Children Being Strip-Scanned At Airports

[ThePenciledOne]

If children don't even get exemption, why would a society that condones abortion give a pregnant woman a pass?

[Lounge Daddy]

Many members of the political class will get a pass though. Because they see laws as something for them to pass[i] against you [/i]and me. Which is part of the problem here -- they don't feel the sting of consequence for their own actions anymore.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='21 July 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1279728016' post='2145916']
A few thoughts on that.

[img]http://whereismydata.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/body-scan.jpg[/img]

1 - I think it's very revealing. That little lead strip on this pic is all that is covering the man's genitals. And I doubt that do that for every passenger. (And speaking of lead -- I doubt these things are safe. I mean, if you go to the dentist, they throw a huge apron over you. And that's only for your teeth.)

[/quote]
Do we know how much radiation this exposes a person to? I'm just curious if we're allowed to know this information (and interested in how much it actually is).

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='MissScripture' date='21 July 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1279750849' post='2146153']
Do we know how much radiation this exposes a person to? I'm just curious if we're allowed to know this information (and interested in how much it actually is).
[/quote]

From what I am reading, they don't know for sure ... of course. (And I am rolling my eyes as hard as I can.) The US Government is saying one thing, that it's ok.

But recently, a team of scientists in Europe are looking at these scanners, and saying that they deliver a dose of radiation that's "[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html"]up to 20 times higher than first estimated[/url]."

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='21 July 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1279752668' post='2146162']
The US Government is saying one thing, that it's ok.
[/quote]

Of course!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MissScripture' date='21 July 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1279750849' post='2146153']
Do we know how much radiation this exposes a person to? I'm just curious if we're allowed to know this information (and interested in how much it actually is).
[/quote]
More than I'm comfortable with.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 July 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1279769836' post='2146229']
More than I'm comfortable with.
[/quote]
Yeah...and I was thinking about people who have to be conscious about how much radiation they are exposed to (i.e. radiologists, rad techs, etc.). Plus, what about the radiation it exposes people to just having to be around it? I mean, are the operators of the scanners covered in lead?

I find this all really interesting right now, because I'm taking a class on radiology right now, and we're pretty much being taught that in addition to being really expensive, avoid the radiation if at all possible for the patient's sake!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MissScripture' date='21 July 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1279770539' post='2146232']
Yeah...and I was thinking about people who have to be conscious about how much radiation they are exposed to (i.e. radiologists, rad techs, etc.). Plus, what about the radiation it exposes people to just having to be around it? I mean, are the operators of the scanners covered in lead?

I find this all really interesting right now, because I'm taking a class on radiology right now, and we're pretty much being taught that in addition to being really expensive, avoid the radiation if at all possible for the patient's sake!
[/quote]
Even my GI doctor was saying a month or two ago to avoid MRIs if at all possible because medical professionals are starting to worry about the long term effects on younger people.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 July 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1279771097' post='2146233']
Even my GI doctor was saying a month or two ago to avoid MRIs if at all possible because medical professionals are starting to worry about the long term effects on younger people.
[/quote]

Yeah, when it comes right down to it, there's a lot more we don't know than we do know, but people in charge like to pretend otherwise.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='21 July 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1279728016' post='2145916']
A few thoughts on that.

[img]http://whereismydata.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/body-scan.jpg[/img]

1 - I think it's very revealing. That little lead strip on this pic is all that is covering the man's genitals. And I doubt that do that for every passenger. (And speaking of lead -- I doubt these things are safe. I mean, if you go to the dentist, they throw a huge apron over you. And that's only for your teeth.)[/quote][quote name='MissScripture' date='21 July 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1279750849' post='2146153']
Do we know how much radiation this exposes a person to? I'm just curious if we're allowed to know this information (and interested in how much it actually is).
[/quote]
1a. From what I understand, the Daily Mail is widely considered as a poor-to-fair excuse for paper towels, and an even worse excuse for journalism. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. The article linked (About the estimated exposure) is certainly not great press. There is little actual detail given (20x estimate...alright...but it never mentions what the estimate was), plus the headline is one notch above 'midly sensational' ("Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert").
1b. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the full body x-ray is three...no, make it four times the exposure of your standard chest x-ray. That will add up to a total of 40 mrem (= 10 mrem per chest x-ray[sup]1[/sup] x 4). So let's go wild (and that truly is wild...I'll explain presently) and say that that figure is what we'll run with. If nothing else, that will allow us to have greater peace of mind about the 4 mrem that we'll be receiving during our average four hour cross-country flight.
Luckily for us, though, I've finally found an estimate of the radiation dose that you'll be receiving:
[quote]TSA spokeswoman Kristin Lee says the machines that use high-speed X-rays emit a very low dose of radiation, equal to the amount received from the environment during two minutes in flight.[sup]2[/sup]
[/quote]

Let's do a shade more math. If we get four mrems from a four hour flight, that comes down to one mrem per hour...or 1/30 of an mrem every two minutes. So even if the real figure is "twenty times" that, that comes to 20/30=2/3 of one mrem per scan. That's about 6 2/3% of a regular chest x-ray. That's am extremely minute dose of radiation.

