# Naked Scanners on the highway, too



## Carol (Nov 22, 2010)

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenbe...an-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/

American Science and Engineering, which is another manufacturer of the backscatter X-ray machines, has sold 500 backscatter machines that run in a van, on the highway, and can be used to scan neighboring vehicles as they drive by.

These machines do not only scan the shape of an object, detection circuitry can also detect certain compositions, such as explosives, drugs, etc.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 22, 2010)

Carol said:


> http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenbe...an-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
> 
> American Science and Engineering, which is another manufacturer of the backscatter X-ray machines, has sold 500 backscatter machines that run in a van, on the highway, and can be used to scan neighboring vehicles as they drive by.
> 
> These machines do not only scan the shape of an object, detection circuitry can also detect certain compositions, such as explosives, drugs, etc.


 
Told ya so.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 22, 2010)

I have no problem with any of this. I am all about love of country, and yes, I served my time years ago in the military. This is not the same country after 9/11, as it was before. I understand about personal privacy, and all of that, but, when it comes to saving lives and securing our way of life, concessions need to be made. Red flags mean problems, no red flags, no problems. From time to time I fly, and I want to get back home in one piece. If I am driving down a public highway loaded with explosives and automatic weapons, I need to be pulled over. This all seems straight forward to me, if someone feels I need to be checked, check away. If I am clean, life goes on, if not, then it's my bad. I question in my mind people that have a problem with this, what ya trying to hide my friend.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 22, 2010)

seasoned said:


> I have no problem with any of this. I am all about love of country, and yes, I served my time years ago in the military. This is not the same country after 9/11, as it was before. I understand about personal privacy, and all of that, but, when it comes to saving lives and securing our way of life, concessions need to be made. Red flags mean problems, no red flags, no problems. From time to time I fly, and I want to get back home in one piece. If I am driving down a public highway loaded with explosives and automatic weapons, I need to be pulled over. This all seems straight forward to me, if someone feels I need to be checked, check away. If I am clean, life goes on, if not, then it's my bad. I question in my mind people that have a problem with this, what ya trying to hide my friend.


 
I am a cop.  I carry a gun on me everywhere I go.  My wife is a cop, she carries a gun on here everywhere she goes.  Sometimes, for work or for play, I go shooting and carry a gun other then a handgun on me, to include rifles and shotguns.  All perfectly legal.  

_I do not want to get stopped because I am conducting a legal activity.  _

The fact of the matter is that if we allow the government to continue on this trend, there is nothing that they won't be able to do "for your safety".  At some point, I guarantee, they will take away a right that you believe in, but because they have already taken everyone else away, there will be no one left to help you fight for your cause.  

People in this country need to wake up before it's too late.  This is exactly the type of thing the Founders sought to protect us from when writing the Constitution.  

The story goes:

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, A republic, if you can keep it. 

We aren't doing a very good job of keeping it anymore.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 22, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I am a cop. I carry a gun on me everywhere I go. My wife is a cop, she carries a gun on here everywhere she goes. Sometimes, for work or for play, I go shooting and carry a gun other then a handgun on me, to include rifles and shotguns. All perfectly legal.
> 
> _I do not want to get stopped because I am conducting a legal activity. _
> 
> ...


 

I agree with you, but as an outsider I see many Americans have woken up to the slippery slope, getting slipperier (Is that a word??). The whole issue really becomes, what do you do about it? How do you change it? Can you strip enough of the garbage off of the problem to get down to the core of the issue, and deal with the real issue? Or will you be fighting against the symptoms in the future?


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 22, 2010)

I've seen scanners like this for Cargo Ships/Containers on the History Channel (Modern Marvels) and supposedly they're scanning every single one... whenever they can get around to it since over 10,000+ arrive each week in the various ports across the U.S. shorelines. 

It therefore is conceivable that they would have smaller versions for highway traffic... but they should be scanning for potentially dangerous items not personal firearms. Now if an Highway Patrol pulls someone over and asks if there are weapons in the vehicle then I guess that is okay. But as mentioned, to be pulled over just because the scanners SHOW you have weapon(s) is getting TSA... and what would be the charge? The only one they could use if there were no permit or proof of ownership or whatever makes a firearm legal to have. 

