Someone needs to sue the TSA

[DaveinBoston]

I've watched and read different scientists talk about the low level effects of the scanner. Not one said that they were "harmful". In fact, they said that you receive more of a dosage with your cell phone.

Also, actually taking a plane trip increases the level of radiation that you are subjected to and that is now coming out as far as never having an official study done on how it effects pilots.

So before you post "cartoons" and make arguements as a statistician, get facts...

Agree strongly with all your excellent points up to here. As a statistician I'd argue that what the scan-radiation risk (very low) actually needs to be compared to is is the terrorist-attack risk (extremely low); only if the former is a lot lower than the latter does the scanning even theoretically improve one's safety.

The following (pretty funny) cartoon includes the point that the risks are about the same, so scanning can't actually be of any safety benefit. Who actually benefits (following the money) are people like Michael Chertoff, Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security, among whose clients now are Rapiscan (maker of one brand of scanners). So the people who think this increases security have, as usual, been duped.

[trish]

Agree strongly with all your excellent points up to here. As a statistician I'd argue that what the scan-radiation risk (very low) actually needs to be compared to is is the terrorist-attack risk (extremely low); only if the former is a lot lower than the latter does the scanning even theoretically improve one's safety.

Hi Scroller. I see your point, which the clip also makes very amusingly. From the point of view of a single individual you have a sound argument; i.e. If the increased probability of me getting cancer isn't balanced by a decrease in the probability of me dying from a terrorist attack, then there's no point in me taking the cancer risk.
On the other hand, the risk/benefit analysis for the nation needs to consider the probable rise of economic costs due to increased cases of cancer and ask if those are balanced by a decrease in the risk of catastrophic economic loss (of the sort I outlined in my last post) due to terrorist attacks. (Here I'm being the asshole TSA agent behind the counter repeating "9/11" )
I have to admit, my mind is really unsettled on this issue. My inclination is to side with those protesting that the scanning and "groping" is a violation of personal privacy which should be protected by the Constitution. But I also see that after a decade the 9/11 attacks are still exacting an exorbitant cost: lives lost in the attack and the wars that followed, trillions of dollars to fight those continued wars, political upheaval at home and the attention and money spent on homeland security.
I can't decide if the enormity of those costs weighted by their probability of re-occurrence has the same order of magnitude as violating the privacy of hundreds of thousands of air-travelers everyday weighted by the probability that the violation will be effective in evading a disaster.

[giovanni_hotel]

What bothers me most about the TSA scanners is the technology was innovated by outside contractors to develop a product to sell to the Federal government, and the issue of improving airline travel safety wasn't the first priority, over even the 2nd or 3rd.

Homeland security should initially define ON THEIR OWN what are the best methods to improve airline safety and prevent future terrorist attacks, then seek private contracts, if required, to execute that mission.

Security companies should not be 'selling' a product to the U.S. government; the Feds should always be the 'buyer' based upon explicitly stated requirements.

This is the game being played by former Fed employees like Chertoff who then leave to work for private contractors; devising plans on how to fleece the U.S. taxpayer to buy something they may or may not need.

Because the U.S. government was solicited by a 'seller' and was not the active 'buyer', I question the effectiveness of these scanners long term.

Basically, we should look and see what Israel is doing to secure their commercial air travel, and copy them.

The best way to really prevent a future attack is in the early planning stages, by breaking up cells and identifying operatives, not hoping to catch someone during the final deployment of suicide bombers or explosive packages.

BTW, all foreigners and resident aliens of Middle Eastern descent or from Islamic countries traveling to and from the U.S. should be subject to enhanced security profiling and screening.

Until the Muslim world finally puts an end to religious extremism and anti-Western hatred/propaganda, they should ALL be treated as 'suspicious', IMO.

EDIT: Why does the scanning image need to be this detailed?? Americans are prudes anyway, do we really need a scan that shows a woman's areola/nipples??

[BellaBellucci]

Who's forcing you into a machine that irradiates your body? Were you dragged from your apartment and thrown into an xray machine?

OR.....

Did you willfully buy an airline ticket allowing you access to a jet owned by a private entity, who's subjecting you to certain steps to fly on that PRIVATELY OWNED PLANE???

You mean a privately owned plane in a quasi-public airport where the screening is conducted by officials who are not employees of that airline or the airport at a time when air travel is already on the decline. That means that despite the industry being in trouble, the government is making it harder to fly. And really? Must I be forced back into the stone age by taking a prohibitively less convenient mode of transportation as the only alternative to participating in an Orwellian experiment? Yet cargo (again) is our weakest link. They can X-ray inanimate objects all they like but they don't; instead they electronically strip search us. Come on with that. People depend on air travel and most dangerous things that get onto a plane are in luggage or cardboard boxes.

So question: if they had a way to require you to go through a bio-metric scan every time you got behind the wheel, would your argument be that people should walk? Really? So instead of taking that energy and fighting for our rights, you expect us to just give it away to the government instead just because you choose too? Sounds pretty selfish to me. Don't even get me started on the 5th Amendment implications possible if law enforcement ever points to airline security as a precedent to determine what is a reasonable search. Pretty soon they'll be able to strip search anyone they like.

Do you also like Obamacare? TARP? Do you drive a 'Government Motors' automobile?

I might be 25 more likely to be struct by lightening but if walking through a scanner lessened that chance.... move over... Im in line first.

I'm sorry, this may come off as personal, but I find it disgusting that anybody would submit themselves to that level or scrutiny just to lower the odds of being injured when those odds are already at 1:500,000. You have a greater chance of having an autistic child (1:150), and really, how many of those do you know well?

