Full-Body Scanners to Fry Travelers With Radiation

John, you are overreacting. I just pointed out why women are more uncomfortable with this scanning. Having a wife and daughters (I believe you have daughters), I would expect you to be a little more understanding of this issue for women. I am not advocating anything.

 

Then, let's expand this.
Your wife and daughter go through a checkpoint in your family car.
Do you have no problem with the 'authorities' scanning them in this way, as they travel down the road?
I mean, doesn't the government say that the ability to drive on the roads that you payed for, in a car you payed for, is a courtesy of the government, and not a right?
I mean, according to you, travel is a priviledge, just as long as the government says it is OK.
Got pics?:laugh:

 

Do you reallly know this to be true?

(A 'normal day exposure' vs 5 minutes of normal background radiation.... both statements from 'experts' which are so extreme.... its proof there's no consistant measure nor agreement among the 'experts'.)

Or.......
(Please forgive me for asking)
Are you just quoting 'some' expert opinion heard on radio or t.v. or read in the news?

A course in radiology taken back in 1967-68, stated that there was no 'safe' amount of radiation as any radiation which is capable of passing into or through the body is ionizing and does produce some damage to cells and molecules. "Experts" wrote the books back then. Why a change in the message? I'm sure that to some degree there may be a change of technology which has reduced exposure and enhanced the film or the imaging devices, but I doubt that there has been any serious biological changes which have increased our tolerance for increased exposure without some consequences.

Naturally it is 'safe' for a person to declare its 'safe'........ whos going to remember this 'expert opinion' when 10-20 years later (or possibly earlier) a cancer occurrs...... and how do you prove its due to a damaged cell division years earlier when exposed to x-rays... when there are so many other 'environmental' causes to blame it on?

Is itt probable that corporate jets, private airplanes, and chartered flights may allow some privileges of more limited screening compared to those traveling commercial? ????????? Just wondering!

 

There are reports that this is already in use.... some at standard checkpoints for checking truck driver's tracker and trailer contents while in transport through a point of entry..... and some being set up and used experimentally on all motorist whether commercial vehicles or private passenger traveling on the road.

 

Apples and skyscrapers. However, if we are all going to the airport, I have no problem with my wife and daughter going through an airport scanner.

Since others have claimed that the scanners' radiation is harmful, it's up to them to provide factual evidence of this.

BTW, if I do my math correctly, the amount of radiation one is exposed to in these scanners is equal to approx 3 or 4 minutes of sunlight. In other words, you'll be exposed to more radiation walking from your car to the terminal than you will walking through one of these scanners. If anyone should be concerned about the levels of radiation, it should be me, since I travel for business about 15 times per year (which means I would be exposed to 30 scans per year). And my level of concern is minimal.

What I really want to know from those complaing about scanner radiation, why the heck do they not get up in arms over the radiation from the xray scanners that have been used in airports for decades now?

 

The fear that people have about a full-body scan seems to outweigh any fear of being blown up on a plane. Terrorists hate this country and us and want to kill as many of us as possible. While I don't sit around being afraid of what they might do to me, I am in favor of almost anything being done to assure our safety.

 

So, in other words you'll go along with increasing the size and power of an already over grown inept government and oppresive surveillance state that has proven time and time again that it cannot protect us no matter how much more power and funding it's granted just so you'll feel safe?

How does that make any sense?

 

By that reckoning, poncho, we shoudl just discontinue airport screening entirely. I can't say I agree.

 

That's not what I was reckoning at all. I don't have a problem with having security in airports. The problem I have is with all this knee-jerk reactionary stuff.

This latest story about the "underpants bomber" or whatever they're calling him today wasn't even a day old when the rush to invade our privacy more than it already is with these full body scanners started. How in the world can we ever find real solutions to real problems if we're always reacting before we have a chance to think things out?

Did this guy get through security because of the lack of full body scanners? No! He got through it because some "well dressed" guy helped him to avoid the security that was already in place.

