Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TSA says scans are safe....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:23 PM
Original message
TSA says scans are safe....
They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist. As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.

An independent group of experts agrees, as long as radiation doses are kept within the low limits set for the scanners. Still, a few scientists worry that machines might malfunction, raising the risk of cancer.

The Transportation Security Administration says radiation from one scan is about the same as a person would get from flying for about three minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet, where atmospheric radiation levels are higher than on the ground. That amount is vastly lower than a single dental X-ray.

You would have to go through scanners more than 1,000 times in one year to even meet the maximum recommended level -- and even pilots don't do that.'

http://mobile.salon.com/news/feature/2010/11/18/us_med_airport_scanners_safety/index.html


So my question would be... if this is so safe, if there is nothing to worry about.... then why offer an opt out? There was never an opt out of the metal detectors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Many medical physicists disagree:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucky 13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. This needs to be brought to the public's attention.
This is fucking bullshit and something must be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. they say groping is mere patdowns. and nude photos cant be stored. they lie. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. there has to be an opt out cause naked scanners are unconsitutional so have to do willingly or
have the option not to do them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Yeah but the grope is no more constitutional...
Is this how they are going to avoid lawsuits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. i think the allowed option to avoid suit. to many chose opt out so to corral back to scanners, did
grope.

now they are being called out on both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sally cat Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. Must be true. It's on the internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. The TSA also promises not to cum in your mouth.
The next time I fly, I'll opt for groping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. And the air was safe to breathe at ground zero
After all, the Bush administration's very own EPA said so! All those first responders who died or are now suffering from a variety of lung ailments are just a bunch of whiners.

I'm glad I fly about once a year, and hopefully much of this nonsense will be sorted out before I have to fly again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. And those first responders were denied Government
medical care because Republicans thought that foreign corporations should be allowed to keep their tax loopholes. Would have made a great election ad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Oh, let us not politicize this
After all, just because the people who jumped into the catastrophe while the President was flying around like a scared rabbit are dying, there's no reason to make a political thing out of it. Let's just let them die peacefully (or whatever), and refrain from holding anyone accountable, particularly anyone who might make hefty campaign contributions to Republican candidates. That would be oh so very wrong, so say the Republicans, and the Democrats agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. Are there studies done on frequent flyers? This excuse of natural radiation is always used
but where is the evidence that flying gives you doses of radiation that can cause cancer?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
10. You can always trust the TSA ...
Their well trained (but low paid) operators will know when their machines are malfunctioning.

Twenty years from now there will be advertisements on TV.

If you have developed numerous skin cancers and you ever had to go through a full-body scanner, please contact the law firm of Munch & Munch for a free evaluation of your possible rights to receive financial assistance from a full-body scanner lawsuit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohheckyeah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. Fox tells chickens there's nothing to worry about. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is the price you have to pay if you want to fly.
Otherwise you can just drive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Tell me then, why aren't the rich and powerful paying the same price?
After all, shouldn't they be subjected to the same rules? Shouldn't Obama have to watch as his daughters are felt up by TSA in the name of security? What about Chelsea Clinton, shouldn't she get the same treatment?

Sorry, but nobody should have to sacrifice basic human dignity to travel, period. The fact that so many people are willing to accept this simply means that Osama and his buddies have won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. Not over water you can't. Not to a funeral you can't. Not from a medical procedure you can't.
I've never flown anywhere that I could reasonably drive. And I fly at least twice a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. I worked with one of those backscatter devices,
Granted, one that was designed to look into packages and other such inanimate objects, but the fact of the matter is that they put out a pretty large dose of radiation. I'm sure that they modified the machine designed to look at humans so that it wouldn't put out as much radiation, but given the detail and quality of the images I've seen, they probably haven't lessened the dosage that much.

Having working in the nuclear field for a number of years, I'm wary of picking up any more dosage than absolutely necessary, ie dental and medical X-rays only. I will not put myself through one of these scanners, and since I'm not willing to subject myself to sexual harassment that the TSA is referring to as a "pat down", I'm not flying. That's fine with me. It means that I'm helping save the environment and getting to see the beauty of our world at a slower pace and from ground level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. Honestly, the safety concerns bother me much more than the thought of someone seeing me nude.
I agree, it's not cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. Sure, unless you're the lucky lotto winner.
Some comedian once said, "The lottery may be a tax on the stupid, but I can't help noticing that someone wins every week."

I've heard the number "1 in 30,000,000" tossed around as the odds that a TSA scanner will give you fatal cancer. According to the FDA, the number is 1 in 80 million. That's the number that the TSA likes to cite when they claim it's safe.

According to the Bureau of Transportation statistics (yep, that's a real agency), there were 703.8 million "enplanements" in 2009 in the U.S. That's 703.8 million individuals boarding aircraft.

According to the numbers offered up by physicists, if the TSA were to scan every one of those passengers, there is a statistical chance that they'll cause fatal cancer in 24 people a year. According to the TSA's numbers, they may cause fatal cancer in 9 people a year.

And remember that the FDA numbers are based on FATAL cancer probabilities. The odds of getting a curable cancer are even higher.

The TSA says that those numbers are "safe", but remember...someone always wins the lottery. Do you really want to play?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. ^ Best analogy so far ^ n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Looking at it this way is a better idea. It's not "1 in 30 million". It's 24 dead people a year.
Of course, we're still talking about statistical probabilities, but "dead people" tends to resonate better than astronomical numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. If it were offset against some actual safety gains, they might have an argument.
But honestly? I think the whole thing is for show, or maybe to find the people with a bag of weed in their pocket.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
22. And so is groping.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-19-10 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
24. Because some people would prefer human groping than nude scanning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC