education) that i was going to pass, as i am an er nurse, and have been irradiated countless times assisting in CT during emergencies in the past, and now i try to limit my exposure.
She assured me: "this thing hardly emits any radiation. you will get more radiation on the flight than this machine puts out." I assured her: "you are a dumbass if you believe that." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 12:52:51 PM EDT
[#41]
The previous reported dose of radiation is on the order of 10 microRems, even if the TSA underestimated the radiation by a factor of 10, the scanners still only produce 100 microRems of radiation, which still lands 100 times lower than what is typical of a single chest x ray and 10 times lower than what one receives over one day in our environment.
I fundamentally disagree with the use of scanners on privacy grounds, but the concern over the biological effect of the radiation is completely off base. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 12:58:18 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
The previous reported dose of radiation is on the order of 10 microRems, even if the TSA underestimated the radiation by a factor of 10, the scanners still only produce 100 microRems of radiation, which still lands 100 times lower than what is typical of a single chest x ray and 10 times lower than what one receives over one day in our environment. I fundamentally disagree with the use of scanners on privacy grounds, but the concern over the biological effect of the radiation is completely off base. But the energy level of the X-Rays that cause the energy to be deposited just in the skin rather than in the entire body makes comparisons difficult. -Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 2:12:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
The previous reported dose of radiation is on the order of 10 microRems, even if the TSA underestimated the radiation by a factor of 10, the scanners still only produce 100 microRems of radiation, which still lands 100 times lower than what is typical of a single chest x ray and 10 times lower than what one receives over one day in our environment. I fundamentally disagree with the use of scanners on privacy grounds, but the concern over the biological effect of the radiation is completely off base. Is not radiation exposure cumulative? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 4:34:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The previous reported dose of radiation is on the order of 10 microRems, even if the TSA underestimated the radiation by a factor of 10, the scanners still only produce 100 microRems of radiation, which still lands 100 times lower than what is typical of a single chest x ray and 10 times lower than what one receives over one day in our environment. I fundamentally disagree with the use of scanners on privacy grounds, but the concern over the biological effect of the radiation is completely off base. But the energy level of the X-Rays that cause the energy to be deposited just in the skin rather than in the entire body makes comparisons difficult. -Mike I don't think this holds true. X-ray radiation is x-ray radiation - penetration depth depends on the power of the source, and the fact that backscatter machines only penetrate the skin indicates that they operate at relatively lower levels. An x-ray machine used for chest films, for example, still forms free radicals at the skin - the difference being that it also produces the biologic effects in deeper tissues. Backscatter machines, as I understand it, operate in much the same way as far as emission of radiation. The difference seems to depend on how the data is collected - conventional x-rays rely on penetration and attenuation of signal as it passes through tissues of varying density, whereas backscatter machines take advantage of the Compton Scattering phenomenon. This seems to be implicitly indicated in the measurements of radiation I supplied earlier - a Rem, or Roentgen Equivalent Man, takes into account the intensity of the x-ray beam, a Gray (itself a measure of power per unit mass), as well as the specific biologic effect of the radiation (different tissues may have different values individually, but the sum can be accounted for in total body radiation). In sum, the fact that backscatter imaging produces radiation that is 100 to 1000 times less than a chest x-ray in the Rem measurement indicates that it is substantially lower risk overall, including that at the skin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 4:37:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The previous reported dose of radiation is on the order of 10 microRems, even if the TSA underestimated the radiation by a factor of 10, the scanners still only produce 100 microRems of radiation, which still lands 100 times lower than what is typical of a single chest x ray and 10 times lower than what one receives over one day in our environment. I fundamentally disagree with the use of scanners on privacy grounds, but the concern over the biological effect of the radiation is completely off base. Is not radiation exposure cumulative? According to the linear no-threshold model, yes. But I suspect that if your expsoure is 1000.01 one day vs only 1000 per day, you will not see any difference. Particularly when you realize that at higher altitudes found when flying, your exposure is much greater. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 4:50:21 PM EDT
[#46]
Would a dentist be okay with his equipment being "off" by a factor of 10?
Would you mind, if the Patrolman's radar was off by a factor of 10? Would you pay taxes, if the IRS's computers were off - by a factor of 10? Would you be concerned, if the guy refueling jet plane airplanes - was off by a factor of 10? No long term testing - delays in responding to Congressional inquiries - OSHA safety rules don't apply - no dosimeters allowed - calibration being questioned. It appears my Chevy fuel gauge has more accountabilty than the TSA nude body scanners - which exist to prove you're innocent of the crime of terrorism (actually they exist so Rapiscan can produce profits to shareholders and thugs can live better and retire off our sheepishness). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 5:01:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Radiation exposure of any type is bad and should be minimized if you want to stay healthy. This even includes unnecessary medical imaging. And the damage of radiation to your body is cumulative over your lifetime. Any exposure raises your long term risk of CANCER because it causes permanemt DNA damage that your body cannot repair. ETA: even worse , they are even forcing pregnant women into those TSA scanners... True. Also low energy xrays are more dangerous because they are more likely to interact with your body and give up all their energy, whereas higher energy xrays are more likely to pass through you. The size of the individual is also a factor here. I do not know how these scanners work, but I would think the larger the person the larger the dose. Exposure by these scanners also increases a womens risk of breast cancer. I would like to know why the TSA folks are even allowed to administer these scans without any medical certification other than "Janet told me to do this". |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 5:06:15 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
fuckin A. If you are reading this Dave. I just want to say that I won the argument. You lose. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 5:06:22 PM EDT
[#49]
No fucking shit. They'll do whatever they can to lower the number of people that can fight. They know they're fucked, the less people that can fight, the better for them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2011 5:07:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Radiation exposure of any type is bad and should be minimized if you want to stay healthy. This even includes unnecessary medical imaging. And the damage of radiation to your body is cumulative over your lifetime. Any exposure raises your long term risk of CANCER because it causes permanemt DNA damage that your body cannot repair. ETA: even worse , they are even forcing pregnant women into those TSA scanners... Negative, Ghostrider. Mankind has been surviving quite well at the current level of natural background radiation, and cells do quite well repairing radiation damage. As long as it's not at levels orders of magnitude above the natural level. |
|
|
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.