Apparently alot of people helped him avoid security all the way around, whether they meant to or not. The system itself is a failure. Fix the system. Don't clamor as fast as you can to make a change where none is needed just because it'll make you "feel" safer. Fix what's broke.

I refer back to this article I was reading this morning.

The problem is never that the U.S. Government lacks sufficient power to engage in surveillance, interceptions, intelligence-gathering and the like. Long before 9/11 -- from the Cold War -- we have vested extraordinarily broad surveillance powers in the U.S. Government to the point that we have turned ourselves into a National Security and Surveillance State. Terrorist attacks do not happen because there are too many restrictions on the government's ability to eavesdrop and intercept communications, or because there are too many safeguards and checks. If anything, the opposite is true: the excesses of the Surveillance State -- and the steady abolition of oversights and limits -- have made detection of plots far less likely. Despite that, we have an insatiable appetite -- especially when we're frightened anew -- to vest more and more unrestricted spying and other powers in our Government, which -- like all governments -- is more than happy to accept them.

SOURCE

UPDATE: Writing in the midst of the FISA debate and on behalf of numerous intelligence professionals, former FBI agent and 9/11 whistleblower Coleen Rowley made similar points in explaining how constantly expanding surveillance and related powers -- driven by fear-mongering over terrorism -- have impeded the government's ability to detect terrorist plots (h/t cj):

Extraneous, irrelevant data clutter the system, making it even harder for analysts to make meaningful future connections. A needle is hard enough to find in the proverbial haystack, without adding still more hay. . . . Quantity cannot substitute for quality. Higher quality data collection depends not only on better guidance with respect to relevance, but also on judiciousness applied from the beginning and throughout the collection process. Unfortunately, case and statutory law has come to be regarded as some kind of nicety -- or a barrier that needs to be overcome. Not so. That law sets standards of relevancy for collection that used to hold down data clutter.
​

Those barriers, standards and oversight mechanisms have been inexorably diminished or abolished entirely over the last decade. And the results are becoming clear.

UPDATE II: Quite relatedly, Spencer Ackerman explains how Obama's new policy of targeting citizens from multiple predominantly Muslim countries for increased scrutiny will also undermine American security. It's so striking how most of the policies we undertake in the name of combating Terrorism -- including our various invasions, bombings and occupations, and our always-escalating Surveillance State -- have exactly the opposite effect.

 

You have a point there. The question would be whether implimentation of these scanner is knee-jerk or not.

 

Well, let's investigate some.

knee-jerk

A sudden reflexive movement of the leg below the knee, as a reaction to a tap to the tendon just below the patella (kneecap).

Automatic, spontaneous, easily predictable a response.

SOURCE

Is the instantaneous 24/7 non stop media coverage of this incident and the tiresome video loopage of the "need" for full body scanners in airports automatic?

Like I said barely a day had gone by before the call rang out to invade our privacy even more with these things was made. Automatic? Yep!

Spontaneous? I'd have to say no on this one as it all seems a bit too contrived to me that all the networks just "spontaneously" bombarded us with the very same "message" at the same time compounded by the fact that many of the same folks who own and operate the mass media networks being part and parcel of the military industrial complex just happen to be in a position to make huge profits from these scanners.

Easily predictable? What's more predictable than the government and media demanding more intrusive government and security measures whenever one of these "terror related" incidents occurs?

Easily predictable? Check!

Response? If this isn't a response I don't what else it could be.

Three out of four John. I think it's safe to say the call for full body scanners could be a knee-jerk reaction. Either that or the makers of these scanner thingies (MIC) really really really want to sell a few thousand units to our government and airlines and every other government and private office building in the United States and pulled out all the stops to convince us of how imperative it is for us to relinquish even more liberty and privacy and consent to not just being groped and hassled at the airport but being digitally recorded naked by these money making contraptions of theirs.

What's in store for us after the next "incident" I wonder???

