Doctors opting out
 

Just saw this. Did a search and didn't see it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/31...=Google+Reader

CNN story on docs opting out (or not)

Responsible Journalism
 

I wrote Ms Cohen a nice note in the comments section. I thought the article was a credit to her, and an example of the type of professional reporting journalists rarely bother with these days.

If anyone else feels so moved, a few more kind, encouraging notes to Ms Cohen might bear fruit.

Awesome article! I noticed it included this line:
The problems with these studies are that they are not really relevant to frequent flyers. Heck, there are lots of FTers who do mileage runs in which they fly seven (or more) one-way flights (segments) in a single weekend!

What I need to see is an article with results like this:
Until then, I'm going to keep self-opting myself out of the nude-o-scopes.

I would have liked this further probed, but overall, I liked the article.

I'm a nurse and my husband is a physicist (and he has had melanoma.) Our family will let other people be the six (or sixty?) each year who could get cancer as a result of that inconsequential dose of radiation.

It occurs to me to ask if these additional cases of cancers are in individuals not already pre-disposed to cancer or are they in people who, as TheGolfWidow's husband, have already had cancer, especially a skin cancer.

I should think the numbers would be much higher in those pre-disposed vs. the "normal" population.

My wife is a physician.

She absolutely refuses to go through the box until a peer-reviewed journal reports on their safety, and even then she probably won't.

I think that regardless of the cancer statistics, there is one thing that we can /absolutely/ say with certainty.

More people will be diagnosed with cancer as a result of going through these machines than terrorists will be discovered as a result of going through these machines.

And that fact removes them from the realm of reasonableness.

^^

Don't forget the lawsuits in 20 years that will make the Fed Govt pay for the medical costs and damages associated with those cancer cases once it's proved in a court of law that the machines weren't properly tested, maintained or managed to protect the traveling public.

Why I Said 'No' to Backscatter Scanning
 

Dr. Cindy Haines:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-cin..._b_842587.html

Doesn't that just say it all?

"Fed Gov't" = us, the taxpayers.

Believe me, I know .. dinged and double dinged for something that should never have been implemented and paid for in the first place :mad:

Yup :td: and the lobbyists and folks like Skeletor (who just so happens :rolleyes: to have a vested interest in one of the AIT companies) sure got rich at our expense as well :mad:

Interesting article and debate among doctors.

I last saw my Dr. a couple of months ago, and mentioned an upcoming flight. I asked him what he thought of the nude-o-scopes and he responded that he was not concerned as the amount of radiation was negligible.

I asked him how he could possibly know that for sure, and then ranted on a few moments about the violations of our 4th amendment rights, why it was necessary for TSA to have such invasive security theater tactics, how any amount of radiation can be considered truly safe, etc. We ended the conversation with him asking me questions!

One. Convert. At. A. Time. ;)