TSA Scans

[hortysir]

"Look at numbers", Toome??
How about the cost???

We're throwing billions of dollars down a rabbit hole hoping we stay lucky instead of trying to get AHEAD of these slugs

All of the security measures are REACTIVE and not PROACTIVE.

On 9-11 some yahoos hijacked commercial flights by storming the cockpits with box cutters.
We Reacted by locking the cockpit and banning anything with a sharp edge. Now we can't carry nail clippers or my favorite Old Timer pocket knife.

Next, some dumbass tries setting off a shoe-bomb.
We React by having passengers remove their shoes prior to boarding the flight.

Then, another idiot tries detonating a bomb in his underwear.
We React by requiring x-ray body scans and pat-downs.

Most recently there was an attempt to cause harm with explosive-packed printers.
Reaction? No more printers allowed in carry-on OR checked baggage.


El Al, Israel's airline, sets the best example.
I mean who else is under such a constant state of alertness?
Their personnel are highly trained in interviewing and profiling.
The underwear bomber, for example, would have NEVER been allowed to board a plane.
** Single male, traveling alone, paid cash, one way ticket, AND no luggage (carry-on or otherwise) **
A simple look at those factors would have got him pulled aside and searched without disrupting any other passenger's flight or intruding on anyone else's rights.

What happens when some lunatic smuggles in a C-4 butt plug?
Will we React with body cavity searches?

Where does it end??

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Live Free or Die

Hypocrite.

Bullshit. Feel free to travel at your own discretion, you do not have a right to fly commercial...

You seriously imagine security personnel drooling over your junk after hours?




an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)



Under the new rules, those refusing to submit must undergo the kind of extensive hand search...

That ruling was made in 1973 when nothing nearly as invasive as what airport security is doing today was being practiced. Furthermore, the case was against an appellant who was trying to bring a concealed gun on board in his brief case. He wasn't subjected to an electronic strip search nor a sexual assault masquerading as a "pat down." Did you actually read anything about this case before you quoted the court's decision?

 

[Toome]

Research is what separates panicked and ignorant fools from informed people. The more common whole body imager is the Rapiscan model which uses backscatter x-ray. The difference between a backscatter x-ray and chest x-ray machine is that the chest x-ray machine uses a higher level of radiation in order to penetrate through body tissue and bone in order to obtain a view of the chest. The backscatter uses a lower radiation that literally bounces off the skin (hence, its name: backscatter).

Looking at numbers, the backscatter x-ray emits 0.1 microsevert of radiation. The average chest x-ray emits 100 microseverts. The average cat-scan emits 10,000 microseverts. A panoramic dental x-ray machine emits 26 microseverts of radiation.

You'd have to go through an airport body scanner 1,000 times in order to have the equivalent exposure of a chest x-ray. 260 times in order to have the equivalent exposure of a dental x-ray. 100,000 times in order to have the equivalent exposure of a cat scan.

Lots of things emit radiation. There's more radiation in an airplane's passenger cabin than emitted from a body scanner. Walking across the parking lot at Disney World on a sunny day exposes a family to a lot more radiation than a 5-10 second exposure from a body scanner.

Wonderful. Did you even read the article I linked to that talked specifically about how the backscatter x-ray is potentially more dangerous precisely because it is designed to not penetrate?

There are many things that pose a potential threat. Mobile phones are periodically reported as potential sources of harmful radiation when the actual threat comes from people who text or call on their mobile phones while attempting to drive.

If you're too scared to go through airport security because of radiation, then I wonder how you feel about all the radiation you're exposed to while sitting inside the passenger cabin of a commercial flight. The radiation comes from the atmosphere, outer space and alpha radiation directly from our own sun. All are within safe tolerable limits but are significantly more than what you're exposed to when you stand for a few seconds inside a body scanner.

Look, pal, if you're so scared then don't fly. That's one less person in line in front of me when I do fly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Research is what separates panicked and ignorant fools from informed people. The more common whole body imager is the Rapiscan model which uses backscatter x-ray. The difference between a backscatter x-ray and chest x-ray machine is that the chest x-ray machine uses a higher level of radiation in order to penetrate through body tissue and bone in order to obtain a view of the chest. The backscatter uses a lower radiation that literally bounces off the skin (hence, its name: backscatter).

Looking at numbers, the backscatter x-ray emits 0.1 microsevert of radiation. The average chest x-ray emits 100 microseverts. The average cat-scan emits 10,000 microseverts. A panoramic dental x-ray machine emits 26 microseverts of radiation.

You'd have to go through an airport body scanner 1,000 times in order to have the equivalent exposure of a chest x-ray. 260 times in order to have the equivalent exposure of a dental x-ray. 100,000 times in order to have the equivalent exposure of a cat scan.

Lots of things emit radiation. There's more radiation in an airplane's passenger cabin than emitted from a body scanner. Walking across the parking lot at Disney World on a sunny day exposes a family to a lot more radiation than a 5-10 second exposure from a body scanner.

Wonderful. Did you even read the article I linked to that talked specifically about how the backscatter x-ray is potentially more dangerous precisely because it is designed to not penetrate?

There are many things that pose a potential threat. Mobile phones are periodically reported as potential sources of harmful radiation when the actual threat comes from people who text or call on their mobile phones while attempting to drive.

If you're too scared to go through airport security because of radiation, then I wonder how you feel about all the radiation you're exposed to while sitting inside the passenger cabin of a commercial flight. The radiation comes from the atmosphere, outer space and alpha radiation directly from our own sun. All are within safe tolerable limits but are significantly more than what you're exposed to when you stand for a few seconds inside a body scanner.

Look, pal, if you're so scared then don't fly. That's one less person in line in front of me when I do fly.

You know there is a difference between a mobile phone and a x-ray, don't you. One has numerous peer reviewed studies, significant amounts of data, and statistical analysis proving there is no risk, the other has a few studies, all of which point out hazards that need to be addressed. I used to live next to a nuclear power plant, and had a dosimeter on me at all times. I know enough about radiation hazards to make intelligent decisions, and I know that the government has not addressed any concerns that have arisen form this new technology.

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v1.pdf

Funny thing, the very reports the TSA are using to say it is safe point out it is not. If you look at any of the leaked images available you can see that the scanners actually can see people who are not inside them. That exposes people to more radiation than the government is claiming they get.

Keep pushing the governments numbers, it just makes you look ill informed.