Airport of full body scanners and enhanced pat-downs >>VOTE??? - Page 2

**Smithtr** · 12-09-2010, 01:32 PM

OMG that is surprised! on big on reading wow

**Jiro** · 12-09-2010, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDU

i will wear my speedo's. should show i am not carrying weapons

are you sure?

YouTube - This Is My Rifle. This Is My Gun

deafgal001 · 12-09-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LinuxGold

If iSign works as TSA, I would be more than willing!

I know you are iSign's biggest fan, but no more stalking!

rraja · 12-09-2010, 08:17 PM

If you look at the statistics, flying is one of the safest form of transportation there is. Only elevators are safer. So from a mathematical perspective, I don't really see a reason as to why additional money should be spent on more intrusive security devices, especially when those devices and methods are obviously inconvenient for people who fly I voted neither, in case you didn't guess from my argument.

It seems like a lot of these decisions are made emotionally though - people like having the illusion of safety and are willing to give up more concrete factors to achieve it.

DDU · 12-09-2010, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rraja

If you look at the statistics, flying is one of the safest form of transportation there is. Only elevators are safer. So from a mathematical perspective, I don't really see a reason as to why additional money should be spent on more intrusive security devices, especially when those devices and methods are obviously inconvenient for people who fly I voted neither, in case you didn't guess from my argument.

It seems like a lot of these decisions are made emotionally though - people like having the illusion of safety and are willing to give up more concrete factors to achieve it.

I sure wish I was living on your parallel universe. This one blows.
As has been demonstrated with disheartening regularity so called terrorist still target passanger planes.

Just one small bnomb, one big enough to puncture a plane flying at 30,000 feet would be enough to send the world into a tailspin. As happened 9/11 all planes would be shut down for days if not weeks. The economy would take yet another nose dive.
All this because your junk is precious?
Beam me outta here scotty

Ps
Jirp . My TSA approved fishnet speedo's will let 99% of TSA agents approve me. The other 1% is iSign, the AD fave TSA. I can rub up on her and attest that the stake is actually only explosive in female company

**KristinaB** · 12-09-2010, 09:42 PM

I just gave up flying totally. Now, if I were to go somewhere that required flying, then I guess I would deal with the scanner, but I don't see myself going anywhere.

rraja · 12-09-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDU

I sure wish I was living on your parallel universe. This one blows.
As has been demonstrated with disheartening regularity so called terrorist still target passanger planes.

Just one small bnomb, one big enough to puncture a plane flying at 30,000 feet would be enough to send the world into a tailspin. As happened 9/11 all planes would be shut down for days if not weeks. The economy would take yet another nose dive.
All this because your junk is precious?
Beam me outta here scotty

Ps
Jirp . My TSA approved fishnet speedo's will let 99% of TSA agents approve me. The other 1% is iSign, the AD fave TSA. I can rub up on her and attest that the stake is actually only explosive in female company

It's been proven that people tend to let emotion cloud their judgment when they are reasoning about the probability of events occuring. That is, they look at the events in which they might lose something and overemphasize the part of the sample space where those outcomes happen. In this case the outcome in question is the one in which a terrorist manages to make it through fairly stringent security (that was in place even before the implementation of full body scanners) and execute an attack without being stopped. This has not happened in the US for the last nine years. My argument is that this bias, more so than any logical interpretation of the facts, is what is motivating the increases in airport security.

However, if you impartially look at the statistics, they show that events as rare as being struck by lightning are still more likely to occur than your being in a plane during an attack. It is true that the loss associated with this event is catastrophic, but it has such a low chance of occurring that it doesn't really factor as much as you think it does.

All security measures have costs associated with their design and implementation, and the resources with which to pay those costs are limited. As such, it would be more sensible to instead attempt to increase the security of much more dangerous forms of transportation or other things that are actually at risk.

DDU · 12-10-2010, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rraja

It's been proven that people tend to let emotion cloud their judgment when they are reasoning about the probability of events occuring. That is, they look at the events in which they might lose something and overemphasize the part of the sample space where those outcomes happen. In this case the outcome in question is the one in which a terrorist manages to make it through fairly stringent security (that was in place even before the implementation of full body scanners) and execute an attack without being stopped. This has not happened in the US for the last nine years. My argument is that this bias, more so than any logical interpretation of the facts, is what is motivating the increases in airport security.