Now, according to my source from the University of Iowa, we each receive between 300 to 350 mrem of background radiation per year (not from things like our dentist visits or our airline flights, and so forth, just simply from the naturally occurring universe), with little bits more from things like using natural gas (some 9 mrem/year thanks to the naturally occuring radon) and even more if you're a heavy smoker (where, by smoking 1.5 packs a day, you can receive up to a whopping 1,300 mrem/year thanks to the lovely stuff that those things are full of...but then again, if you're sucking all of the stuff in those death sticks into your lungs, you're probably not all that concerned about your general well-being). Further, [quote]Studies have not found increases in cancer in populations who received doses less than 100,000 mrem (especially when the radiation dose was delivered over a lifetime).[sup]1[/sup][/quote]
So in order to have any - any, at all - significant increase in cancer risk, by some means or another, you could have to about triple your yearly radiation intake (assuming an average of 333 mrem/year x 3= 1000 mrem/year...and that's assuming that we're all going to live to be 100 years old...and even still, that only puts us just right at the limit). Sorry folks, but you can sleep easy knowing that, no matter your other fears or concerns about the subject, these scanners are not going to make you develop a third eye (or a tumor).

(As an aside, I had a fluoroscopic procedure done some 18 months ago. The scan lasted about four minutes. For those unfamiliar, the difference between a typical x-ray and a fluoroscopic scan is that of a still photograph to a moving video. This of course has obvious benefits, such as seeing dynamic organs accomplish their intended tasks (I had an upper GI/barium swallow done, so the radiologist could check for any problems with my stomach, as it was 'working' as it were, in real time.). The radiation dose, though, is much higher. During those four minutes, I received about 50 mGy total over those four minutes, which comes out to a dose of (1 mGy = 100 mrem) 5,000 mrem - well over my typical dose for the year, but still much, [i]much[/i] less than the threshold for radiation skin injury (2Gy/2,000 mGy/200,000 mrem - which still is unlikely )[sup]3[/sup], plus it was necessary, and here's the gravy - I'm still alive, kicking, and cancer-free.).

[quote]
3 - This is done without parental consent. [/quote]
There is an implicit consent, when you purchase a ticket for your child, that he will be subjected to any and all security procedures deemed necessary.
[quote]
5 - Look how far this went in less than a decade. We went from a place where pat-downs were invasive, and rare, to men with guns doing strip-scans of our children. And you know it will keep getting more invasive, more detailed, and more frequent ... until we have had enough. [/quote]
Do you really consider it valid to compare the security procedures in place today today with those that we had before 9/11?
[quote]

Liberty in exchange for security leaves We The People with neither.
[/quote]
Alright, here's the thing. You're not being strip searched or sent through one of these things while you're walking to the market or mowing your lawn. Air travel is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. When you step into the airport, you're temporarily forfeiting certain rights in exchange for fast, convenient, and safe transportation. If you dislike that, take the Greyhound or Amtrak, or drive.
I mean, look. I am a small-statist. I don't like the federal government very much. I'm highly superstitious and critical of the current administration. I find the TSA to be a largely-useless and "for display only" organization. However, I will gladly suspend some of my rights temporarily so that some bomb-, gun-, knife-, or nunchuck-yielding radical has even the most marginally lower chance of getting the NTSB to send my mother my remains in an Altoids tin.
When I start getting "harassed" when trying to drive on the Interstate - an infrastructure paid for by everyone's taxes and one which every US citizen is entitled to use - then you'll hear me make a fuss.
But over this? No, I have bigger issues.




[sup]1 - http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medicaldepartments/cancercenter/prevention/preventionradiation.html[/sup]
[sup]2 - http://travel.usatoday.com/news/2010-07-13-bodyscans13_ST_N.htm[/sup]
[sup]3 - http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/21/4/1033/T6.expansion.html[/sup]

Edited July 22, 2010 by USAirwaysIHS

[ThePenciledOne]

USAirwaysIHS,

I don't mean to be simplistic right now, but it is late, but just a quick question, I thought airports were a part of the private sector to an extent since its capitalism? So, why has the government gotten so involved? I mean, besides the obvious reason of homeland security.

I dunno I just thought air travel was part of transportation.....just a thought.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='22 July 2010 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1279778537' post='2146260']
USAirwaysIHS,

I don't mean to be simplistic right now, but it is late, but just a quick question, I thought airports were a part of the private sector to an extent since its capitalism? So, why has the government gotten so involved? I mean, besides the obvious reason of homeland security.

