National Opt Out of the Airport Scanners Day

[Devil's Advocate]

And your suggestion for alternative corrective action on the part of the citizenry is...?

Something like what this guy is doing. Tons of publicity, no innocent bystanders inconvenienced. It'll be interesting to see if the threatened civil penalties develop.

Your suggestion is for the citizenry to risk incarceration and/or civil penalties that could reach ten grand or more? I tend to avoid suggesting other people do something I myself would never do. Sounds more than a little disingenuous if you don't mind my saying so. I don't mind suggesting (or participating in) the November 24th event because it's completely legal if done with the slightest bit of care and forethought and won't result in expensive, tedious and potentially career-altering prosecutions that vastly dwarf the seriousness of the original problem.

And a lot of the irritated people are going to be very turned off and will come out against the protesters and their issue because of it.

There will always be millions of proudly ignorant people who intentionally confuse the messenger with the problem and will do everything they can to ensure no good deed will ever go unpunished. The only part I don't understand is why we should care what the sheeple think. That's like trying to explain to a child why they need a vaccination shot. Sometimes you just have to force the solution on them and let them think whatever they want about it.

 

[Ryan]

And your suggestion for alternative corrective action on the part of the citizenry is...?

Something like what this guy is doing. Tons of publicity, no innocent bystanders inconvenienced. It'll be interesting to see if the threatened civil penalties develop.

Your suggestion is for the citizenry to risk incarceration and/or civil penalties that could reach ten grand or more? I tend to avoid suggesting other people do something I myself would never do. I don't mind suggesting (or participating in) the November 24th event because it's completely legal if done with the slightest bit of care and forethought and won't result in expensive, tedious and potentially career-altering prosecutions that vastly dwarf the seriousness of the original problem.

That's pretty damn selfish. You've got no problem screwing over your fellow man (and gaining nothing in the process), but God forbid that you take a risk that could end badly for yourself (but may actually get the problem in front of a judge where the problem can be rectified).
That's a real courageous stand you're talking about taking there.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

That's pretty damn selfish. You've got no problem screwing over your fellow man (and gaining nothing in the process), but God forbid that you take a risk that could end badly for yourself (but may actually get the problem in front of a judge where the problem can be rectified). That's a real courageous stand you're talking about taking there.

You're a real piece of work there Ryan, seriously, all I can do is laugh at your endless feigned confusion and blatant hypocrisy. Lets hope nobody sees you as any sort of role model for how citizens should act.

 

[Ryan]

And again, when you have to substance to respond with, you resort to the content free personal attack. Try arguing how you think that pissing people off is going to work better at getting this crap repealed then getting the subject in front of a judge that can actually do something. Or, if you'd prefer to continue this stupid little personal feud that you can't seem to resist, try pointing out anything confusing or hypocritical that I've said in this thread.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You're not even worth the trouble Ryan. I've yet to see you make one substantive post. Your only point seems to be wasting the time of people who actually care about this issue.

 

[AlanB]

The only way that things will get changed is if enough Americans protest about the policies to the Congress Reps. If Thanksgiving Wednesday goes down like I think it will, the only thing that the average pissed off American who missed their flight is going to be doing is protesting the idiots who thought that picking the day before a huge American, family orientated holiday for their stunt was a good idea.

They won't be calling their Congressman about the issues with the pat downs or the scanners. If they call their Congressmen at all it will be to advocate for more TSA workers and more machines to get the job done next year so that they don't miss their holiday or to have the fools prosecuted for their stunt.

One doesn't shoot oneself in the foot to prove that guns can be dangerous.

There are much better ways and days to get the message out to the people to get them to call their Congressmen. This isn’t one of those ways/days.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

http://portal.wowway.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9JGR85G1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018

even employees don't like it.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The only way that things will get changed is if enough Americans protest about the policies to the Congress Reps.

That sounds good, but when was the last time you actually saw average Americans banding together and standing up for the enforced protection of our civil liberties? The 1960's? That era is long forgotten my friend. As a whole, generation X and Y have shown little interest in civil activism, let alone the massive and sustained movement that would be necessary to push the TSA around. Today we live in the era of the Guinea pig. Citizens who have no concern over being repeatedly irradiated or groped. Which is just as well I suppose, it's their life after all. But the flip side of that comatose existence is that they may inadvertently become pawns in a game played by people who think outside the cage.