However, if you impartially look at the statistics, they show that events as rare as being struck by lightning are still more likely to occur than your being in a plane during an attack. It is true that the loss associated with this event is catastrophic, but it has such a low chance of occurring that it doesn't really factor as much as you think it does.

All security measures have costs associated with their design and implementation, and the resources with which to pay those costs are limited. As such, it would be more sensible to instead attempt to increase the security of much more dangerous forms of transportation or other things that are actually at risk.

Ooooooook. I cede the debate to your resourceful argument. Their are no terrorist. There are no terrorist. There are no terroist. ( click heels 3x. Toto where are you)

Deaffy · 12-10-2010, 12:36 AM

One thing is certain. The world is f*(ked up these day's. It used to be $5 you could drive all week to and from work. Leave your door's unlocked. Never have to worry like we do these day's. I wonder where things took a turn for the worse.

DDU · 12-10-2010, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deaffy

One thing is certain. The world is f*(ked up these day's. It used to be $5 you could drive all week to and from work. Leave your door's unlocked. Never have to worry like we do these day's. I wonder where things took a turn for the worse.

Too true. I actually pity the poor kids 10 tears old and under. What do they have to look forward to? Health care? Jobs? Polar shift? China as the new world power? Or worse possible thing,, matajan as president. Please shoot me

Sosie · 12-13-2010, 07:00 AM

Hope you enjoy this one.....cute...........where is it all going to end?????????????

YouTube - Grandma Got Molested At The Airport

rraja · 12-20-2010, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDU

Ooooooook. I cede the debate to your resourceful argument. Their are no terrorist. There are no terrorist. There are no terroist. ( click heels 3x. Toto where are you)

Following this line of logic, if I made the statement that it is unnecessary for one to spend money to take additional measures to protect themselves from being struck by lightning, does that mean I am claiming that people are never struck by lightning?

Frisky Feline · 12-20-2010, 03:18 PM

**Oddball** · 12-20-2010, 09:17 PM

I will face either xray scanner or pats down at Newark Liberty International Airport on this xmas eve.

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 09:40 PM

reviving this old thread -

Airport body scanners: Are they safe? - CNN.com

Quote:

Airport body scanners: Are they safe?

Washington (CNN) -- Radiation from airport body scanners penetrates organs beneath the skin but at low doses that meet national standards, according to a study by Marquette University's Department of Biomedical Engineering.

But the study's author, professor Taly Gilat-Schmidt, said the research does not answer the biggest question on travelers' minds: Are scanners safe? She said more independent research is needed.

The Marquette study subjected government and vendor data to sophisticated computer modeling to estimate the radiation doses travelers receive when they are scanned by backscatter machines, one of two types of imagers used to detect weapons at security checkpoints.

The Transportation Security Administration has maintained that the machines are safe, exposing travelers to about the same radiation they receive by flying about two minutes at cruising altitude. A passenger would have to receive more than 17,000 screenings in a year -- about 47 screenings a day, 365 days a year -- to exceed government standards, the TSA says.

The Marquette study says that the backscatter dose is "comparable" to one minute of exposure to cosmic radiation and considerably lower than radiation levels of other X-ray procedures, such as a mammogram. But it balks at calling the exposures safe, saying cosmic and backscatter radiation are different and that both the risks and benefits of backscatter need to be quantified.

Experts: Body scanning 'woefully inadequate' abroad

John Sedat, a University of California, San Francisco, professor of biochemistry and biophysics, is against the TSA's use of backscatter technology. He criticized the Marquette report, saying it was based on TSA data instead of independent testing of machines.

"It's a valid criticism," responded Gilat-Schmidt. "I think that's valid, and we put that criticism (in the paper). But that's how research is. It's not the whole enchilada. It's one step; not the whole step."

"I think it's very important to have independent studies," she said.

Gilat-Schmidt said that she goes through backscatter X-ray machines, but "I don't feel comfortable putting my kids through them."

"That's because in the medical imaging community, it's always stressed that the (radiation) dosage should be as low as possible. And in this case, the lowest possible is not going through them. There's an alternative technology out there," she said. Two options are millimeter wave machines, which use radio waves, and physical pat-downs.

The Marquette paper will be published in the June issue of Medical Physics, an international journal of medical physics research and practice, produced by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

The research was conducted by Marquette student Michael Hoppe with Gilat-Schmidt's assistance.

A TSA spokesman said the agency was aware of the Marquette study but had not yet done a thorough analysis of it.

last weekend when I traveled to Dallas... at Boston airport, I told TSA agents that I refused to go thru body scanner. not a first time I refused to go thru body scanner.

