EPTNude body scans at airports - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Pibacc
Canada545 Posts
| ||
|
whiteguycash
United States476 Posts
| ||
|
wrath76
United States6 Posts
Let us explain. In preparing to deploy the scanners to airports across the country, the TSA studied the amount of radiation a person would be exposed to per scan to determine if the machines were safe. Scientists at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the effective dose per screening was 1.58 microrems of radiation, while a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, said an adult would be exposed to 2.4 microrems of radiation per scan. We understand those figures mean nothing to most people. So let's put it into perspective. A single chest X-ray exposes a person to between 8,000 and 10,000 microrems (or 8 to 10 millirems), according to experts at Princeton University and the Department of Energy. A pack-a-day smoker exposes himself to 15,000 to 20,000 microrems of radiation a year (tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive lead and polonium). Put simply, it would take at least 3,300 body scans to reach the equivalent of one chest X-ray. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States623 Posts
From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified. | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
| ||
|
Coraz
United States252 Posts
don't you want to be strip searched illegally by the federal government without probable cause SLAVE??? edit: TSA confirmed it hired convicted child molesters and illegal immigrants to work the pornographic strip search scanners, and there's been multiple instances of TSA thugs handcuffing and intimidating women for opting out TSA staff are told to harass Americans who opt out, this is all conditioning to get us used to being treated like slaves also, they will bait-and-switch us to the scanner technology that they've already developed that doesn't give everyone cancer and no one will ever address the issue that the federal government is performing mandatory strip-searches on all American citizens without probable cause (ie. illegal) | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:23 kidcrash wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified. For the hundreds of millions being spent to maybe or maybe not save one or two people you couldn't keep a few thousand Africans alive? Utilitarian my ass. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
Where to even begin on these worthless machines? I could talk about the grand, big picture problems like giving up fundamental liberties and even the most basic levels of privacy for tiny, incremental increases in personal safety, or how these machines can be argued to be violating the 4th Amendment in the US. I could talk about the practical problems like how these machines could violate child pornography laws in many places or how these things might actually cause cancer (apparently at the same rate people die from terrorist attacks, thanks to that poster). I could talk about how the terrorists have basically won when, with no continuous effort on their behalf, so many innocent citizens are having their freedoms violated. I could talk about the ethical concerns like the I could address posts directly, after all almost everyone in this thread who have stated they're in favor of these measures have used absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments, most of which have basically boiled down to "it's this or YOUR PLANE GETS BLOWN UP BY A TERRORIST. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? FOR THE TERRORISTS TO WIN?". Then there's the dudes going "if it stops even just ONE terrorist attack!". Really guys? And then there's this guy: On November 19 2010 03:53 SharkSpider wrote: + Show Spoiler + We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad) I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that. This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles. Come on bro, in the few minutes you spent typing that up, you could've easily done the bare minimum of research on these machines or the TSA and come to the conclusion that they don't get the job done. I could go on and on about any of the practical, legal, economical, ethical, political, or philosophical reasons why these things are a bad idea, but I don't have to. Why not? Because there's one undeniable fact that prevents this from even being a debate in the first place: these machines don't work. Oh, don't take my word for it, how about the word of an Israeli airport security expert? Even the people who make these things admit they don't work. Or here's another treat for you Germans, a video proving they don't work. That's right - these things can form a pretty detailed outline of your genitals, but they're useless against anyone actually trying to blow up a plane. They wouldn't have stopped the 2005 London train bombing, or the 2006 liquid bomb attack. They wouldn't even have stopped the 2009 Christmas bomber, who had plastic explosive powder sewn into his underwear. So basically everyone trying to argue in favor of these money sinks is arguing from a completely incorrect assumption - that these things work in the first place. They don't work, and when they do, that's when we can have the real debates on how these things cause cancer and make child porn and violate the 4th Amendment. This is pretty basic stuff people, if you're going to make an argument, at least make sure the premises are true to begin with. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27172 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:23 kidcrash wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified. Exactly! In fact, why don't we get everyone naked, give them a special pill to knock them unconscious 24 hours ahead of the flight, load them onto the planes like cattle, and wake them up on the other side! It is an idea worthy of the author of your quote anyway. You can be too careful with anything. | ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
