TSA, Body scanners and "pat downs"

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Whats your thoughts ont he current airport security?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=XSQTz1bccL4

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

TSA pat-down gone bad

[phee]

Well... those out of work priests need someplace to work.... (j/k)

[Slogo]

Shit like that happens, I can see people getting violent

[prick]

With the armed Marshals on flights do they really need to worry about a little boy?

[creatureofthenyte]

I will be doing my traveling on the Road, for the rest of my life.

I will never subject myself to that Bullshit.

[n0Mad]

I say we get a big group of guys together and all book the same cheap flight out to Vegas or something (cheapest flight we can find, wherever it's to). Then we'll all wear those banana hammock swimsuits, and only banana hammocks. "What are you talking about? I've never had a problem at security. They just let me walk on through."

[phenom]

I was just coming here to post on this issue. Gaf stole my thunder... but I will add the following link.

And Obama sees nothing wrong.

Welcome to the police-state. Submit or be dealt with.

[StormKnight (1)]

Israel seems to have an option, dealing with more apparent risk than we do currently:

Israel security article.

[TheGimp]

well hey..anyone can be a terrorist even a lil boy jus sayin even if its not willing on his part...its known that in the World Wars children were used as explosive devices to kill troops....same thing right here....who's to say someone didnt hide anything on the boy? i think minds would be changed if a slip up had happened and a catastrophic event happened...bottom line is....i have no issue with it...yes it violates privacy and on my trip back to Michigan i myself was a victim of "gate rape" but its that or drive for 16 hours....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[torn asunder]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

thank you - i've been trying to remember that quote!

[StormKnight (1)]

Just thinking off the wall, here.

I would be curious if someone who works with radiation often (rad techs, radiologists, et al.) went through one of those scanners with a one of their radiometers that were clean, and see how much they get with a scan. A lot of the images I have seen are awfully high resolution, which indicates a significant amount of power (radiation,) is being used.

Frequent flyers would be at risk. Health workers are limited to around 5-rem total body exposure beyond background radiation of 0.360-rem a year we are all exposed to. (areas individually can have more or less, depending on area, but full body exposure is what body scans imply.) 5-rem of radiation is equivalent of 3-5 CT scans a year. (source: University of North Carolina Health Care System Radiation Safety Manual, link http://ehs.unc.edu/radiation/manual.shtml and this link here) Even at 0.500-rad, 5 round trips would be enough to give you as much radiation as an average hospital worker is allowed per year.

Edited November 22, 2010 by StormKnight

[taysteewonderbunny]

Just thinking off the wall, here.

I would be curious if someone who works with radiation often (rad techs, radiologists, et al.) went through one of those scanners with a one of their radiometers that were clean, and see how much they get with a scan. A lot of the images I have seen are awfully high resolution, which indicates a significant amount of power (radiation,) is being used.

Frequent flyers would be at risk. Health workers are limited to around 5-rem total body exposure beyond background radiation of 0.360-rem a year we are all exposed to. (areas individually can have more or less, depending on area, but full body exposure is what body scans imply.) 5-rem of radiation is equivalent of 3-5 CT scans a year. (source: University of North Carolina Health Care System Radiation Safety Manual, link http://ehs.unc.edu/r...on/manual.shtml and this link here) Even at 0.500-rad, 5 round trips would be enough to give you as much radiation as an average hospital worker is allowed per year.

I don't know the specifics, but maybe this article will be helpful.

From the Detroit News, Saturday, November 20, 2010

"Feds Insist Full-Body Scanners Safe; some flight crews, passengers fear excess radiation"

LINDSEY TANNER

Associated Press

Chicago — 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.

An independent group of experts agrees, as long as radiation doses are kept within the low limits set for the scanners.

But ripples of concern have surfaced among some passengers fearful about excess radiation, among some flight crews already exposed to radiation in the air and even among a few scientists concerned that machines might malfunction, raising the risk of cancer.

Friday, the Transportation Security Administration John Pistole chief said pilots will be exempted from some body scans and pat-downs.

Pilots had sought faster screening for years. But earlier this month, two veteran commercial airline pilots sued, saying the scans violated their civil rights. Unions representing 14,800 pilots at AMR Corp.'s American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. urged members to avoid body scanners.

The TSA says radiation from one scan is about the same as a person would get from flying for about three minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet, where atmospheric radiation levels are higher than on the ground. That amount is vastly lower than a single dental X-ray.

You would have to go through scanners more than 1,000 times in one year to even meet the maximum recommended level — and even pilots don't do that.

"We are confident that full-body X-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health," officials from the Food and Drug Administration and the TSA wrote in a letter last month to White House science adviser John Holdren.

Arizona State University physics professor Peter Rez says he's worried about "what happens if the thing fails in some way" and emits too much radiation.

The risk for failure of a scanner is higher than in a medical setting because the machines are operated much more often, and by TSA workers without medical training, he said.

The TSA is continuing to add more scanners; about 385 of them, each costing up to $170,000, are already in place at more than 60 airports.

About half are what are known as millimeter-wave units, made by L-3 Communications, which are not the focus of safety concerns because they emit a less potent kind of radiation. The remaining machines are Rapiscan System's "backscatter" scanners, which emit ionizing radiation similar to X-rays. This kind of radiation in larger doses can cause cell changes leading to cancer.

"From a strictly radiation-safety standpoint, there would be no concern" with either type of scanner, said Richard Morin, a radiology specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. "For both of them, levels for radiation are pretty much insignificant."

The National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements, an independent group that advises the government on radiation, examined backscatter screening at the request of the Food and Drug Administration. It said non-ionizing scanners should be considered first, if possible. But it also recommended limits for backscatter radiation and said health risks would be minimal if doses were below those limits. The government insists that they are.

David Schauer, the council's executive director, says he has no qualms about being scanned by backscatter devices, and would allow his three sons to be scanned, too.

TSA spokesman Nick Kimball said Thursday that both types of scanners are safe, are tested before installation and periodically thereafter, cost about the same and are similarly effective. He said the TSA chose to use both types to keep the process competitive and to "drive innovation."

Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport has avoided the privacy and safety uproar over full-body scanners. Its devices use radio waves to detect substances, including explosives, gels, powders and liquids. They provide an outline of the problem body area is displayed on a generic mannequin figure instead of on the actual image of the passenger's body.

And I'm not saying I'm in favor of the scans. If they have to have them, sounds like Amsterdam's got the better ones in terms of helping to maintain some privacy.

[StormKnight (1)]

Unless it has the power in hard numbers, I will have a hard time believing them safe. Unfortunately, the article gives no radiation measurements in hard numbers.

And if there aren't people doing QC on them as often as radiation emitting equipment at minimum, I won't believe them safe.

I am forced to keep at lowest common denominator, that those running the machines will say more=better in terms of radiation, until numbers and QA/QC protocols are stated.

EDIT: Correcting topic title.

Edited November 22, 2010 by StormKnight

[freydis]

Scanner images leaked.

Whoops, there goes your privacy.

And hopefully, your pilot doesnt have hip replacements or medical devices. Because then, he might be flying impaired, because he's angry.

Oh, and make sure your kids don't fuss at the checkpoint.

I feel sorry for the pilots, and think their health concerns have merit.

[Destroit]

The goal of the terrorists is not to "take over our country". The goal of the terrorists is to paralyze us with such irrational fear that we are rendered incapable to carry out our daily functions without hassle in the way that we used to.

I regret to announce that the terrorists have won because we LET them win.

They wanted to change our social structure and how we function to be laden with fear, they have accomplished that goal. Safety has not changed imo, if the TSA NEVER EXISTED flying a plane would still be the safest mode of transportation. The odds you would be blown up by a mechanical/pilot error would still be MUCH greater than the chances of hijakers taking over your jet and running it into a skyscraper. Not to mention that you're thousands of times more likely to die in your car than by jihadists hijaking your plane and killing everyone on board. And yet, even taking this all into consideration, the TSA still makes a mockery of national security because we let them.

As a nation, we have lost.

The goal of the terrorists is not to "take over our country". The goal of the terrorists is to paralyze us with such irrational fear that we are rendered incapable to carry out our daily functions without hassle in the way that we used to.

I regret to announce that the terrorists have won because we LET them win.

They wanted to change our social structure and how we function to be laden with fear, they have accomplished that goal. Safety has not changed imo, if the TSA NEVER EXISTED flying a plane would still be the safest mode of transportation. The odds you would be blown up by a mechanical/pilot error would still be MUCH greater than the chances of hijakers taking over your jet and running it into a skyscraper. Not to mention that you're thousands of times more likely to die in your car than by jihadists hijaking your plane and killing everyone on board. And yet, even taking this all into consideration, the TSA still makes a mockery of national security because we let them.

As a nation, we have lost.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Chernobyl

[n0Mad]

@ Chernobyl

[Nightgaunt]

@ Chernobyl

+1

And remember chirrun, radiation damage is cumulative and each successive dose builds upon the cellular mutation caused by the last. If it's "low-level" and "so safe, a pregnant woman could undergo dozens of scans with no ill-effects", then why aren't we allowed to see the numbers? Why are there no long-term studies in progress?

[Hellion]

+1

And remember chirrun, radiation damage is cumulative and each successive dose builds upon the cellular mutation caused by the last. If it's "low-level" and "so safe, a pregnant woman could undergo dozens of scans with no ill-effects", then why aren't we allowed to see the numbers? Why are there no long-term studies in progress?

Its the same reason why the government allows toxic ingredients in our food,but that is a different story.

Divided We Stand,United We Fall

Edited November 23, 2010 by Hellion

[Raev]

Article/video of a young lady making a mockery of the new patdowns. Warning - NSFW link

She has proverbial brass balls.

[Nightgaunt]

I say we get a big group of guys together and all book the same cheap flight out to Vegas or something (cheapest flight we can find, wherever it's to). Then we'll all wear those banana hammock swimsuits, and only banana hammocks. "What are you talking about? I've never had a problem at security. They just let me walk on through."

Or just get a big group together, opt for the pat-down, and be very vocal about how much we're enjoying it.

"Oh! Oh, god, yeah, right there, baby!"

"Ooh, I love the way you frisk me!"

"Aah! Make it hurt, you big beautiful Fascist thug!"

[n0Mad]

Article/video of a young lady making a mockery of the new patdowns. Warning - NSFW link

She has proverbial brass balls.

Her jacket should've been one of those clear vinyl raincoats.

[Onyx]

Israel seems to have an option, dealing with more apparent risk than we do currently:

Israel security article.

This type of system is exactly what our airports should be implementing.

Why do they have to do things ass-backward rather than utilize a system like this that is working?

[Rev.Reverence]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

thank you - i've been trying to remember that quote!

That's Ben Franklin...my hero.