Flyer at SAN says no to grope, escorted from checkpoint by LEO, threatened with suit
Nov 18, 2010, 10:59 pm
#406
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,025
Originally Posted by janetdoe
Extrapolations. Not data. Anyone can make up models. There is simply no peer reviewed data that I have seen. And the generalized assumption that engineers understand biological effects of radiation better than oncologists strikes me as a bit absurd. But that really isn't relevant. The lack of data is, however, quite relevant.
But I stand by my statement that both are equally harmless. Even if my numbers are off by two orders of magnitude, the risks are still negligible compared to common risks we take every day without a second thought.
Here is some food for thought from wikipedia:
The average radiologic profile of bananas is 3520 picocuries per kg, or roughly 520 picocuries per 150g banana. The equivalent dose for 365 bananas (one per day for a year) is 3.6 millirems (36 μSv).
The fact is, there are very few data or studies on the doses of radiation caused by the naked scanners because it's a miniscule fraction of the radiation we get from living on earth and eating the occasional banana.
I still think we should not have the scanners because
a) they don't increase security, and therefore they are a waste of billions of dollars
b) they are an invasion of privacy
c) they could malfunction or be mis-calibrated.
but don't attack them based on fear of ridiculously low radiation exposure. That's how we ended up with the scanners - people are irrationally afraid of a tiny risk.
Last edited by essxjay; Nov 19, 2010 at 4:05 am Reason: merge consecutive posts; response to delete quote
Nov 18, 2010, 11:15 pm
#407
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,222
So this concept of being fined for not completing a screening had me wondering (even if TSA seems to be backpedaling).
Couldn't this make it very easy for them to falsely imprison a traveler? Couldn't they just make you wait an indefinite amount of time before completing your screening? Say, if you opt out of the naked machine? They won't let you through security because you haven't been fully screened, though you did put your bags on the x-ray belt. And if you try and leave security and return landside, they'll threaten you with a fine. And so you're stuck waiting until they decide to give you the full frontal. Which could be hours if they really feel like it, no? Who's overseeing all this nonsense?
Couldn't this make it very easy for them to falsely imprison a traveler? Couldn't they just make you wait an indefinite amount of time before completing your screening? Say, if you opt out of the naked machine? They won't let you through security because you haven't been fully screened, though you did put your bags on the x-ray belt. And if you try and leave security and return landside, they'll threaten you with a fine. And so you're stuck waiting until they decide to give you the full frontal. Which could be hours if they really feel like it, no? Who's overseeing all this nonsense?
Nov 18, 2010, 11:46 pm
#408
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
I see Barbell has beat me to the fact that U.S. passenger jets carry around two and a half billion tons of cargo per year, most of which isn't screened, or even disassembled and X-rayed. Which makes the current naked machines and inappropriate touching - well, particularly pointless, and a waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at a time when a lot of people seem concerned about the amount of debt this nation has taken on.
I'd bother to link articles with definitive proof of these facts, but you don't seem particularly interested in facts, Stupid. (You don't mind if I call you Stupid, do you? Some of us have nicknames around these parts.)
Respectfully? I don't think you have any idea what you're getting into. But have fun trying to turn reality into something it isn't.
I'd bother to link articles with definitive proof of these facts, but you don't seem particularly interested in facts, Stupid. (You don't mind if I call you Stupid, do you? Some of us have nicknames around these parts.)
BRING IT!!!
Nov 19, 2010, 6:00 am
#410
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: delta
Posts: 6
Yes
I still think we should not have the scanners because
a) they don't increase security, and therefore they are a waste of billions of dollars
b) they are an invasion of privacy
c) they could malfunction or be mis-calibrated.
but don't attack them based on fear of ridiculously low radiation exposure. That's how we ended up with the scanners - people are irrationally afraid of a tiny risk.
I still think we should not have the scanners because
a) they don't increase security, and therefore they are a waste of billions of dollars
b) they are an invasion of privacy
c) they could malfunction or be mis-calibrated.
but don't attack them based on fear of ridiculously low radiation exposure. That's how we ended up with the scanners - people are irrationally afraid of a tiny risk.