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/01/dutch_police_develop_mobile_bo.php

Easily predictable? Easy as falling off a log!

Hope y'all have no major qualms about your nakedness being recorded at ball games (and displayed who knows where or to whom) and other public places in the very near future.

Because the "terrorists" will surely get ya if ya do!

 

I'm not disagreeing with you there, but allow me to play devil's advocate. These scanners have been in the news for quite a while. I first remember hearing about them well over a year ago. It doesn't appear that TSA decided to all of a sudden start using these now. However, it certainly appears that they decided to put their implimentation at the top of the list, and that is certainly worthy of consideration for being knee-jerk.

 

The USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T ACT (s) were written well in advance of 9/11 too but it took the added "emphasis" of a tragic event to get these constitution killing, liberty robbing measures passed into law. Some would say tyrannical measures but I have my doubts about whether or not most readers here understand what tyranny really is so I'll just stick to the basics. :smilewinkgrin:

Sometimes John, it just takes the right impetus to get things done. Including selling big ticket items like full body scanners to an otherwise unwilling market.

 

You've been talking to my wife about my home improvement repairs, haven't you?

You're full of good points today. I might be wrong, but it seems that the body scanners went from "standard procurement procedure" to "get it out now and to heck with the cost", which carries with it a potential for abuse. Now, I don't oppose the use of the scanners per se. However, I do share the concern about their manner of implimentation being a knee-jerk reaction.

 

Potential for abuse you say? I'd say it's more like a given at this stage of the game. John, we no longer have a functioning republic. What we have is rule by corporations. They call the shots, congress and the executive make it happen.

No matter how loudly we peasents protest. If the corporations want to sell us 100, 200, 300+ billion dollars worth of new technology, we're going to buy it, even if it kills us.

The only difference between republicans and democrats when it comes to actually serving these corporations and pushing their costly toys and their wonderful authoritarian nightmare society that's so important for them to have is the exuses we hear.

Bush was making it happen for them by claiming to be "tough on terror" and now Obama is making it happen for them so he doesn't look to be soft on terror. And he's also funneling our tax money to the corporations that control the security state same as Bush. Terror is their bread and butter much like the cold war and Russians were in days not so distant past.

Where would big government be without the "terrorist" what would be our motivation for granting it ever more money, power and control over our lives then? Global warming? The sky is falling because we breath out co2? We saw where that was going and where it went.

Without the "terrorist" there would be no pressing need for spending billions on full body scanners and brain scanners, and portable naked body scanners (and all the other toys great and small) at the kid's football games. The whole security surveillance state that was built up to "protect us" is a goldmine! Why in the world would they actually want to rid the world of "terrorists"? That'd be like killing the goose that laid golden eggs.

They aren't worried about terrorists sneaking into the country and blowing us up. They already got the new toys and new new rules all made up and waiting for the day the people are frightened enough to accept the next layer of tyranny. If they really wanted to protect us from outside threats like they all claim the borders would be secure, the airports would be secure and uninvited guests would never be allowed to just waltz into the WH and snuggle with the first family.

That's how seriously they take the "terrorist" threat. The only threat that worries them is that they might run out of crisis before they get all our money and turn this place into a third world socialist/fascist nightmare.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Rahm Emanuel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk

There, now I've said too much. Good night all. :wavey:

 

They do. Just as the people who say that tasers from cops are unsafe, they are ignored.

 

Military analysts were urging in the 1930's to begin procuring more modern fighters and bombers, to retire horse cavalry, and to invest in armored cav before WWII. The attack at Pearl Harbor must have been just the right impetus to get things rolling. I smell a rat.

 

Still chearing for bigger and more intrusive government I see. Guess I'll never understand you big government conservatives. You'll do anything to please your master won't you?

 

Yes. Because it's true.

 

What am I cheering for? I haven't taken any position on the use of airport scanners. And it's easy to cast doubt on anything isn't it. Just read a few conspiricy sites or watch a few Alex Jones videos. That'll do the trick.