I love your rationalization:

You: People blow themselves up making meth.
Me: What does that have to do with planes being used as weapons?

That's exactly my point! What do full body scans have to do with lowering the chances that someone will bring a non-metallic agent that can't fit into a body cavity onto a plane when, again, if it reaches the security line it's already too late? Makes no sense, does it?

So again I ask, because people are blowing themselves up making meth, should we ban cigarette lighters? Of course not. Your argument that my argument is ridiculous... is ridiculous.

You: People die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars?
Me: STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS limit how you drive cars. Speed limits, Age, drinking and driving ect.... is that the government taking away your rights at driving fast or your ability to consume alcohol and monitor yourself being an adult?

Oh, you mean the arbitrary speed limits that dull our driving skills? There are no speed limits in most of Europe and far fewer highway fatalities. Do you know why? Because personal responsibility makes Europeans better drivers overall. And alcohol? OMG! The effects of alcohol vary by the person. I know plenty of people who could run a Gran Prix at .08 and plenty who couldn't ride a bike at .02. I mean you're talking to a girl who comes from the only state in the country that doesn't require auto insurance. I don't agree with it, but I took advantage on occasion when I was living there. Do you think that state's roads have descended into chaos? Of course not. Extra points if you can name the state.

Furthermore, how come people are not supposed to discriminate against other people based on their experiences, but the government can discriminate against every person based on nothing other than arguable statistics. I mean, hell, if you want to go there, what's Constitutional about our drug policy? Not a DAMN thing.

You: even the pilots union is against them
Me: Ummm.. I saw the interview with Sullenberger. Pilots are against them for themselves because they would have to go through the scanner more than anyone and many pilots are already deputized to defend the flight deck and carry firearms on board.

That's irrelevant. They're against the scanners for everyone, not just pilots.

You: Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines
Me: I love the fact that you tune into the thought processes of these guys.. epecially knowing that they.... with the exception of John Adams all owned slaves... many of them... while they were President of the United States. 4 of the first 5 President... OWNED SLAVES.

But in your mind... they would have outlawed x-ray machines... but to them...and apparently you if you trust their judgement 100%, enslaving another human being was ok??????

It was accepted practice at the time that we all now know is wrong. Full body scanners are accepted by many people too... see where I'm going with this? The Founders did not have the political clout to shake up the status quo enough to provide everyone with the same freedoms in their time, hence their foresight dictated that the Constitution be a sort of wish list. Even though everyone didn't have equal rights back then, they worded the Bill of Rights in such a way that eventually they would have to, and in fact we did extend those rights to everyone.

'Hypocritical?' Try 'idealistic.'

How about transsexuals? Do you think they would have welcomed you with open arms or treated you as a freak in women's clothes banning you to the woodshed or worse?

I could keep going with your brilliant comments but I'll let it rest there...

Are you kidding? These were guys who pranced around in powdered wigs, makeup, and ruffles, sometimes even on the battlefield. Again, please spare me the historical relativism. If you have such a problem with how much things have changed since the beginning of our nation, please do try your hand at re-writing the Constitution.

Rapiscan (maker of one brand of scanners)

And the most ironic name of a corporation in the history of history is...

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

**ALERT: Rep. Ron Paul has introduced H.R. 6416: The American Traveler Dignity Act in Congress.**
Please ask your U.S. Representative to be a co-sponsor on this important legislation. As Rep. Paul says:
"My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us."

http://www.optoutday.com/

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

All you are doing it limiting what the TSA can do... what's your big solution to make the planes safer Mr Paul?

Goddamn it...


CARGO SCREENING AND INTELLIGENCE OPS!

WTF?!

~BB~

[scroller]

I've watched and read different scientists talk about the low level effects of the scanner. Not one said that they were "harmful". In fact, they said that you receive more of a dosage with your cell phone...

So before you post "cartoons" and make arguements as a statistician, get facts...

Here are facts. "Back in May, professors at the University of California, San Francisco, led by John Sedat sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration with a litany of red flags about using back-scatter X-ray with such frequency— mostly that the safety has not be independently proven."

The low-energy rays do a “Compton scatter” off tissue layers just under the skin, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation. When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn’t shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is “likely breaking bonds,” which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer.

“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,” says Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine…. “No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...y-x-ray-scans/

[P.S. "arguments", not "arguements"]

[DaveinBoston]

Goddamn it...


CARGO SCREENING AND INTELLIGENCE OPS!

WTF?!

~BB~

Cargo screening and Intelligence operations have been in existence from before 9-11... people have still gotten on planes with weapons.

You next suggestion?

[BellaBellucci]

Cargo screening and Intelligence operations have been in existence from before 9-11... people have still gotten on planes with weapons.

You next suggestion?

Seriously? It's a big world with lots of terror activity going on and you can't catch everyone, not even if you body scanned every human on Earth. So again (because you're not thinking out this argument, you're feeling it), if the current special operations stop 99.9% of terrorism and the TSA stops none at all, what's the point of any of this nonsense?

~BB~

[DaveinBoston]

I can post studies that say they arent harmful.... and it proves what?

If there is an safety issue regarding the use of these then I am in agreement that they shouldnt be used. Plain and simple.

Bella's logic and pissing and moaning about her civil liberties being violated is absurb at best.

Here are facts. "Back in May, professors at the University of California, San Francisco, led by John Sedat sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration with a litany of red flags about using back-scatter X-ray with such frequency— mostly that the safety has not be independently proven."





http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...y-x-ray-scans/

[P.S. "arguments", not "arguements"]