We're slowly, incrementally entering into a police state in this country. Now folks can cry: The Terrorists Won ... all they want but it still doesn't STOP the slow erosion of our civil liberties and the Constitution. Until it's taken away we still have the power via democracy to force the heads of state to change the laws and to do whatever it is necessary to restore our freedoms and to find better ways to PROTECT those freedoms as well as get us back on track to being a strong nation. 
Today on NPR I heard the Euro is now almost equal if not surpassed the Dollar. Economist say cutting or raising taxes isn't the answer and increasing or cutting spending isn't the answer. Creating jobs is... but (again) not at the cost of our freedoms (TSA, DHS, et al ). 

Scanning us as we drive ... I've been talking about giving up flying commercially and now I might have to give up DRIVING?  What next, limiting the amount of distance I can WALK?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 22, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> I agree with you, but as an outsider I see many Americans have woken up to the slippery slope, getting slipperier (Is that a word??). The whole issue really becomes, what do you do about it? How do you change it? Can you strip enough of the garbage off of the problem to get down to the core of the issue, and deal with the real issue? Or will you be fighting against the symptoms in the future?


 
My personal opinion?

There is nothing we (as a group) will do about it, and very little that we can.

I will give you and example.  I sometimes sit as the Sergeant-in-Arms at the city council meeting.  At one of those meetings, the council was voting on what to recommend to the county transit agency regarding the placement of a rail transit center.  The two main sites were across the street from one another.

To a person, the citizens that made their voices heard, and there was a lot, spoke to one particular side.  The city council, in their infinite wisdom, chose the exact opposite side.  They refused to listen (sounds a lot like those town hall meetings to me).

But they still voted those same people into office the next election.  

That's the section where we won't do something about it.

There is also very little that we can do.  The U.S. Supreme Court has sided again and again with the government in the erosion of our rights.  Gun laws, drug laws, bicycle helmet laws, invasive search laws.  Time and time again, as long as the illusion of our rights are still there, or the illusion that our safety is still there, we continue to go along with it.

This is why the Founders wanted us to have arms.  So that when our government becomes oppresive, we would have the capabilty to stand up for ourselves.  Some free states still have that.  But more and more the Federal Government is taking over, telling those states what to do.

Sure, we'll stand up on particular issues, but the principles are being ignored.

One of the reasons, I believe, for that is our cultural diversity.  In the words of Hamish from "Braveheart": the people of this country "coulna' agree on the color of *****..."  We have no common goals, no common principles, no common understanding of government and it's roles and responsibilities.

That is not to say that we couldn't incorporate those positive aspects from diverse cultures into our system, as the Chinese did, lo those many years ago.  But we don't.  We mix like oil and water, sometimes congealing together, but mostly not.

That's just one man's opinion, mind you.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 22, 2010)

America has become a scared country. And the folks in charge see it in their best interest to keep it that way.

Contrast that with Israel. They are surrended by forces that actively try to blow them up daily. Once in the country, other than a the large number of soldiers walking around, which is no different than if the US had the draft and then everybody had to do reserve duty, the feel of the country is incredibly normal.


----------



## Carol (Nov 22, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> America has become a scared country. And the folks in charge see it in their best interest to keep it that way.
> 
> Contrast that with Israel. They are surrended by forces that actively try to blow them up daily. Once in the country, other than a the large number of soldiers walking around, which is no different than if the US had the draft and then everybody had to do reserve duty, the feel of the country is incredibly normal.


 
Why assume it is just America?  

American Science and Engineering states they have sold these to foreign government agencies...not just domestic.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 23, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I am a cop. I carry a gun on me everywhere I go. My wife is a cop, she carries a gun on here everywhere she goes. Sometimes, for work or for play, I go shooting and carry a gun other then a handgun on me, to include rifles and shotguns. All perfectly legal.
> 
> _I do not want to get stopped because I am conducting a legal activity. _
> 
> ...