I dunno I just thought air travel was part of transportation.....just a thought.
[/quote]
I've thought similar things in the past. It's a tricky situation, because although airlines are private sector, every Part 139 commercial airport (as far as I know) in the US is owned by the government/the people (typically they're owned by the city, county, or state, or some subsidiary organisation thereof (i.e., here in Jacksonville, JAX (as well as CRG, VQQ, and HEG - smaller airports in the area) is owned by the Jacksonville Aviation Authority, a component of the state government). So since the airport is owned and funded by the state legislature, which is in turn funded by the federal government, I guess they have domain over it (think implementation of the TSA). Now since I'm in favour of a smaller federal government, I think that ideally, the state should be in charge of security screening. The realistic problem that this presents, though, is that if at a smaller airport - let's pick GNV (Gainesville), an airport that might have 20 commercial arrivals/departures a day (a laughably small number) - the security force doesn't have the funds or gumption to strictly enforce the law there (who would want to blow up a 50-seat CRJ puddle jumper over Waldo, Florida, anyway?), well the repercussions may be felt at a further point. Because the passengers are considered "sterile" after being screened, they won't have to go through security again after arrival in Atlanta and transferring to their Frankfurt flight (which is on a more respectable (and explosive) 300-seat 777), and this is just me personally speaking, but I'm not sure I'd want a shady guy sitting next to me on my Frankfurt flight who came from Timbuktu, Arkansas, where the security was trained and hired by God-knows-who with little-to-no real training. (As I said before, I don't consider the TSA the pinnacle of law enforcement, but at least I know that they're all trained in the same crash-course or whatever.)

Sorry for the poor formatting, rambling, and general incoherence. I'd like to blame it on the fact that I'm tired too, except that these symptoms follow me around the clock.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='22 July 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1279777041' post='2146252']
Do you really consider it valid to compare the security procedures in place today today with those that we had before 9/11?
[/quote]

Five thoughts, the first two are about 9/11 directly:

1 - [u]You cannot preserve liberty by suspending the principles of liberty.[/u] That is a mentality that will lead to a very bad place. Liberty in exchange for the promise of security will lead to neither, as Benjamin Franklin warned.

2 - [u]Government failure occurred because government didn't use the tools that it already had[/u] -- not because the Federal State didn't have enough power. Government is irresponsible with the power it has, why would be give it more, and suspend more of our liberty?

3 - [u]The Federal State has no obligation to defend you. None.[/u] (Despite what a politician, wanting your vote, might say.) The Federal State has zero constitutional obligation to defend you. So why would we give the Federal Government so much power, and suspend so much liberty?

4 - [u]The Political Class has no incentive to be efficient, and no interest in keeping members of the private class safe[/u]. The focus of the government is to create the illusion of safety -- not to have actual, genuine safety. And the incentive for the Political class is to pacify the private class and to grab power at each and every opportunity (at the cost of your liberty and mine).

5 - When the Federal State implements programs like this one under the premise that it is to fight [u]"terrorists," remember that the government doesn't just mean Muslims[/u].

Edited July 22, 2010 by Lounge Daddy

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='22 July 2010 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1279777041' post='2146252']
Air travel is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. When you step into the airport, you're temporarily forfeiting certain rights in exchange for fast, convenient, and safe transportation. If you dislike that, take the Greyhound or Amtrak, or drive.
[/quote]

Your statement is untrue. You [i]do[/i] have the right to travel unrestricted among the mini-States. The Federal State has no power to interfere. This right to travel is not only a God-given right, but a right allegedly protected (not granted) by the Constitution.

For years, one could carry a pistol, unfettered by the Federal state, onto a plane, and fly anywhere one wanted.

Look up Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Those are all the enumerated powers of Congress. That's it. If it is not enumerated there, it is not a power that Congress has. [i]Nothing[/i] there about "interstate security." There is something about interstate [i]commerce. [/i]But as they say, congress has found that it can drive a tractor trailer through the commerce clause.

The Ninth Amendment clearly states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It is also clearly ignored.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is also clearly ignored. The Federal State can do whatever it wants, as Catholic author Thomas Woods points out in this interview with a mainstream media zombie.

[media][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TrcM5exDxcc[/url][/media]

~Sternhauser

Edited July 22, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='21 July 2010 - 07:45 AM' timestamp='1279716329' post='2145857']
Wait a second... Now, I'm not a fan of invading privacy. I don't like the idea of me or my family members submitting to a full body scan to defend our innocence... But... have you seen those scans? I can't imagine that anyone would find them titillating. I think they are creepy and ghostly. I hardly think they would be a satisfying substitute for child porn.
[/quote]

Apparently, those "blocked out portions" aren't necessarily blocked out. And it seems there's enough detail for some people to enjoy.

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/tsa-worker-arrested-jokes-fight-size-genitalia/"]TSA Worker Gets In Fight Over Comments About "Size." [/url]

Apparently, this Indian film star was [url="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2684287/bollywood_star_shah_rukh_kahn_naked.html"]chased down by security personnel and asked to autograph pictures of his genitalia[/url] taken with the machine.

Strange when reality is becoming more and more like the scene in the outlandish movie "Running Man" where Arnie is running through a full body X-ray, and a pistol is detected by the omnipresent, omnipotent State machine.

Nobody should worry. This techonology, like every other technology, is not being abused now, and won't be abused by the State. They're responsible. And we have to do everything we can to secure peace and security, right?

1 Thessalonians 5:3. "For when they shall say, 'peace and security;' then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape."

~Sternhauser

Edited July 22, 2010 by Sternhauser