On December 27 2009 13:32 Megalisk wrote: And poo tubes..and make em all fly naked so they cant hide anything..oh and no luggage whatsoever it could have bombs.. These people are taking it to far now. | ||
|
Coraz
United States252 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:18 whiteguycash wrote: look at them after your pat down, and say "thank you" suggestively with a wink. I tell them "i'm ready to be molested" before they pat me down | ||
|
hitman133
United States1425 Posts
| ||
|
Coraz
United States252 Posts
| ||
|
Coraz
United States252 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:33 hitman133 wrote: Imagine some hot celebrities like Megan Fox, Mirranda Kerr walk through this scanner... *sigh* I wanna change my job to TSA so badly,lol Like i said, TSA already confirmed it hires convicted sex offenders edit: the first week they were in use, some guy punched his boss out for making fun of his penis he saw in the porno scanners TSA is full of thugs | ||
|
kidcrash
United States623 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:29 Romantic wrote: For the hundreds of millions being spent to maybe or maybe not save one or two people you couldn't keep a few thousand Africans alive? Utilitarian my ass. The difference is that the Airlines Industry is doing you a favor by letting you use their service. I'm not obligated to feed people in Africa. Yes I understand that it's actually the US government enforcing these rules and not the airlines. There is still a difference between a privilege and sheer altruism. Also I'm sure most utilitarians would argue that they would find other ways to feed those Africans if they could. | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
I'm pretty much for abolishing it (I laughed pretty hard on the first one though...actually I laughed hard on both of them) srs question: what if one of the TSA officers is actually a disguised/undercover terrorist -> what I think about this? LOLOMG must make all the TSA officers grope each other before "servicing" other people... (resultant cycle breaks everything) | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:35 kidcrash wrote: The difference is that the Airlines Industry is doing you a favor by letting you use their service. I'm not obligated to feed people in Africa. Yes I understand that it's actually the US government enforcing these rules and not the airlines. There is still a difference between a privilege and sheer altruism. Also I'm sure most utilitarians would argue that they would find other ways to feed those Africans if they could. So you bring up airlines and personal obligations and then admit that the government is responsible? Ok.... | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:20 wrath76 wrote: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/18/john-pistole/tsa-administrator-claims-new-body-scanners-emit-mu/ Let us explain. In preparing to deploy the scanners to airports across the country, the TSA studied the amount of radiation a person would be exposed to per scan to determine if the machines were safe. Scientists at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the effective dose per screening was 1.58 microrems of radiation, while a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, said an adult would be exposed to 2.4 microrems of radiation per scan. We understand those figures mean nothing to most people. So let's put it into perspective. A single chest X-ray exposes a person to between 8,000 and 10,000 microrems (or 8 to 10 millirems), according to experts at Princeton University and the Department of Energy. A pack-a-day smoker exposes himself to 15,000 to 20,000 microrems of radiation a year (tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive lead and polonium). Put simply, it would take at least 3,300 body scans to reach the equivalent of one chest X-ray. Quote and attribute text that you didn't author. That site offers up the FDA's rebuttal to the letter sent by the four UCSF faculty, http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm#_ftn20 The FDA references many published works, and concludes An individual would have to receive more than 1000 screenings to begin to approach the annual limit...the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use x-ray security system are miniscule....we are confident that full-body x-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health. The FDA believes the risk of health consequences to be small, but it does exist. These machines do inflict damage in small amounts. Edit: The FDA relied entirely on measurements of radiation from the machines and computer models to estimate the amount of radiation absorbed by the skin and other organs. There is no actual data on health effects, merely estimates that imply the dosage is very low. Even with the low dosage, damage still occurs. Comparisons to medical x-rays open up a weakness in the pro-scanner argument. Medical x-rays have known benefits in providing information for immediate care. Air travel has defined benefits as well. These scanners have no such defined benefit to the user or even the security personnel, since explosives and other weapons can still be hidden on or in the body, checked bags, and carry-on bags. While comparing the radiation dosage from the scanner to these other sources shows that it is a relatively low dose, it also calls attention to the lack of any positive benefit from the scanner while still causing some damage. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:20 wrath76 wrote: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/18/john-pistole/tsa-administrator-claims-new-body-scanners-emit-mu/ Let us explain. In preparing to deploy the scanners to airports across the country, the TSA studied the amount of radiation a person would be exposed to per scan to determine if the machines were safe. Scientists at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the effective dose per screening was 1.58 microrems of radiation, while a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, said an adult would be exposed to 2.4 microrems of radiation per scan. We understand those figures mean nothing to most people. So let's put it into perspective. A single chest X-ray exposes a person to between 8,000 and 10,000 microrems (or 8 to 10 millirems), according to experts at Princeton University and the Department of Energy. A pack-a-day smoker exposes himself to 15,000 to 20,000 microrems of radiation a year (tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive lead and polonium). Put simply, it would take at least 3,300 body scans to reach the equivalent of one chest X-ray. Wow, statements from the TSA administrator? Well, he's clearly an unbiased outside observer who would have a nice objective opinion on this with absolutely no stake in the topic matter at all! By the way, your post (and that article) is fundamentally wrong. Let us explain. In other ways of receiving radiation, for instance x-rays, or the constant background radiation one would be subject to when on an airplane at a high altitude, the radiation passes through or is dispersed throughout the person's whole body. These calculations of what levels of radiation would be dangerous, are made with that in mind. The specific delivery system of radiation from these machines are directed right at the top layer of the person's skin only, and is thus much more concentrated. Put simply, it's the difference between standing in sunlight and standing underneath a giant magnifying glass. | ||
|
j4ck3d
93 Posts
On November 19 2010 15:29 Krigwin wrote: I am truly astonished that anyone can actually support these incredibly expensive useless radiation machines (that is, unless you work for one of the companies that manufacture these duds). I guess some people really are willing to give away anything for the illusion of security, especially after the paranoia and fearmongering since 9/11. Where to even begin on these worthless machines? I could talk about the grand, big picture problems like giving up fundamental liberties and even the most basic levels of privacy for tiny, incremental increases in personal safety, or how these machines can be argued to be violating the 4th Amendment in the US. I could talk about the practical problems like how these machines could violate child pornography laws in many places or how these things might actually cause cancer (apparently at the same rate people die from terrorist attacks, thanks to that poster). I could talk about how the terrorists have basically won when, with no continuous effort on their behalf, so many innocent citizens are having their freedoms violated. I could talk about the ethical concerns like the I could address posts directly, after all almost everyone in this thread who have stated they're in favor of these measures have used absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments, most of which have basically boiled down to "it's this or YOUR PLANE GETS BLOWN UP BY A TERRORIST. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? FOR THE TERRORISTS TO WIN?". Then there's the dudes going "if it stops even just ONE terrorist attack!". Really guys? And then there's this guy: Come on bro, in the few minutes you spent typing that up, you could've easily done the bare minimum of research on these machines or the TSA and come to the conclusion that they don't get the job done. I could go on and on about any of the practical, legal, economical, ethical, political, or philosophical reasons why these things are a bad idea, but I don't have to. Why not? Because there's one undeniable fact that prevents this from even being a debate in the first place: these machines don't work. Oh, don't take my word for it, how about the word of an Israeli airport security expert? Even the people who make these things admit they don't work. Or here's another treat for you Germans, a video proving they don't work. That's right - these things can form a pretty detailed outline of your genitals, but they're useless against anyone actually trying to blow up a plane. They wouldn't have stopped the 2005 London train bombing, or the 2006 liquid bomb attack. They wouldn't even have stopped the 2009 Christmas bomber, who had plastic explosive powder sewn into his underwear. So basically everyone trying to argue in favor of these money sinks is arguing from a completely incorrect assumption - that these things work in the first place. They don't work, and when they do, that's when we can have the real debates on how these things cause cancer and make child porn and violate the 4th Amendment. This is pretty basic stuff people, if you're going to make an argument, at least make sure the premises are true to begin with. thank you..end of discussion...or the beginning of the end of america | ||
| ||