 
With all due respect, I did mention before and after 9/11. So, there are two entities at work here. (1) There is a need to stop an enemy that we are at war with, and wishes to kill Americans, right here, on our own soil. I may add, an enemy, that also walks among us, to a certain degree, because of our freedoms. (2) We are a free nation, with rights and privileges, that we fought and died for, rights and privileges that are not seen in most of the world. 
There is indeed a fine line between keeping the populous safe, and maintaining the freedoms that we all love dearly. 
As I look at what I have written, there is a third entity here, (3) one that is growing bigger, every day. This one is suppose to keep us safe from foreign enemies, but because of a lack of proper gate keeping, and because of our freedoms, has allowed this enemy to occupy our land, unnoticed. This is a fact. Although unsuccessful, so far, this enemy needs to be addressed and stopped, before it is too late.  
Now begs the question, how do we do this, and maintain the freedoms that Americans have shed blood for. Can we do all of this, and still maintain out pre 9/11 lifestyle? I am not about stripping freedoms away from us, freedoms, that I love and enjoy, very much. What be the answer???


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 23, 2010)

seasoned said:


> With all due respect, I did mention before and after 9/11. So, there are two entities at work here. (1) There is a need to stop an enemy that we are at war with, and wishes to kill Americans, right here, on our own soil. I may add, an enemy, that also walks among us, to a certain degree, because of our freedoms. (2) We are a free nation, with rights and privileges, that we fought and died for, rights and privileges that are not seen in most of the world.
> There is indeed a fine line between keeping the populous safe, and maintaining the freedoms that we all love dearly.



Oh Bollocks.
Every day that you get into your car, you know that there is a good chance you'll die in a car wreck. You know it and you accept it because the odds are so slim. If the government wanted to make the act of driving a car a nuisance, with daily stops and car searches for alcohol or do other stupid things, you probably wouldn't stand for it.

Food poisoning takes many lives per year but you don't ask to send health code violators to guantanamo, you don't expect swat to perform raid on suspect kitchens, and you don't strip search and scan hot dog vendors on the street.

The risk of dying in a terrorist action are infinitesimally smaller, yet a complete erosion of your freedoms and rights, and expenditure of billions of dollars are perfectly reasonable 'to keep you safe'?

You already are safe. You just don't know it.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 23, 2010)

seasoned said:


> With all due respect, I did mention before and after 9/11. So, there are two entities at work here. (1) There is a need to stop an enemy that we are at war with, and wishes to kill Americans, right here, on our own soil. I may add, an enemy, that also walks among us, to a certain degree, because of our freedoms. (2) We are a free nation, with rights and privileges, that we fought and died for, rights and privileges that are not seen in most of the world.
> There is indeed a fine line between keeping the populous safe, and maintaining the freedoms that we all love dearly.
> As I look at what I have written, there is a third entity here, (3) one that is growing bigger, every day. This one is suppose to keep us safe from foreign enemies, but because of a lack of proper gate keeping, and because of our freedoms, has allowed this enemy to occupy our land, unnoticed. This is a fact. Although unsuccessful, so far, this enemy needs to be addressed and stopped, before it is too late.
> Now begs the question, how do we do this, and maintain the freedoms that Americans have shed blood for. Can we do all of this, and still maintain out pre 9/11 lifestyle? I am not about stripping freedoms away from us, freedoms, that I love and enjoy, very much. *What be the answer*???


 


Bruno@MT said:


> Oh Bollocks.
> Every day that you get into your car, you know that there is a good chance you'll die in a car wreck. You know it and you accept it because the odds are so slim. If the government wanted to make the act of driving a car a nuisance, with daily stops and car searches for alcohol or do other stupid things, you probably wouldn't stand for it.
> 
> Food poisoning takes many lives per year but you don't ask to send health code violators to guantanamo, you don't expect swat to perform raid on suspect kitchens, and you don't strip search and scan hot dog vendors on the street.
> ...


Question answered, sit and wait. I think we tried this.