 

[George Harris]

Here is what the Fourth Ammendment actually says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

My personal opinion is that these searches violate the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and that because one person may decide to do something dangerous the government has chosen to require hundreds of thousands of people to be subjected to an intimate search is unreasonable. These searches also have the air of being considered guilty until proven innocent, which is also contrary to the constitution. That is to say, where is the probable cause?

The key question is whether or not we can get a series of judges to think that way, probably all the way up to the supreme court.

 

[Ryan]

You're not even worth the trouble Ryan. I've yet to see you make one substantive post. Your only point seems to be wasting the time of people who actually care about this issue.

I'll take that as a "No, you haven't said anything confusing or hypocritical, I'm just trying to deflect attention from your point since you're absolutely right, but I can't admit that."

My personal opinion is that these searches violate the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and that because one person may decide to do something dangerous the government has chosen to require hundreds of thousands of people to be subjected to an intimate search is unreasonable.

Except for the government hasn't required it - you're perfectly welcome to avoid the search by not flying. I guess the question for the judge is going to hinge on if it's unreasonable to expect that people not fly in this day and age (which I think could really go either way).

 

[Ryan]

Here's an interesting article that raises some good points on the medical/safety side of these scanners:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/fda-sidesteps-safety-concerns-over-tsa-body-scanners.ars

 

[AlanB]

My personal opinion is that these searches violate the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" and that because one person may decide to do something dangerous the government has chosen to require hundreds of thousands of people to be subjected to an intimate search is unreasonable.

Except for the government hasn't required it - you're perfectly welcome to avoid the search by not flying. I guess the question for the judge is going to hinge on if it's unreasonable to expect that people not fly in this day and age (which I think could really go either way).

And that is precisely the key Ryan, the Government didn't walk up to you and say "you have to get into this scanner or submit to the pat down because that's what I want." You brought a ticket! No one forced you to buy that ticket! It was your choice and by making that choice to buy that ticket, you gave you consent to the searches.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Gov't agencies not only can save scanned images, they already are.

"While federal agencies have defended body scanning that looks under your clothes by saying the images are disposed of immediately, that turns out to not be the case at all."

Link to story.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

I thought that with the scanners they gave you a metal plate or something to stick over your family jewels so it didn't show up on the scanner.

 

[Anderson]

The question of whether it's reasonable to expect one to avoid flying or not is a tough one, and ultimately, it depends. In some regions, I'd say yes: The NEC leaps to mind (as does most everything north of DC...it's either drivable or you can catch a train with some flexibility in your schedule, and if you're taking a plane from DC to NYC and complaining about this, I'm going to look at you funny...you've got something like 40-50 trains a day on that route, and the NYC airports are far enough from the city center that you're probably not even saving time vs. the Acela). So do some parts of the Midwest, California, etc.

However, there are some areas where it's simply not a workable proposition: Las Vegas is tough to reach (believe me, I looked into it once), Nashville doesn't even have connecting bus service, and so on. Also, if you're traveling from, say, Chicago to LA...yeah, I think you've got a fair claim that anything but air travel is impractical in terms of the time involved, let alone the cost in some cases (a month out, net of food, New York to San Fransisco is $250-$350 and takes three days...one way. NYC-LA is marginally better at $200...but again, this is net of food and is one way). Even under generous cost assumptions as far as food goes, you're looking at spending at least twice what a competitive round trip airfare would run and taking a week for the round trip. Greyhound is at least competitive with the airlines in terms of cost...but again, you're looking at a week on the road, and on some schedules you've got 12 hours or more without a listed food stop.

So...it's a mixed situation. Sometimes it is reasonable to expect someone to not fly, sometimes it's not reasonable to expect it. Mind you, none of this gets into international travel or Alaska/Hawaii travel (if you've got to go to one or the other for some reason, I'd submit that non-airline alternatives do not exist in practical terms, particularly over the winter in the case of Alaska...and any time in the case of Hawaii).

 

[MrFSS]

US insists full-body airport scanners are safe, saying machines give off minuscule radiation

By LINDSEY TANNER

AP Medical Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist.

As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.

FULL STORY

 

[PetalumaLoco]

US insists full-body airport scanners are safe, saying machines give off minuscule radiation

By LINDSEY TANNER

AP Medical Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist.

As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.

