Write in big letters at the top of the literature: "Please read this then pass it to the person behind you in line. Thank you."
When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
161–170 of 193 posts
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#162I 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 have to stand in front of this thing all day!" You know, I never thought about that. Considering how x-ray technicians stand behind lead guards and aren't scanning people rapid-fire all day, I wonder what the dosage the TSA folks are getting.
Well when TSA agents across the nation begin to undergo a wave of gruesome mutations, we will have our answer.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things that strike me. First, what is the back of the hand thing all about? Is it less sensitive? Is it somehow less demeaning? It doesn't make sense to me. Second, if he "made contact" and then immediately retreated...what did he make contact with? Was it clearly your junk? Or could it have been anything? How is it at all effective to do the pat down if all they do is retreat when they feel a little resistance.…
They use the back of he hand on more private areas so that the fingers are facing outwards. The idea is to prevent any kind of grabbing: perceived, actual, accidental, intentional, whatever. Edit: iPod typos
I always thought that it was because the palm of the hand was more sensitive than the back, but the finger theory is much more sensible.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
TSA will not allow staff to wear film badge dosimeters, like those regularly worn by health care workers with potential radiation exposure, Everyone is also assuming that the TSA is properly configuring and maintaining this equipment, and that it is not malfunctioning and giving overdoses.
If everything is configured properly, the dosimeters would read normal. If not, isn't it better to find out as soon as possible?
No. Imagine if a few workers were being overdosed. The TSA would get sued and they'd have to find some other way to annoy us.
No data, no lawsuit.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
edit: s/mwbs/bs/g; per comment below Well, X-rays cause cancer. BS uses X-rays So it is a cancer risk. And it is a little more founded than someone randomly saying' this causes cancer'. In terms of risk... This says dental x-rays are about 2-3 mrem: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/dental.htm This says BS is about .006-.009 mrem: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm Keep in mind that under cer…
(This doesn't take into account other real issues, like 'what if the machine breaks down and we start blasting people with focused beams of radiation'... What if my flashlight breaks down and I start blasting people with focused beams of laser light? What if my cell phone breaks down and the microwaves melt the brains of everyone within 6 feet of me? I don't know a great deal about the engineering of MWBS, but I see…
Many consumer radio-emitting devices can be configured to emit far greater power than their default. For example, hacked router firmwares enable one to boost the transmit power of their wireless router's radio to the point of burning itself out. As pointed out by another comment, the Therac gives an example of what can happen when software controls malfunction. Since these scanners aren't medical devices subject to FDA regulation, it's conceivable that hard-wired emission level safety systems were omitted in favor of a completely software-based system.
The burden of proof of safety lies with the TSA and scanner manufacturers.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#166Earlier 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…
Just to be clear, the Unabomber was the person that sent the bomb, not the coworker.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I have to stand in front of this thing all day!" You know, I never thought about that. Considering how x-ray technicians stand behind lead guards and aren't scanning people rapid-fire all day, I wonder what the dosage the TSA folks are getting.
Slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of the recent studies that revealed that nicotine in the air is actually spread nicely throughout a restaurant that has good air flow. Thus, even waiters and waitresses who opt to work in "nonsmoking" sections are still getting a decent dose of nicotine, moreso than in restaurants with bad air flow. What do people in the restaurant industry do to reduce the risks associated wit…
Restaurants deal with that by getting rid of the smoking section, which I think nearly every US state requires by law now anyway.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medical radiation machines have malfunctioned and killed people before: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/unforgivable_medic...
A laser scalpel (designed to deliver large radiation doses) can also kill someone if used improperly. Does this mean I should be afraid of a malfunctioning flashlight burning my head off? Medical radiation machines deliver 45-80 Gy. The backscattered x-ray machine delivers 1e-7 Gy, if I've got my math right. That's roughly the difference between a punch and a nuclear bomb.
Please actually read about the Therac. It was not used improperly! Software errors combined with sloppy design caused the machine to malfunction under normal use conditions, delivering the wrong dose and/or wrong type of radiation, with victims perceiving flashes of light, feeling heat from the radiation, and dying.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#169Has anyone thought of the impact of tourism. I'm in Australia and there has been a bit of a campaign to spend your holidays in California on the tv. I was deciding to take the family to Europe or the US, after hearing all the travel problems the US has - Europe here we come. I'm not the only one.
Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
You get a pretty decent radiation dose from flying around high in the atmosphere too. From what I have read the crossover point where you absorb more x-ray radiation in the flight than the scanners is about an hour and a half. See here for a bunch of things to read ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effect... ). According to this page, 42 minutes of ordinary living is sufficient to give you a sim…
According to what I've read, the energy of the radiation prevents it from penetrating deeply (indeed, the Compton effect backscatter at the surface is the whole point of it). This might sound like a good thing, but it also means that the radiation isn't "diluted" over the full mass of your body. The damaging effects will be localized to -- and concentrated within -- the skin and shallower tissues. So those organs aff…
The US Federal Code of Regulations has a section defining acceptable radiation doses for radiation workers[1]. This section places an upper limit on the shallow dose to the skin of 50 rems. To get an equivalent shallow skin dose from a backscatter machine, you would need to go through it over five and a half million times. The limits for adult members of the public are 10% of the limits for radiation workers, which would cut it down to only about 500,000 times through.
To be fair, I haven't found any studies either way on the safety or danger of the 10 C.F.R. 20 limits, probably because very few people get close to hitting the dose limits. One study I found[2] that surveyed radiation workers in three different studies concluded that the relative risk for a sustained protracted dose of 10 Rems compared to no dose is 0.99 for cancer excluding leukemia, and 1.22 for leukemias. This means, as a radiation worker, you're somewhat less likely to get a non-leukemia cancer, and about 20% more likely to get leukemia. This is for a dose that is over a million times larger than what a backscatter machine will give you. Furthermore, these risk rates are lower than what would be expected from a linear estimate based on cancer rates in atomic bomb survivors, suggesting that smaller radiation doses are safer than larger ones, and the dose these machines give you is about 200-500 times smaller than the does you're going to get on the airplane (if you're flying cross-country).
I just wanted to put in perspective that the dosage these machines put out is extremely small when compared to the dosages you might normally receive, let alone the dosage which radiation workers commonly receive. Their health effects are minimal, and if they actually contributed to the safety of passengers, I'd say they'd absolutely be worth it. The real travesty here is that they violate privacy for no real gain, not that they are in any way a significant health risk.
[1]: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/
[2]: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3579020 (JSTOR link. If you're not affiliated with an academic institution, you'll only be able to read the first page)