----------



## LawDog (Nov 23, 2010)

5 0 Kenpo,
Both my wife and I are retired cops and I agree with you all the way. Our Constitution says one thing and the USAs' Homeland Gestapo says another. All dictatorships start out with "in the interest of national security and public saftey".
I am starting to see a trend, many who never had to put it on the line for our country in one way or another usually don't mind giving up our Constitional Rights. Once you have put it all out there so that our Constitional way of life will go on one is usually reluctant to give it away to those govern"mental" types who never have.
How many polititions have to go through those nude scanners or are they brought around them? What about TSA officials and business exe's?
It seems that gover"mental" offficials, Judges and Homeland officials have moved into the "above the law" statis.


----------



## Omar B (Nov 23, 2010)

Time for me to cut out the middle man and just drive naked.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2010)

This is all I have to say...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2010)

seasoned said:


> I have no problem with any of this. I am all about love of country, and yes, I served my time years ago in the military. This is not the same country after 9/11, as it was before. I understand about personal privacy, and all of that, but, when it comes to saving lives and securing our way of life, concessions need to be made. Red flags mean problems, no red flags, no problems. From time to time I fly, and I want to get back home in one piece. If I am driving down a public highway loaded with explosives and automatic weapons, I need to be pulled over. This all seems straight forward to me, if someone feels I need to be checked, check away. If I am clean, life goes on, if not, then it's my bad. I question in my mind people that have a problem with this, what ya trying to hide my friend.



The problem isn't what people have to hide, it's whether or not we believe in the Constitution.  This is the foundation of this country and these practices violate the very principles upon which this country is based.  If you love this country and love the document that acknowledges the freedom you enjoy, then you need to take a second look at the Bill of Rights and what it means to have people strip searched with no probable cause.  IMHO, if a person is willing to allow his rights to be violated to be protected from a minuscule threat, that professed love of country may very well be misplaced.  Do you love the country or are you simply being subservient to the government?  

To me, love of country means supporting our Constitution.  No backing down.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> There is nothing we (as a group) will do about it, and very little that we can.



This is why I say one person on the street waving a sign or otherwise resisting tyranny has more courage then 1000 other men in this country.  You can't wait until everyone else stands up, because that's what most other people are doing.  One person can still stand up to this.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 23, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The problem isn't what people have to hide, it's whether or not we believe in the Constitution. This is the foundation of this country and these practices violate the very principles upon which this country is based. If you love this country and love the document that acknowledges the freedom you enjoy, then you need to take a second look at the Bill of Rights and what it means to have people strip searched with no probable cause. IMHO, if a person is willing to allow his rights to be violated to be protected from a minuscule threat, that professed love of country may very well be misplaced. Do you love the country or are you simply being subservient to the government?
> 
> To me, love of country means supporting our Constitution. No backing down.


 
Meh. 5-0 is right. (Funny, I thought for the longest time that he was a lawyer, and his profession is right there in his handle! And I'm supposed to be_ soooo_ observant....:lol: )

I said as much right here, in the very first thread I started on Martial Talk,_four years ago_:



elder999 said:


> The Constitution will still be there and not a word of it will be changed nor will it have been amended. It will remain in place, a showcase to the world, but it will mean *nothing.*
> 
> We&#8217;re not changing the wording or the intent of the Constitution, *we&#8217;re just ignoring it.*


 

One of the first things that Rita-that's the wife- dragged me on was avalanche school, in Silverton, CO-the first of her meager attempts at collecting on my life insurance policy.We're facing an avalanche now-or a tsunami, take your pick for metaphors of inexorable, inevitable force, because that's what we're in now-the end game. Only two things to do under such circumstances: have someplace to hunker down properly, or get out of the way.

Try standing on the shore with your sign, and stopping the tsunami. See what happens. I don't call that "brave," John. I call it stupid.

And so, with each extra step, with every act of Obama's that indicates he's part and parcel of the big corporate machine-no matter what Big Don or some other conservative might actually be _told to *think*,_ with the erosion of each freedom, including the simple right of growing crops and raising animals for food, with the TSA reaching up our collective kilts and feeling our fancy bits, with scanners-and ELINT vans-roaming the highways, with the NSA listening in on all of our conversations just because they want to, I get to say *I told you so.*

I told ya so. Wish that those words tasted better.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Only two things to do under such circumstances: have someplace to hunker down properly, or get out of the way.
> 
> Try standing on the shore with your sign, and stopping the tsunami. See what happens. I don't call that "brave," John. I call it stupid.



