EPTif u find out where i can purchase one for my own personal testing, thats a different story
Nude body scans at airports - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
mrgoochio
United States557 Posts
if u find out where i can purchase one for my own personal testing, thats a different story | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On November 19 2010 09:54 Romantic wrote: I don't know if you know this, but at one point income taxes were, "Just going to be a few percent on the wealthy" and, "Metal detectors are a hassle but now we are all safe so don't worry". Hundreds were leaked, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say people are unduly concerned. It is the typical authoritarian line that you don't have any reason to worry and it will never happen. No, it really isn't a strawman, even if it hadn't happened, it is a legitimate concern, albeit minor in the opposition to the scanners. I am glad you are fine with the scanners. May you enjoy going through the Testicle Squeezing Administration's new checkpoints ^_________^ Yeah, I'll try to make sure I enjoy it next time I'm at the airport. As long as the security guy doesn't look like he's enjoying it I think I'll be fine ^^. Either way, the leak that did happen was from a breach in security protocols, and I'm sure there are plenty of people cursing at themselves and working to make sure they don't have that happen again, because if it does, the people arguing against the imaging will be given more ammunition. Either way, yes, there is escalation in government, that's what it does. The fact is that there's no problem with some of that. Sure, income taxes may have seemed crazy back then, but now we accept them as being fairly normal, and that's not always a bad thing. It's a matter of not denying the premise. If you're okay with 1% of your income going to government, then it's a matter of finding out how much you're okay with giving up. Likewise, we're all willing to give up some privacy in the interest of being safer on planes. Again, this is another measure of figuring out how heavy security measures can get. In my opinion, it's fine. People in North America are way to squeamish about that stuff. You go to the beach looking way more revealed than any of these imaging machines, and if someone snapped a picture it could go online with your face on it. Hell, in europe it's pretty socially acceptable to go to nude beaches and the like. Roll back a bit, and people used to bathe in public areas as well. No big deal. | ||
|
FindingPride
United States1001 Posts
| ||
|
timmeh
Austria177 Posts
| ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 19 2010 10:19 FindingPride wrote: They are an invasion of privacy and send harmful radiation to the body. get rid of em. There are tons of ways to get bombs to go off at an airport. They aren't going to prevent every instance. No 1 is ever truly safe. EVER I've gotten hundreds of chest x-rays and CT scans, and even radiation therapy. And I'm totally fine. Trust me, going through this once isn't going to do shit. | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
FindingPride
United States1001 Posts
On November 19 2010 10:23 Ferrose wrote: I've gotten hundreds of chest x-rays and CT scans, and even radiation therapy. And I'm totally fine. Trust me, going through this once isn't going to do shit. . ....................................... The reason this shit happens is cause of people like you | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 19 2010 10:14 SharkSpider wrote: Yeah, I'll try to make sure I enjoy it next time I'm at the airport. As long as the security guy doesn't look like he's enjoying it I think I'll be fine ^^. Either way, the leak that did happen was from a breach in security protocols, and I'm sure there are plenty of people cursing at themselves and working to make sure they don't have that happen again, because if it does, the people arguing against the imaging will be given more ammunition. Either way, yes, there is escalation in government, that's what it does. The fact is that there's no problem with some of that. Sure, income taxes may have seemed crazy back then, but now we accept them as being fairly normal, and that's not always a bad thing. It's a matter of not denying the premise. If you're okay with 1% of your income going to government, then it's a matter of finding out how much you're okay with giving up. Likewise, we're all willing to give up some privacy in the interest of being safer on planes. Again, this is another measure of figuring out how heavy security measures can get. In my opinion, it's fine. People in North America are way to squeamish about that stuff. You go to the beach looking way more revealed than any of these imaging machines, and if someone snapped a picture it could go online with your face on it. Hell, in europe it's pretty socially acceptable to go to nude beaches and the like. Roll back a bit, and people used to bathe in public areas as well. No big deal. If you roll back a little bit people used to be ok with a lot of things that are abhorrent or not something they did out of desire but necessity. Don't think I really need to give any obvious examples. Principles apply generally not specifically. The whole foundation behind massive airport security expenditures is made of sand to begin with, but yes people will accept some measures of security. These decisions should be made by travelers and airlines, not an unaccountable and unelected TSA desk jockey whose agency regularly fails bomb check tests even with the scanners, indicating that the only reason planes aren't falling out of the sky is that nobody is trying to make them. | ||
|
funnybananaman
United States830 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
