Earlier quoted context omitted.
Airforce-1 doesn't have this.
Nor do any private plane terminals for that matter, international and domestic. You own or charter a plane - you are TSA-free.
For now? I wonder.
When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
151–160 of 193 posts
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#152Two interesting excerpts from the Backscatter X-ray wikipedia page: The national radiation safety standard (see below) sets a dose per screening limit for the general-use category. To meet the requirements of the general-use category a full-body x-ray security system must deliver less than the dose a person receives during 4 minutes of airline flight. TSA has set their dose limit to ensure a person receives less radi…
Good find, especially the second paragraph, thanks.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a theoretical concern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
Therac was designed to send a concentrated beam of radiation into somebody. That was the machine's purpose. Are the scanners designed or even capable of doing the same?
You're playing the role of skeptic, but you're not going far enough. How would I actually answer that question? You could have said the same thing about the Therac; of course it can't blast that much radiation, there's no good reason for it. Yet, here we are.
What evidence do you have that it is actually not possible for the machines to dangerously malfunction, and how much confidence can actually be placed in it? Those telling us it is safe don't have entirely clean hands on the topic, they've lied about other things like picture retention policies and capabilities before.
You're making an appeal to incredulity. I would not actually be that incredulous to discover that the machines do indeed have some sort of flaw that would permit them to blast out more radiation than intended. After all, it's happened before. That said, I don't necessarily consider it likely, either, what I find far more problematic is that this is merely one consistent piece in a larger puzzle of unconcern about the real safety of the public.
For the same reasons we ought to be able to examine our voting machines, we ought to be able to examine these machines.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not forced to use a cell phone in order to fly. The radiation from the phone is not concentrated and directed at your entire body. It's a different frequency and intensity. A lot more time has been spent studying the dangers of RF from consumer phones than the dangers of these new machines based on medical devices that require lead clothing or lead walls for safe use. You're also exposed to a variety of radiat…
I could be wrong here, but I believe hfinney was referring to the footnote about how people claim "X causes cancer" because they're against X, not because of evidence. Opponents of cell phones/power lines have frequently claimed they cause cancer, thus making it another valid example for the footnote, because their claims are untrue.
Right, although the NY Times on Saturday claimed the jury is still out on cell phones:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html
OTOH apparently there is evidence that cell phones actually prevent cancer, so go figure.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, firstly, the fact that the TSA employee didn't challenge that statement tells me that either that employee isn't properly informed or he/she knows more than what is publicly known. I'm gonna go on a limb and say it's the former rather than latter. Secondly, it shouldn't be a question of whether the machine is x-ray or millimeter wave. Both of those emit radiation and until there's definitive proof that one or b…
We actually have a very good idea how much damage x-rays and millimeter waves do to the human body, since we've been dealing with both technologically for many years. Because x-rays are used in medical devices that have to be approved by the FDA, we've developed some very good ideas about what sort of doses are harmful and which aren't. The damage done by the x-ray scans used by the TSA do indeed produce damage, meas…
You've made the mistake of fighting fear, emo-drama & crusade/martyr psychology, with evidence, facts and logic. In any such fight, the latter tends to lose. :)
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could stand next to them all day and it would still be less than 1% of your daily radiation dose from cosmic rays. More importantly, for argument's sake, it would be much less than the amount of additional radiation you pick up on a standard flight.
I know, but I still don't want unnecessary radiation.
stay out of sunlight. don't eat bananas. don't use cellphones. don't stare into a computer screen. don't have a WiFi network in your house/office. and probably don't have a microwave oven either, just to be safe. Because none of those things are necessary. ;)
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#157I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…
this almost reads like one of those gopher text-porn stories pre-web.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#158I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…
I suspect you may have received the old "mild" patdown and not the new "enhanced" one. I think the new one uses the front of the hand.
The guy in San Diego who refused the patdown a couple days ago now has the TSA claiming he was only going to get the old one:
"Aguilar says that Tyner was facing nothing more than the traditional pat-down that TSA has used for some time, and not a more aggressive body search in effect since late October."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-sca...
If this is true then patdownees are not yet experiencing the real thing in some locations.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor as a coping mechanism.
In The Gift of Fear , Gavin de Becker talks about how, as a security consultant, he takes offhand jokes very seriously. He tells the story about the office which received an odd-looking package that nobody was expecting. They debated whether to open it. Eventually one guy decided to open it, so his coworker left the room. As the coworker was leaving, he made an offhand joke over his shoulder: "I'm going to stand in t…
I had to look up the story Gavin de Becker was quoting, I never heard it before but it was the Unabomber. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-09/news/mn-22130_1_suspi...
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe he was intentionally using hyperbole there. For example, if he were being literal, why would he mention "firing" anyone, since he obviously can't actually do that?
It doesn't matter. It says something about him regardless. It says something about the snobbishness here too that nobody else thinks its even noteworthy.
Sorry--I'm not trying to be condescending here, but, are you familiar with what exaggeration really means?