This isn't something you can avoid.  There's no running and hiding and there is no way to get out of the way.  This is globalism and it will go everywhere eventually.  Any security you think you can create is wishful thinking.  There are only two real choices.  They are resistance and acceptance.  Getting out of the way or hunkering down is acceptance.

Maybe the price will rise high enough that acceptance in the only real choice (if you want to live), but we are NOT there yet.  I don't believe the situation is hopeless.

Grab your surfboard braddah!


----------



## crushing (Nov 23, 2010)

seasoned said:


> I have no problem with any of this. I am all about love of country, and yes, I served my time years ago in the military. This is not the same country after 9/11, as it was before. I understand about personal privacy, and all of that, but, when it comes to saving lives and securing our way of life, concessions need to be made. Red flags mean problems, no red flags, no problems. From time to time I fly, and I want to get back home in one piece. If I am driving down a public highway loaded with explosives and automatic weapons, I need to be pulled over. This all seems straight forward to me, if someone feels I need to be checked, check away. If I am clean, life goes on, if not, then it's my bad. I question in my mind people that have a problem with this, what ya trying to hide my friend.


 
As these scanners on wheels are improved upon, they will be able to drive by your house or appartment and inventory the contents, including people.  It's likely they can already do this.  This should be fine by you since you have nothing to hide, because the 4th Amendment is only for criminals that have something to hide.  Right?  Just like free speech is limited to those people that say the right things and the second amendment is about hunting.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 23, 2010)

I trust my opinion of this should be obvious.

This is something else again from a scientific standpoint however.  Backscatter x-rays work because they are weak, they penetrate your clothing but are reflected by your body.  Thus the dose is small.  These x-rays however would need to penetrate metal while still being reflected by the contents.  What type of dose are we talking about here?  Something more than the airport, less than a medical scan?  Roving around the highways randomly irradiating everything?

Recent polls indicate that the airport scanners have a 60-some percent approval rating with the public.  Now we have irradiation you can't even avoid.  At what point will the tide turn?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> This is why I say one person on the street waving a sign or otherwise resisting tyranny has more courage then 1000 other men in this country. You can't wait until everyone else stands up, because that's what most other people are doing. One person can still stand up to this.


 
Of course the title and conclusion of the article are farcicle.  In  no way did that man prove that the search was unconstitutional.  All it showed was that the average TSA agent and their immediate supervisor have no cajones to do their job, or the intelligence to be able to argue their position.  

To think that because a TSA agent making a starting salary of $25,000 and his immediate supervisor could answer complex Constitutional questions is a bit over the top.  Hell, I could find a dozen cops in my own agency who couldn't tell you the Constitutional authority for some of the things that they are legally allowed to do.



> This isn't something you can avoid. There's no running and hiding and there is no way to get out of the way. This is globalism and it will go everywhere eventually. Any security you think you can create is wishful thinking. There are only two real choices. They are resistance and acceptance. Getting out of the way or hunkering down is acceptance.


 
Without getting into too much detail, I have two replies to this.

One, it all depends on how you see the future going.  If you believe, for instance, that it will it holds a gradual downward slide in the economy, with governments eventually falling by the wayside, then you can avoid it.

The other answer is simple in regards to your dichotomy:  strategy.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The other answer is simple in regards to your dichotomy: *strategy*.


 
About which nothing can be said.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 24, 2010)

seasoned said:


> With all due respect, I did mention before and after 9/11.


 
To be honest, I don't see a difference between before or after 9/11.  These same people have been attacking us for 30 years now.  All 9/11 did was wake up naive people.  But the reality is still the same as before 9/11.



> So, there are two entities at work here. (1) There is a need to stop an enemy that we are at war with, and wishes to kill Americans, right here, on our own soil. I may add, an enemy, that also walks among us, to a certain degree, because of our freedoms.


 
And it was that way before 9/11.  Why didn't we do vehicle inspections after the first World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the D.C. Sniper, or now after the Times Square Bomber?  We know that they have no problem using vehicles to commit violence.  One of the greatest sources of casualties in Iraq are VBIEDs (Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices).  

One reason is because we keep reacting to an existing paradigm, without looking to future ones.  Another is because Americans haven't been prepped enough to accept it.  But it's coming.



> (2) We are a free nation, with rights and privileges, that we fought and died for, rights and privileges that are not seen in most of the world. There is indeed a fine line between keeping the populous safe, and maintaining the freedoms that we all love dearly.


 
But you don't react to it by taking away the freedoms of American citizens.  Otherwise what's the point?



> As I look at what I have written, there is a third entity here, (3) one that is growing bigger, every day. This one is suppose to keep us safe from foreign enemies, but because of a lack of proper gate keeping, and because of our freedoms, has allowed this enemy to occupy our land, unnoticed. This is a fact. Although unsuccessful, so far, this enemy needs to be addressed and stopped, before it is too late.


 
They are not unnoticed.  They are often unaddressed.  I do completely agree with you that we are an abject failure when dealing with our borders.  But we can deal with that without curtailing the freedoms of citizens.  We just won't.



> Now begs the question, how do we do this, and maintain the freedoms that Americans have shed blood for. Can we do all of this, and still maintain out pre 9/11 lifestyle? I am not about stripping freedoms away from us, freedoms, that I love and enjoy, very much. What be the answer???


 
Again, I don't submit to the proposition that the situation really changed on 9/11.  The politicians are using the reactions of the public from 9/11 to suit their own agendas, which since the early 19th Century, at the latests, has been to garner more power for itself and strip us of ours.

But, they have realized based on history that direct oppression will only cause a violent counter reaction.  Now they do it in the nice way, showing us how it's for our own good.

Recommended Reading:  "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> This isn't something you can avoid. There's no running and hiding and there is no way to get out of the way. This is globalism and it will go everywhere eventually. Any security you think you can create is wishful thinking. There are only two real choices. They are resistance and acceptance. Getting out of the way or hunkering down is acceptance.
> 
> Maybe the price will rise high enough that acceptance in the only real choice (if you want to live), but we are NOT there yet. I don't believe the situation is hopeless.
> 
> Grab your surfboard braddah!


 
With the way that country is polarized-with the way some people supported the USA PATRIOT Act, which is now, essentially, the permanent law of the land-the way even Seasoned supports the backscatter scanning and TSA groping-acceptance is the only choice-and, ironically, the essence of surfing, braddah!

There's software that makes the scanners make the juicy and dangly bits less distinguishable, while maintaining their utility for detecting what shouldn't be there, and I predict it will be implemented here-to much ballyhoo, acclaim and placation. The TSA will go through another round of much deserved remedial sensitivity and procedural training, and the "pat-downs" when deemed necessary will be, while no less intrusive, much more palatable. Medical personnel will point out publicly and repeatedly (and truthfully) that the scanners expose people to less radiation than a dental X ray-less even than the plane flight itself-and, in no time at all, they'll become acceptable-especially when they represent the *fast* lane to the plane, which is all most of us care about.....after that, we'll start seeing them in public buildings: courthouses, bus depots and train terminals, post offices, museums, libraries, sporting events, etc., etc., etc.....

And then it'll all be "okay," except for my saying *I told ya so.*


----------



## crushing (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> *Medical personnel will point out publicly and repeatedly (and truthfully) that the scanners expose people to less radiation than a dental X ray-less even than the plane flight itself*-and, in no time at all, they'll become acceptable-especially when they represent the *fast* lane to the plane, which is all most of us care about.....after that, we'll start seeing them in public buildings: courthouses, bus depots and train terminals, post offices, museums, libraries, sporting events, etc., etc., etc.....


 
Medical personal will point out that the maximum level of radiation in the TSA guidelines for scanner appropriation is at low enough levels to be considered safe.  Those selling the scanner claim that the scanners meet those guidelines.  Assuming those numbers are correct, the machines would seem to be nearly as safe as not being irradiated by the scanners.