Terrorists 1 - 0 America. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 19 2010 10:31 funnybananaman wrote: i don't think its that big of a deal, i mean the same thing happens at the doctor and just like this its for a good reason. But, uh, Bananaman, nobody forces me to get X-Rays at the doctor's office. You are also trying to make the dangers seem equal, which is laughable. Your chances of getting cancer from the machine or raging because you missed your flight due to security and crashing your car are probably much higher than the chances of being hijacked. No bananaman, it is not for a good reason. It is for FUD purposes. @Synapse, the danger of dying in a hijacking are also negligible.  | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 19 2010 10:29 FindingPride wrote: . ....................................... The reason this shit happens is cause of people like you What's that supposed to mean? | ||
|
FindingPride
United States1001 Posts
Any Radiation is bad for you. | ||
|
NyuNyu
Canada146 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 19 2010 10:43 NyuNyu wrote: I wouldn't mind this I think its a great idea :/ you are all way to uncomfortable with your bodies. It can save lives come on people. So can scanners at the grocery store. Principles apply generally not specifically. | ||
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
i can't imagine how that makes any sense whatsoever | ||
|
shaunnn
Ireland1230 Posts
No its not | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
Obviously ridiculous. The damage caused by radiation depends on wavelength, amplitude, proximity, and time exposed. Certain key bands, like the x-rays used in these scanners and ultraviolet light emitted from sterilization lamps, are mutagens that damage your DNA. Other radiation that can hurt you comes from high temperature objects (burns) or high intensity visible light (blindness). Edit: Basically, these scanners directly cause bodily harm in the form of DNA damage. Usually, this damage is insignificant and cells with faulty DNA either still function OK or are removed from the body. However, since these machines do nothing to enhance security and in fact create a false sense of confidence, they are not worth the health risk and monetary cost. | ||
|
Excomm
United States152 Posts
On November 19 2010 10:37 FindingPride wrote: Any Radiation is bad for you. You should be aware that almost everything emits radiation and that there are many different types of radiation including both harmful and benign types. People are routinely subjected to X-rays for diagnosis like broken bones. The radiation used for these scans must be powerful enough to pass through the body. Think about this in relation to the power of radiation needed when it does not pass through the body. The amount of radiation is much less and there is no evidence of prolonged exposure to this low level of radiation being harmful over time (granted this type of imaging has been less studied that exposure to diagnostic X-ray). Furthermore, only these "back-scatter" imaging machines use radiation for detection. The newer, more expensive MRI-like machines used only magnetic imaging, which is not harmful to the body. As for the images being an invasion of privacy, the argument is ridiculous. The image generated is simply the outline generated by your skin. I doubt that a positive identification of a person from these images is possible. Someone who gets aroused from looking at these images is going to be aroused by looking at your shirt or at your crotch anyway, so stop kidding yourself. Besides, if you have the body it is unlikely that you are hiding it (people who get offended when they get attention when they wear close fitting clothes make me angry). If you don't have a body that you are proud of, maybe you should do something to improve your physical fitness. If you are too physically ill to exercise then you shouldn't ride on an airplane anyway. I hope these systems actually encourage people to work out, and they pose no health threat to you personally so unless you support the right to bring weapons on planes, then I have no idea why you would oppose this imaging. **@zealotdriver - The radiation from these scanners does not even pass your skin and therefore does no DNA damage. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On November 19 2010 12:28 Zealotdriver wrote: Edit: Basically, these scanners directly cause bodily harm in the form of DNA damage. Usually, this damage is insignificant and cells with faulty DNA either still function OK or are removed from the body. However, since these machines do nothing to enhance security and in fact create a false sense of confidence, they are not worth the health risk and monetary cost. Mind supporting your claim that they don't increase security? There was an attempt to bring the chemicals required to build a bomb on to a plane last december, that would not have worked if the passenger had taken one of these scans. (Source if you don't remember: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/12/26/white-house-failed-airline-bombing-attempted-act-terrorism/) Though the passenger didn't manage to actually make it all work out, this sparked the concern over having non-metallic explosives stuck on your body, in places that regular protocol wouldn't get. Theoretically, a very large person could use the fat on their chest to conceal more than enough explosives to blow up a plane, and this wouldn't even be caught by a regular patdown. That's why the enhanced patdowns include the area between the breasts for women, and the area between the legs for men. If you're going to argue about the swallowing/up butt solution, there's limited space, and getting the critical amount of explosives in such a small area would necessitate high quality refined ingredients to even make a dent in an airplane. If you have a better solution to that specific problem, I'm sure the TSA would love to hear it (well, not really), but I doubt they'd have done this if they had a solution that worked this well without any of the privacy invasion stuff, because they're not too stupid to know that this would cause a shitstorm. The real question is why this solution wasn't implemented before someone almost blew up a plane last winter. Anyways, your claim that these machines do nothing to enhance security is demonstrably false, because it tightens a loophole that was actually used. | ||
| ||