FULL STORY

Having received many CT scans the last few years fighting cancer, there IS NO safe dose for me. Also, if it's "ok", why are pilots complaining about it?

Not directed against you MrFSS, just my feelings on how this is being handled.

 

[leemell]

Gov't agencies not only can save scanned images, they already are.

"While federal agencies have defended body scanning that looks under your clothes by saying the images are disposed of immediately, that turns out to not be the case at all."

Link to story.

You know, of couse, that this is about the US Marshalls Service and that they have a totally different charge, mission, rules, and procedures. They are law enforcement, not security, that are also in the Department of Justice and not in the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

Gov't agencies not only can save scanned images, they already are.

"While federal agencies have defended body scanning that looks under your clothes by saying the images are disposed of immediately, that turns out to not be the case at all."

Link to story.

You know, of couse, that this is about the US Marshalls Service and that they have a totally different charge, mission, rules, and procedures. They are law enforcement, not security, that are also in the Department of Justice and not in the Department of Homeland Security.

Yes, the point being that they were also charged with not saving the images.

 

[leemell]

US insists full-body airport scanners are safe, saying machines give off minuscule radiation

By LINDSEY TANNER

AP Medical Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist.

As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.

FULL STORY

Having received many CT scans the last few years fighting cancer, there IS NO safe dose for me. Also, if it's "ok", why are pilots complaining about it?

Not directed against you MrFSS, just my feelings on how this is being handled.

Well, here is another report that should set some context:

"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

"Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

CT scans are not the trivial amounts of radiation Americans seem to think they are. In any case, until we have independent analysis of these new scanners I don't see how we're supposed to ascertain their potential for risk among such a large number of routine travelers. Many questions with few independently studied answers leaves me wanting more studies and information before we write off any chance of long-term risk.

 

[leemell]

CT scans are not the trivial amounts of radiation Americans seem to think they are. In any case, until we have independent analysis of these new scanners I don't see how we're supposed to ascertain their potential for risk among such a large number of routine travelers. Many questions with few independently studied answers leaves me wanting more studies and information before we write off any chance of long-term risk.

I cannot quote the source, but just read that the dosage from an ordinary chest x-ray is equivalent to 5000 backscatter x-ray scans. That puts the CT scan at 4 times the chest x-ray. Those numbers seem to be the right order of magnitude.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

US insists full-body airport scanners are safe, saying machines give off minuscule radiation

By LINDSEY TANNER

AP Medical Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist.

As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.

FULL STORY

Having received many CT scans the last few years fighting cancer, there IS NO safe dose for me. Also, if it's "ok", why are pilots complaining about it?

Not directed against you MrFSS, just my feelings on how this is being handled.

Well, here is another report that should set some context:

"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

"Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said.

OK, we'll let my experts duke it out with your experts. Meanwhile, I won't step into a backscatter scanner while they figure out who's right.

 

[leemell]

CT scans are not the trivial amounts of radiation Americans seem to think they are. In any case, until we have independent analysis of these new scanners I don't see how we're supposed to ascertain their potential for risk among such a large number of routine travelers. Many questions with few independently studied answers leaves me wanting more studies and information before we write off any chance of long-term risk.

Here is a couple, one is independent of the TSA:

"The Health Physics Society (HPS) ( http://www.hps.org/) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (or 0.05 μSv) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.009 mrems (0.09 μSv).[9] According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure". (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm)

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I cannot quote the source, but just read that the dosage from an ordinary chest x-ray is equivalent to 5000 backscatter x-ray scans. That puts the CT scan at 4 times the chest x-ray. Those numbers seem to be the right order of magnitude.

The last time I looked it up full abdominal CT scans generally resulted in dosages hundreds of times that of a conventional chest x-ray. Of course there are many variables in that equation that we have yet to touch on. Whatever we're willing to call a "safe" dose of radiation is a matter of debate even among the experts and varies both by subject and by point of exposure. As these scans are being applied indiscriminately to a very large population of subjects I find it concerning, especially with regard to children and those who have received higher-than-average exposure to other radiation sources. Remember we don't have controlled studies to show us how much radiation a child or a baby can receive before it does any harm, largely because those studies would be illegal and immoral. So we make a guess and hope for the best, but it's not something we should assume is a fully known quantity. It doesn't sound as though you have a dog in this race, and yet you appear rather adamant that we stop questioning the objectivity and veracity of the little information the TSA is willing to give us.