Airport BODY SCANNERS: " Statistically SOMEONE Is Going To GET SKIN CANCER From These X-RAYS

I'll be so happy in a couple of days when we switch to hating people who shop at WalMart.

Junior high science fail.

Thought you said those were already released.

Your IQ test results are on the line there pal. Don't let me down!

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/travel/body.scanning.radiation_1_backscatter-radiological-research-radiation?_s=PM:TRAVEL

Do you eat food, or breathe air? Congratulations, you are irradiated.

Oh, and BTW, Photons? WTF do photons have to do with it?


edit: add a plural

Grade school science FAIL.

"What do photons have to do with it?" *SNORT*

You need to study alpha, beta, and gamma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

X rays are these little things called PHOTONS, boppers. Or "Gamma" radiation, if you will.

Sheesh

It's not that simple.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The TSA has no Constitutional authority to search any US citizen unless there is specific reason to believe they are committing a crime.

Arguing over the physical details of the scanners implies acceptance of the eradication of the 4th Amendment. I for one don't accept that.

And that is a starting point to demolish everything about these scanners.

Perhaps it has an agenda built in?

Perhaps you could have said:
"And that is a starting point to gather more quantifiable information about these scanners."

the more invasive AND more harmful one. There is plenty of evidence of conflict of interest with Chertoff being involved. The TSA story about the capabilities of the machine changed weekly last summer. The TSA refused to consider even a tiny bone that would have at least gotten rid of many of the privacy concerns of the rape-i-scans. There is evidence that the freedom pats are retaliatory to get the American public to accept the scanners. Seems to be working too, the Today show this morning almost seems worried that the protests will cause disruptions to the airlines' bottom line, so corporate America must be worried as well.

So, no, I feel no need to be "neutral" or well balanced. I wasn't about "free speech zones," warrantless wiretapping, the right to marriage, the Iraq war, the Bush tax cuts -- why am I supposed to check my feelings on this one when it stinks to high heaven?

(I would know, I'm a rather prolific editor of Wikipedia.)

There is no requirement of NPOV on DU, nor should there be...this is a strictly partisan message board.

Oddly, the one thing the base-left and the far-right have always agreed upon was privacy concerns. If the scanners are privacy-invasive (and that seems to be a prima facie fact) then "demolish" is the correct word choice...all non-cause government-intrusions or invasions of privacy not only should, but must, be resisted lest we all end up living in an East German style police state after all of our civil liberties are chipped away "in the public interest".

...or kinds of radiation (specifically, the difference between, oh, radio waves, and potentially lethal sources).

If you cannot afford a science class, here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

Radiation on the short-wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum—high frequency ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays—is ionizing.

Do you have such things in your house?

You know, light bulbs?

You're getting funnier by the minute.

They're using radiation most human eyes can't see, but can pass through clothes.

and likely everybody else.

i suggest you stop arguing and get somebody who actually can argue with a biophysicist to post for you, like the two quoted in the article (heck, one has a Nobel Prize and UCSF is warning their patients about the machines by the way).

Until then, just know that your arguments are undermining your obvious purpose.

there have been a lot of studies on this. :D

Very touchy-feely!

I know you think that Obama brought the moon and the sun and the stars down to earth, but if he did we'd ask him to modify the carcinogenic properties.

It's called FAULTY ANALOGY. You should look it up.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with the aid of apologists just like you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

as a "cause"..any more than any one of the bazillions of other sources we encounter daily..

favorable litigation, it's likely that random radiation from TSA over a long period of time will face the same result.

don't want the irradiation..don't fly..

perhaps it will change someday, but we have what we have & we can deal with it or not fly.. it's just that simple.

So it is NOT simple.

the people who are arguing against you are not talking about science but are quoting TSA pamphlets.