So, is the amount of radiation each scanner is actually putting out really known?  Are there safeguards in place should the machine go out of calibration, or if there were a mechanical failure?  Still the question remains; why prohibit the wearing of dosimeters by the TSA radiation workers?

Just as people with nothing to hide or expected to submit to the radiation and naked pictures, or an aggressive so-called "pat down", if the government has nothing to hide, have the radiation workers wear dosimeters and publish the results to ease the minds of travellers with an aversion to radiation?

Oh, and about the less distinguishable dangly bits...Dave Barry on NPR.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

crushing said:


> Still the question remains; why prohibit the wearing of dosimeters by the TSA radiation workers?


 

Because, like an X-ray technician who stands at his console, at the operating console of the scanner the TSA worker doesn't receive enough occupational dose to register on a dosimeter. Dosimetry doesn't differentiate between natural background-bricks, cosmic rays, etc.-and occupational radiation dose. By all accounts, the backscatter scanners give the subject a dose of around 10 microRem.As for the other controls you spoke of, such work: calibration, repair and certification is actually carried out by the manufacturer and the state agency in each jurisdiction, just as they are for medical and industrial X-ray machines.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Dosimetry doesn't differentiate between natural background-bricks, cosmic rays, etc.-and occupational radiation dose.



Depending on the source, dosimeters use screens of different thickness to distinguish background from occupational dose.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The other answer is simple in regards to your dichotomy:  strategy.



As long as we're all working for the same thing and doing something, we make some headway.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> With the way that country is polarized-with the way some people supported the USA PATRIOT Act, which is now, essentially, the permanent law of the land-the way even Seasoned supports the backscatter scanning and TSA groping-acceptance is the only choice-and, ironically, the essence of surfing, braddah!



Or maybe you could be buying into the image that the media advances.  The people pushing this want us to feel hopeless to change it.  Essentially, you could be missing a wave you chose not to paddle for.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Because, like an X-ray technician who stands at his console, at the operating console of the scanner the TSA worker doesn't receive enough occupational dose to register on a dosimeter. Dosimetry doesn't differentiate between natural background-bricks, cosmic rays, etc.-and occupational radiation dose. *By all accounts*, the backscatter scanners give the subject a dose of around 10 microRem.As for the other controls you spoke of, such work: calibration, repair and certification is actually carried out by the manufacturer and the state agency in each jurisdiction, just as they are for medical and industrial X-ray machines.



I've posted studies done at major universities that question the safety of repeated doses of radiation focused directly on the skin.  These scanners are very different from natural sources.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Depending on the source, dosimeters use screens of different thickness to distinguish background from occupational dose.


 
Dosimetry can filter for type of radiation, and calculations from total dose and known background can be used to determine occupational dose, but a ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation, and a dosimeter-especially a TLD-is going to measure background as dose received. In the low quantities anticipated from backscatter radiation, especially given the lack of anticipated exposure for the operator-dosimetry is thought to be superfluos, and any dose measured would only be confusing: is it background, or backscatter? 

Is it enough to matter?



maunakumu said:


> I've posted studies done at major universities that question the safety of repeated doses of radiation focused directly on the skin. These scanners are very different from natural sources.


 
On the one hand, there's a measure of truth to this. is a dental X-ray "safe." or a defined -and minimal-hazard? These machines represent less exposure than a dental X-ray, and that's how the potential hazard-or lack thereof-is quantified.

On the other hand, you've posted studies that question whether Elvis was the third gunman on the grassy knoll......:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> On the other hand, you've posted studies that question whether Elvis was the third gunman on the grassy knoll......:lfao:



LOL!

That's what this song is actually about!


----------



## crushing (Nov 24, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I've posted studies done at major universities that question the safety of repeated doses of radiation focused directly on the skin.  These scanners are very different from natural sources.



The company selling the machines say they are safe.  Chertoff's buddies in the government that are buying the machines say they are safe.  What in the world do you want?  Some independent studies showing they are safe?  Only a conspiracy theorist kook would question a corporation or the government!

Speaking of kooks, here is another one:

http://myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-x-ray-backscatter-body-scanner.html


"Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed."
"The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."
"In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist."
"There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations. We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted."


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 24, 2010)

Personally -- my concern is simple.  I don't trust the people telling me how the machine works because they've been caught in either errors or outright lies.  So, when they tell me that it's safe -- how do I know they're not making another "mistake."

We've got a doc in the occupational health office that does my annual physicals for work who decided to play games with me during one exam.  Fact: I'm overweight.  I know this; I have eyes.  Nurse takes my BP; it's OK, maybe a tad high.  Doc comes in; he's got a thing about weight.  He tells me nurses sometimes screw up BP & docs are more careful or some such.  He gets scary high numbers... and has me wondering if I'm going to die on the exam table.  Then I get hooked up for the cardio stress test...  which includes a BP monitor.  Guess who's numbers it matched?  Guess which doc has ZERO credibility with me now?  Maybe he didn't think that a cop would actually notice the discrepancy...  

I actually like the idea of scanners.  But they've got to be used in an effective manner, and they've got to be safe.  Random selection isn't effective.  I heard today that something like only 5% of air passengers are being scanned or searched.  They don't address lots of the threats (see Bob's hypothetical, for example).  And TSA has the burden of proof of showing me that they're safe.  And, now, they've got the burden of showing me that what they say is trustworthy.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2010)

And the standing at the beach with a sign chiding the tsunami has failed.:



> The protest's organizers have been urging travelers to decline to be screened by imaging machines, which they say are an invasion of privacy, and instead choose a full-body pat-down, which takes around twice as long to conduct.
> But things have gone relatively smoothly.
> "As the afternoon unfolded, though, major airports were humming along normally, and *most travelers seemed more interested in getting to their destinations than in making a political statement*," reports the New York Times.


 
Can you say _Baaa?_ I *knew* you could. :lfao:

[yt]rooPPLtK9pg&NR[/yt]

_*EDIT*_: Oh, yeah. *I told ya so.*


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> [yt]rooPPLtK9pg&NR[/yt]


 
Elder!! I'm shocked!! Scottish porn???? What ever were you thinking!! My kids visit this site!!! Say you're sorry.....come on, say it.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2010)

elder999 said:


> And the standing at the beach with a sign chiding the tsunami has failed.:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Remember Judith Miller from the NYT?  They have lost all credibility IMO.  In fact, it doesn't surprise me that the NYT is reporting that resistance to tyranny is futile.  It's a sheep bleating into the megaphone and seeing who responds.

On the contrary, I took my friend to the airport so she could get home to family and I ducked in to check security and carry some bags.  Sure enough, body scanners.  Sure enough, LONG line of opt outs.  

Or maybe there's more to the story...

http://www.infowars.com/tsa-turns-off-naked-body-scanners-to-avoid-opt-out-day-protests/



> Anticipating a nationwide grassroots surge of protests  against naked  body scanners and aggressive pat-downs, the TSA simply  turned off its  naked body scanners on Wednesday and let air travelers  walk right  through security checkpoints without being X-rayed or  molested.
> 
> 
> All across the country, air travelers are reporting  that the TSA  simply deactivated the naked body scanners and let people  go right  through without a scan. Backscatter scanners are off. No scan.  No  patdown. reported a traveler from the Seattle airport. Backscatter machines arent being used at LAX, reported another traveler. Theyre all roped off.
> ...



The bottom line is that civil disobedience works.  Stop being afraid, you don't have to face police dogs, fire hoses, and jackboots with sticks and gas.  All you have to do is show up early, say "opt out" and "Don't touch my junk."

Can you imagine if MLK had copped your attitude?

Here's what I'm doing...

1. Go out and encourage your friends to resist.  
2. Talk to your state representative (mine is a family friend, our daughters play soccer together.)
3. Make an example of yourself and tell everyone.

In less then five minutes, I can lay out a case for doing this, explain why I'm doing it and tell a couple of stories that puts people on the bandwagon.  

You gotta choose who you want to be.  What kind of man or woman are you?


----------