Mimsy · 06-11-2012, 10:20 PM

When I fly with my dog, he has to go through the bag scanner in his crate and I pray to God that he doesn't get cancer from it. But they say thy have to make sure he doesn't have explosives or drugs in his body.

**Foxrac** · 06-11-2012, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

reviving this old thread -

Airport body scanners: Are they safe? - CNN.com

last weekend when I traveled to Dallas... at Boston airport, I told TSA agents that I refused to go thru body scanner. not a first time I refused to go thru body scanner.

Same here, I refused to go in body scanner at DCA (Reagan National Airport).

soutthpaw · 06-12-2012, 09:05 AM

I went through one of those new scanners recently. there is a screen on the way out you can see what it scanned. its basically a solid white silhouette of your body. it doesn't show any x-ray type appearance at all. so I think that is an improvement. If you have something metal on you it places a yellow box over the area on your body silhouette where it detected the metal. I know this cuz it picked up my CI implant and I wasn't wearing my processors. almost never use them. there was a box on the screen by the left side of my head.

HOWEVER, I am questioning the effectiveness of the scanners as it showed nothing on the right side of my head and I have Bilateral implants...

soutthpaw · 06-12-2012, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mimsy

When I fly with my dog, he has to go through the bag scanner in his crate and I pray to God that he doesn't get cancer from it. But they say thy have to make sure he doesn't have explosives or drugs in his body.

I take it that is a regular dog not a service dog? I wonder what they do with service animals?

PowerON · 06-12-2012, 09:13 AM

Before I decide to take pat-downs. First, I'll wear same cloths for 2 days from work-out and never take shower for 3 days. Let them enjoy smell me while they pat-downs on me. After the security, I go to bathroom and clean some as best as I could and switch to fresh cloths. WINNING!

soutthpaw · 06-12-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerON

Before I decide to take pat-downs. First, I'll wear same cloths for 2 days from work-out and never take shower for 3 days. Let them enjoy smell me while they pat-downs on me. After the security, I go to bathroom and clean some as best as I could and switch to fresh cloths. WINNING!

I guess you travel alone alot!

**Jiro** · 06-12-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soutthpaw

I went through one of those new scanners recently. there is a screen on the way out you can see what it scanned. its basically a solid white silhouette of your body. it doesn't show any x-ray type appearance at all. so I think that is an improvement. If you have something metal on you it places a yellow box over the area on your body silhouette where it detected the metal. I know this cuz it picked up my CI implant and I wasn't wearing my processors. almost never use them. there was a box on the screen by the left side of my head.

HOWEVER, I am questioning the effectiveness of the scanners as it showed nothing on the right side of my head and I have Bilateral implants...

right. it's not an x-ray device like at hospital. it's a backscatter. one major flaw with this device is that if you put an object outside your figure line (ie. a gun between your arm and body like shoulder strap holster), the scanner can't see it. it's a major security flaw.

Frisky Feline · 06-12-2012, 12:22 PM

who reminds me of JIRO!!!!

Frisky Feline · 06-12-2012, 12:24 PM

Mimsy · 06-12-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soutthpaw

I take it that is a regular dog not a service dog? I wonder what they do with service animals?

I've seen service dogs being walked though the regular scanner.

**SneakerNet** · 06-12-2012, 07:08 PM

Let me think of this way.... Why do men or especially women wearing string, thinsy bikini at the beach in front of 1000 strangers.... he or she doesn't mind at all... walking, strutting, bouncy breasts and such, he or she exposed 98 percents of their skins... whereas...mmm... body scanner are very obscured, just showing more like ugly silvery color on the screen. He, she objected?? Complained? Angry? Disgusted? Wait a minutes... why are you sooo comfortable at the beach??? You know?

Mmm... really.. the whole point is to be sure there's no danger to airline. We already saw what happen to airline bombers and it did happen but luckily that passengers are safe compare to the people on the beach? If beach are not safe at all, because men or women raped other people due to too much exposure to their skins? Should we put a new law that men should wear t-shirt over it and women only wear one piece bathing suit, banned 2 pieces or string bathing suits? Same way with scanner?? Yes or No?

Really, it's all about safety, is to be sure that passengers get home safely with his or her family. We already experiences how many lives lost during 9/11 and they simply complained about scanner or pat down... mmmm..let invites TSA to the beach...they will be having fun scanning people with skinny bathing suits...you know?

