Naked Scanners on the highway, too

[Empty Hands]

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]

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]

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

About which nothing can be said.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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



Can you say Baaa? I knew you could. :lfao:

[yt]rooPPLtK9pg&NR[/yt]

EDIT: Oh, yeah. I told ya so.

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.”


Much the same story is being reported all across the country.

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?