EPTNude body scans at airports - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
I don't exactly understand why it's so embarrasing myself, but if some people really feel that bad about having some fat in places they rather wouldn't have and well I'm not sure. The airport security isn't going to be commenting on that stuff, you'll go through, and nothing happens unless theres a bomb in your "Feces Propulstion System"... Nothing to see, just move on. EDIT: Plus, nobody decides to get a career in an airport just to see nude pics, probably of the same sex. Overreacting at its finest here. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
1. Support regimes and supply weapons to terrorists in the Midde East. 2. Guy ON THE NO FLY LIST (edit: some other database) gets on a plane with an underwear bomb that was woefully inadequate because he is pissed off. 3. Since the Testicle Surveying Agency fucked up and can't even properly execute the current level of security (by letting a guy on the No-Fly list on the plane), obviously you need to be electronically strip searched. 4. FUD 24\7 so nobody questions the ridiculousness of the situation. 5. Claim you are making America safe by doing exactly what the terrorists want you to do by being paranoid 24\7. | ||
|
strength
United States493 Posts
| ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
Please correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 19 2010 13:11 Ferrose wrote: Um, didn't that guy come from a plane from Europe? I'm pretty sure the TSA doesn't have jurisdiction there. Please correct me if I'm wrong. US intelligence also refused to revoke his visa despite knowing he was tied to Al-Qaeda, on top of that. *ahem* we are so much safer with the government around | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 19 2010 13:20 Romantic wrote: US intelligence also refused to revoke his visa despite knowing he was tied to Al-Qaeda, on top of that. *ahem* we are so much safer with the government around I'll google it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being true. >.< | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
On November 19 2010 12:51 Excomm wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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. It may surprise you to learn this: skin cells have DNA that can be damaged by radiation. DNA damage in skin cells can cause skin cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_cancer | ||
|
Hanners
United States142 Posts
How do we keep ourselves protected from a child who was given a plastic explosive enema and not sent through the scanner because the "guardian" doesn't want their child exposed to radiation and the child shouldn't be subjected to sexual trauma. The child will be ok with it because they'll be going to heaven. There's ways around this if you really want to hijack or blow up a plane. It doesn't take that much creativity. You just have to go a place where no one else will. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for people who are willing to fly a plane into a building to kill thousands. These checks are letting fear rule people's lives. All of this is | ||
|
bbq ftw
United States139 Posts
| ||
|
GumThief
Canada284 Posts
And I don't understand WTF is going on with the TSA. There is no reason whatsoever to be touching a persons groin. Not without SERIOUS suspicion that a person is concealing something there. And in that case the police should be called and they handle the search. Unfortunately children do get patted down time and again. Again, there is no touching anywhere inappropriate. It is probably the toughest/most awkward part of the job, but most parents are understanding of the procedure when we explain it to them. A lot of the time, an open and honest dialogue with the passenger goes a long way. | ||
|
Hanners
United States142 Posts
On November 19 2010 14:39 GumThief wrote: In Canada at least, children under 14 are not permitted to enter the body scanner without the parents consent. And I don't understand WTF is going on with the TSA. There is no reason whatsoever to be touching a persons groin. Not without SERIOUS suspicion that a person is concealing something there. And in that case the police should be called and they handle the search. Unfortunately children do get patted down time and again. Again, there is no touching anywhere inappropriate. It is probably the toughest/most awkward part of the job, but most parents are understanding of the procedure when we explain it to them. A lot of the time, an open and honest dialogue with the passenger goes a long way. I can't help but notice that the child's consent to being man-handled isn't taken into account? Institutionalized child molestation now? | ||
|
GumThief
Canada284 Posts
| ||
|
Hanners
United States142 Posts
| ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27172 Posts
On November 19 2010 13:52 Hanners wrote: Are children subjected to invasive pat downs as well? How do we keep ourselves protected from a child who was given a plastic explosive enema and not sent through the scanner because the "guardian" doesn't want their child exposed to radiation and the child shouldn't be subjected to sexual trauma. The child will be ok with it because they'll be going to heaven. There's ways around this if you really want to hijack or blow up a plane. It doesn't take that much creativity. You just have to go a place where no one else will. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for people who are willing to fly a plane into a building to kill thousands. These checks are letting fear rule people's lives. All of this is | ||
|
GumThief
Canada284 Posts
On November 19 2010 14:50 Hanners wrote: I'm saying if the child doesn't want their crotch touched, they don't seem to have a choice in the matter > sounds like molestation to me. re-read my post as you obviously did not. I am speaking from the procedures in Canada, where I clearly stated we do not, under any circumstance, touch a passengers crotch. | ||
|
Hanners
United States142 Posts
On November 19 2010 14:52 GumThief wrote: re-read my post as you obviously did not. I am speaking from the procedures in Canada, where I clearly stated we do not, under any circumstance, touch a passengers crotch. Then obviously Canada is a security risk. | ||
|
GumThief
Canada284 Posts
On November 19 2010 14:58 Hanners wrote: Then obviously Canada is a security risk. Trolling I see :p. You don't know the first thing about airport screening i'd assume, and obviously I wont get into that on a public forum. But no, Canada is in no way a security risk. We just don't need to touch penis to secure a flight. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
This story wouldn't even be covered if it wasn't that guy's daughter lol. This is just a kid being a kid. They behave the same at the doctor's office or the dentist. Maybe if she was a few years older this would be interesting, but most 3 year olds act like that just because their parents don't buy them the candy that they want. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
Four UCSF scientists sent a letter last April to the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, expressing concern about the health risks of full body scanners being implemented at U.S. airports. The co-signers were David Agard, PhD, John Sedat, PhD, (emeritus), and Robert Stroud, PhD, all professors of biochemistry and biophysics, and Marc Shuman, MD, professor of medicine (hematology/oncology) The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds). Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high. In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose. • A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging. • B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesisprovoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk. • C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk. • D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose. • E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated. • F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined. • G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis. • H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined? http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf | ||
| ||