Government are doing their job to protect people...

Pat down...yes. it's very uncomfortable but scanner...just think about the beach.. Just imangine yourself wearing string bathing suit...

**Jiro** · 06-12-2012, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SneakerNet

Let me think of this way.... Why do men or especially women wearing string, thinsy bikini at the beach in front of 1000 strangers.... he or she doesn't mind at all... walking, strutting, bouncy breasts and such, he or she exposed 98 percents of their skins... whereas...mmm... body scanner are very obscured, just showing more like ugly silvery color on the screen. He, she objected?? Complained? Angry? Disgusted? Wait a minutes... why are you sooo comfortable at the beach??? You know?

Mmm... really.. the whole point is to be sure there's no danger to airline. We already saw what happen to airline bombers and it did happen but luckily that passengers are safe compare to the people on the beach? If beach are not safe at all, because men or women raped other people due to too much exposure to their skins? Should we put a new law that men should wear t-shirt over it and women only wear one piece bathing suit, banned 2 pieces or string bathing suits? Same way with scanner?? Yes or No?

Really, it's all about safety, is to be sure that passengers get home safely with his or her family. We already experiences how many lives lost during 9/11 and they simply complained about scanner or pat down... mmmm..let invites TSA to the beach...they will be having fun scanning people with skinny bathing suits...you know?

Government are doing their job to protect people...

Pat down...yes. it's very uncomfortable but scanner...just think about the beach.. Just imangine yourself wearing string bathing suit...

one major flaw in your argument - you're assuming that everybody at airport is comfortable with wearing skimpy bathing suits at beach or nudity at beach.

and there's a healthy & medical concern about this backscatter xray.

**SneakerNet** · 06-12-2012, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

one major flaw in your argument - you're assuming that everybody at airport is comfortable with wearing skimpy bathing suits at beach or nudity at beach.

and there's a healthy & medical concern about this backscatter xray.

Oh, no.. I didn't say everybody... but they already experienced what it's like to be on the beach. If the don't like it, then don't go to the beach. If they don't like scanning... then drive a car.

As far as medical concern, there's no report so far about exposure. My father is a retired Dr of Radiobiology Research/Nuclear Medicine, he stated that Airport scanner are much lower exposure than the X-ray. The amount of radiation penetrate to the skin are much lower than the using mamogram penetration to the women's breast.

soutthpaw · 06-12-2012, 07:50 PM

We should be doing what Israel does but that got shut down due to Civil liberties claiming racial profiling... However it works. as Israel has not had a problem in decades. They observe the behaviors and appearances of passengers and are highly trained in recognizing potential terrorists.

rockin'robin · 06-12-2012, 07:57 PM

There are worser things than a pat down or a scanner...had a colonscopy...and my arse was invaded...women have mammograms...their breast are squeezed with a machine...men have prospate (cq) exams...they squeeze ur balls....womem have pap smears...babies....the list goes on and on....

It's a necessity, and one that could save ur life.

View Poll Results: Which do you want about the TSA's new full body scanners and enhanced pat-downs?
Both acceptable	5	14.29%
Pat downs body	3	8.57%
Scanners	5	14.29%
Hate both the scanners and the pat downs!	17	48.57%
Other opinion.. which I will post below	1	2.86%
Not decided yet!	4	11.43%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

12-09-2010, 01:32 PM	#31 (permalink)
Smithtr Siberian Husky Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 14,684	OMG that is surprised! on big on reading wow __________________

12-10-2010, 12:36 AM	#39 (permalink)
Deaffy Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ohio Posts: 592	One thing is certain. The world is f*(ked up these day's. It used to be $5 you could drive all week to and from work. Leave your door's unlocked. Never have to worry like we do these day's. I wonder where things took a turn for the worse. Mimsy likes this. __________________ Experience is the best education one can ever have. RIGHT EAR Implanted 7-16-10 Activated 8-10-10 Nucleus 5 LEFT EAR Unaided deaf.

06-12-2012, 09:13 AM	#50 (permalink)
PowerON Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 37.5, 126.9 Posts: 10,335 Blog Entries: 5	Before I decide to take pat-downs. First, I'll wear same cloths for 2 days from work-out and never take shower for 3 days. Let them enjoy smell me while they pat-downs on me. After the security, I go to bathroom and clean some as best as I could and switch to fresh cloths. WINNING! __________________ • [Illustrator.Blog-alloon.com] • Don't shoot me! I'm only blogger!