Yours is perhaps the best post yet (of course, other than mine
)1. They obviously do increase security as you can tell materials that miss the metal scanners (eg, I have a ceramic gun that passes metal detectors). The point is whether they do it enough to make it worth while. Who we going to "trust"? Homeland Security says they do - I am not going to argue with them.
2. They do affect our privacy. But so does the seat belt laws, the red light cameras, motorcycle helmut laws, etc. If they increase our safety enough (vida supra) then perhaps it is worth it.
3. The risk of malfunction is perhaps the best reason for worry. But, we hope the Rolls Royce engine does not blow up on us in flight, too.
Gadget and barbell
I have set on dozens of Federal peer review panels, served as a peer reviewer for major journals such as Science and Nature and have been an editor for an international scientific journal. I have summarized the limits of the available data in the other thread. There is virtually no or no peer reviewed public data addressing any of those concerns. There are extrapolations adlnd assumptions only.
Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, the term is often used to denote a prepublication reviews of academic papers; reviewing an academic paper is often called refereeing.
Nov 19, 2010, 6:45 am
#411
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Programs: Virgin Flying Club Red, Emirates Skywards Blue, BA Executive Club Blue, Amex BA
Posts: 2,375
Don't Touch My Junk Bro! - Interview With John Tyner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYykx...embedded#at=35
Report on a guy that decided he didn't want to be groped by airport security in the US.
Report on a guy that decided he didn't want to be groped by airport security in the US.
Nov 19, 2010, 7:53 pm
#412
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,025
Janet,
Yours is perhaps the best post yet (of course, other than mine)
1. They obviously do increase security as you can tell materials that miss the metal scanners (eg, I have a ceramic gun that passes metal detectors). The point is whether they do it enough to make it worth while. Who we going to "trust"? Homeland Security says they do - I am not going to argue with them.
2. They do affect our privacy. But so does the seat belt laws, the red light cameras, motorcycle helmut laws, etc. If they increase our safety enough (vida supra) then perhaps it is worth it.
3. The risk of malfunction is perhaps the best reason for worry. But, we hope the Rolls Royce engine does not blow up on us in flight, too.
Gadget and barbell
Wiki:
What is the differance of one person reading the data and agreeing or disagreeing (most journals only have 1 - 3 "peers") and having a committee doing it. I believe that they are both the same. The committee is actually better as they spend hours reviewing the data vs 10 minutes for the journal "peer". I respectfully disagree with you on this one.
Yours is perhaps the best post yet (of course, other than mine
)1. They obviously do increase security as you can tell materials that miss the metal scanners (eg, I have a ceramic gun that passes metal detectors). The point is whether they do it enough to make it worth while. Who we going to "trust"? Homeland Security says they do - I am not going to argue with them.
2. They do affect our privacy. But so does the seat belt laws, the red light cameras, motorcycle helmut laws, etc. If they increase our safety enough (vida supra) then perhaps it is worth it.
3. The risk of malfunction is perhaps the best reason for worry. But, we hope the Rolls Royce engine does not blow up on us in flight, too.
Gadget and barbell
Wiki:
What is the differance of one person reading the data and agreeing or disagreeing (most journals only have 1 - 3 "peers") and having a committee doing it. I believe that they are both the same. The committee is actually better as they spend hours reviewing the data vs 10 minutes for the journal "peer". I respectfully disagree with you on this one.
Dec 14, 2010, 9:09 am
#415
Join Date: May 2009
Location: EWR
Programs: UA .5M, Vistana 1-Star owner
Posts: 992
related threads
Quoted from "Top quote of the year delivered by Yale University"
... Quote of the Year #3: "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested." airline passenger John Tyner, remark to Transportation Security Administration worker at San Diego airport, Nov. 13, 2010
... Quote of the Year #3: "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested." airline passenger John Tyner, remark to Transportation Security Administration worker at San Diego airport, Nov. 13, 2010
Related threads for humour: