Doctors opting out
Mar 31, 2011 | 6:49 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: CLE
Programs: UA Gold, HH Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,718
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)
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/31...=Google+Reader
CNN story on docs opting out (or not)
Mar 31, 2011 | 7:39 am
#2
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
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.
If anyone else feels so moved, a few more kind, encouraging notes to Ms Cohen might bear fruit.
Mar 31, 2011 | 8:07 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kettle with Kryptonium Medallion Tags
Posts: 12,674
Awesome article! I noticed it included this line:
What I need to see is an article with results like this:
The researchers calculated for every 100 million passengers who fly seven one-way flights a year, six of them could get cancer as a result of the radiation exposure from the full-body scans.
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:
The researchers calculated for every X frequent-fliers who typically fly seven or more one-way flights a week, Y of them could get cancer as a result of the radiation exposure from the full-body scans.
Until then, I'm going to keep self-opting myself out of the nude-o-scopes.
Mar 31, 2011 | 8:14 am
#4
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145
"Multiple independent studies have confirmed that the technology used to protect passengers when they fly is safe for their health," says TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball. "TSA takes many precautions to regularly verify that all machines are operating properly."
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.
Mar 31, 2011 | 8:54 am
#5
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
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.
I should think the numbers would be much higher in those pre-disposed vs. the "normal" population.
Mar 31, 2011 | 10:57 am
#7
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 219
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.
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.
Mar 31, 2011 | 11:08 am
#8
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
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.
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.
^^
Mar 31, 2011 | 12:51 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,947
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.
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.
Mar 31, 2011 | 2:21 pm
#10
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
Why I Said 'No' to Backscatter Scanning
Mar 31, 2011 | 2:26 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,947
Radiation exposure, however small, is a known risk to our health. My bottom line: Must I receive radiation for lack of an alternative? In this scenario, thankfully, no. The alternative in this case is that full body pat-down, completely devoid of any radiation exposure.
Mar 31, 2011 | 2:29 pm
#12
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 49,059
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.
Mar 31, 2011 | 2:30 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,947
Mar 31, 2011 | 2:48 pm
#14
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 29,078
and the lobbyists and folks like Skeletor (who just so happens 
to have a vested interest in one of the AIT companies) sure got rich at our expense as well 
Mar 31, 2011 | 5:06 pm
#15
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 96
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.
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.