06-12-2012, 07:08 PM	#56 (permalink)
SneakerNet My IQ: 12 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: 26°53'41.95" N 41°40'50.62" W Posts: 1,954	Let me think of this way.... Why do men or especially women wearing string, thinsy bikini at the beach in front of 1000 strangers.... he or she doesn't mind at all... walking, strutting, bouncy breasts and such, he or she exposed 98 percents of their skins... whereas...mmm... body scanner are very obscured, just showing more like ugly silvery color on the screen. He, she objected?? Complained? Angry? Disgusted? Wait a minutes... why are you sooo comfortable at the beach??? You know? Mmm... really.. the whole point is to be sure there's no danger to airline. We already saw what happen to airline bombers and it did happen but luckily that passengers are safe compare to the people on the beach? If beach are not safe at all, because men or women raped other people due to too much exposure to their skins? Should we put a new law that men should wear t-shirt over it and women only wear one piece bathing suit, banned 2 pieces or string bathing suits? Same way with scanner?? Yes or No? Really, it's all about safety, is to be sure that passengers get home safely with his or her family. We already experiences how many lives lost during 9/11 and they simply complained about scanner or pat down... mmmm..let invites TSA to the beach...they will be having fun scanning people with skinny bathing suits...you know? Government are doing their job to protect people... Pat down...yes. it's very uncomfortable but scanner...just think about the beach.. Just imangine yourself wearing string bathing suit... __________________ No trees were harmed in the sending of this email; however, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

12-09-2010, 08:17 PM	#34 (permalink)
rraja Registered User Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 76	If you look at the statistics, flying is one of the safest form of transportation there is. Only elevators are safer. So from a mathematical perspective, I don't really see a reason as to why additional money should be spent on more intrusive security devices, especially when those devices and methods are obviously inconvenient for people who fly I voted neither, in case you didn't guess from my argument. It seems like a lot of these decisions are made emotionally though - people like having the illusion of safety and are willing to give up more concrete factors to achieve it.

12-09-2010, 09:42 PM	#36 (permalink)
KristinaB New SDIT Deacon Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Land of the backstroke Posts: 13,779	I just gave up flying totally. Now, if I were to go somewhere that required flying, then I guess I would deal with the scanner, but I don't see myself going anywhere.

12-20-2010, 03:18 PM	#43 (permalink)
Frisky Feline Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 20,239

12-20-2010, 09:17 PM	#44 (permalink)
Oddball Premium Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The Toxic State Posts: 4,571	I will face either xray scanner or pats down at Newark Liberty International Airport on this xmas eve.

06-11-2012, 10:20 PM	#46 (permalink)
Mimsy Registered User Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 655	When I fly with my dog, he has to go through the bag scanner in his crate and I pray to God that he doesn't get cancer from it. But they say thy have to make sure he doesn't have explosives or drugs in his body.

06-12-2012, 09:05 AM	#48 (permalink)
soutthpaw Registered User Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 345	I went through one of those new scanners recently. there is a screen on the way out you can see what it scanned. its basically a solid white silhouette of your body. it doesn't show any x-ray type appearance at all. so I think that is an improvement. If you have something metal on you it places a yellow box over the area on your body silhouette where it detected the metal. I know this cuz it picked up my CI implant and I wasn't wearing my processors. almost never use them. there was a box on the screen by the left side of my head. HOWEVER, I am questioning the effectiveness of the scanners as it showed nothing on the right side of my head and I have Bilateral implants...

06-12-2012, 12:22 PM	#53 (permalink)
Frisky Feline Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 20,239	who reminds me of JIRO!!!!

06-12-2012, 12:24 PM	#54 (permalink)
Frisky Feline Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 20,239

06-12-2012, 07:50 PM	#59 (permalink)
soutthpaw Registered User Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 345	We should be doing what Israel does but that got shut down due to Civil liberties claiming racial profiling... However it works. as Israel has not had a problem in decades. They observe the behaviors and appearances of passengers and are highly trained in recognizing potential terrorists.

06-12-2012, 07:57 PM	#60 (permalink)
rockin'robin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 15,339	There are worser things than a pat down or a scanner...had a colonscopy...and my arse was invaded...women have mammograms...their breast are squeezed with a machine...men have prospate (cq) exams...they squeeze ur balls....womem have pap smears...babies....the list goes on and on.... It's a necessity, and one that could save ur life.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode