Users who Dugg This
Brave Heart
4698 Followers
Smashing Hub
451 Followers
quickdigger
5219 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
danielrh9Mar 29, 2011
...and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
addiktionMar 29, 2011
He's the stripper man; with the exception that he's stripping you instead of himself.
ObeFlowMar 29, 2011
Don't worry about the 4th amendment, its not that big of a deal apparently.
oldgermanMar 29, 2011
Regardless, it is still invasive and Un-American.
crapolatimeMar 29, 2011
Just like the Republicans who instituted it... Oh wait, I mean Al Qaeda.
addiktionMar 29, 2011
True that man but oh they want it to be American, they desperately do.
linageeMar 29, 2011
They should just say that the effects would be so minor that you'd have a very hard time suing them some years later and making it stick.
(Things like this make me angry.) I guess we have a choice to not fly anymore.
malonesmMar 29, 2011
The point to be made here is that "no significant threat" is a lot different from "no threat" or "zero correlation".
"...only a handful of cancer cases are likely to result directly from scanner use."
What if you were one of those cases?
Overall, is the tech worth it?
I'd argue no, because I can think of a dozen other ways to sneak something onto a plane if I was hell bent on doing so - none of which this scanner will detect.
The scanner may stop the casual terrorist, but most terrorists aren't casual, are they?
builderbMar 29, 2011
Let me get this straight:
They are basically saying that it is acceptable that a small number of people are guaranteed to die directly from these scanners (that have highly questionable effectiveness) in order that they _might_ prevent a larger number of people from dying in the event of a terrorist attack.
The details of the next terrorist attack are completely unknown and open to a nearly infinite number of possible scenarios. It is impossible to predict or truly anticipate. The negative ramifications of these scanners are known and possible to predict, yet they choose to accept the negative consequences of these scanners in order to have a tiny, woefully inadequate safeguard against an attack that could come from any direction.
linageeMar 29, 2011
"According to a new paper in the Archives of Internal Medicine, airline passengers are exposed to much more radiation in flight than they are by going through airport backscatter X-ray machines."
Instead of trying to shield you from more radiation from your flight, let's just dump some more radiation on you!
This is a bit like saying it hurts a little bit already, so why can't we turn that blade in your chest a little deeper?
addiktionMar 29, 2011
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Radiation exposure adds up over time. It's not like you get some exposure and the damage magically goes away until you get your next dose.
vitriolandangstMar 29, 2011
What bothers me, is that there is no MECHANISM to track WHAT really ads risk. I mean, if using "clean" coal, x-rays for your teeth, dumping of toxic waste, GMO corn & soybeans, etcetera, etcetera -- you know, all the "build up" of modern life that has been proven to not INSTANTLY kill a Rat.
Milk could also be the problem -- but you have to have someone who has NO OTHER RISKS to PROVE anything -- which is impossible unless we raise twins in clean rooms.
For example -- it's against the LAW for a corporation to test for "mad cow" prions. A company trying to RAISE standards so they can export to Europe can't test, because it would make other companies "look bad" because they wouldn't be able to claim they are "Mad Cow free".
SOMETHING causes cancer -- but to SUE a corporation, you've got to have PROOF that one specific source did it.
I'm sure that, some inoculations are good, some useless and some bad. If some company makes a buck, however, there is no financial incentive to PROVE an inoculation should be removed from market.
>> Add in a toxic cloud of lobbyists, regulators who get money from the industry, and who knows if we would be TOLD if something were dangerous?
I've seen studies that indicate that excessive dental xrays can destroy a Thyroid (like 5 per year or more) -- and that's without reaching the recommended "dangerous" levels.
>> Taken alone -- airport scanners may be fine -- added on top of the "soup of doom" we sit in. Nothing specific is going to wear you down and kill you.
darthmeatloafMar 29, 2011
I have a hard time taking much data on this seriously, especially after the group that did the original report on behalf of the TSA/DHS eventually came out and said they f**ked up with their math and the radiation was something like 100-1000 times higher than they had originally calculated it to be...
travelsonicMar 29, 2011
"According to a new paper in the Archives of Internal Medicine, airline passengers are exposed to much more radiation in flight than they are by going through airport backscatter X-ray machines."
Another f**king idiot that can't tell the difference between indirect exposure to un-concentrated cosmic radiation and direct exposure to focused x-ray radiation... what a surprise... /s
grungegbunnyMar 29, 2011
I don't fear them from a cancer risk. I fear them as people become complacent with the erosion of the 4th amendment.
crazedleperMar 29, 2011
The radiation could be 10x what it is and it would still be the least of my worries when it comes to airport scanning.
liscombcMar 29, 2011
So many good comments here, keep up the good work. I am really encouraged that so many people are questioning the TSA and the body scanners. Whether you believe that they pose little to no risk, or you believe that they do pose serious risk, the fact that you are even thinking about it is great!
No matter where you stand, develop your own personal views and try your best in expressing yourself in a civil manner.
In my opinion, the radiation is bad, the junk grabbing is worse, and the mentality behind the whole ordeal is disgusting: subjecting the elderly and children to circumstances most police officers would never do.
Who watches the watchers?
builderbMar 29, 2011
Folks, lets not lose sight of what we should really fear: Terrorists! Terrorists!! Terrorists!!! Terrorists!!!!
noctechMar 29, 2011
Republican.....Democrat is there really any difference. Obama the great hope indeed. He really earned that Nobel....
dilbertMar 29, 2011
Backscatter X-ray scanners. Until they catch a guy with a stick of dynamite up the pooper. Then we'll all get a free rectal exam with every flight.
vitriolandangstMar 29, 2011
The X-Rays MAY be safe. But the new, million-dollar units have never been tested for safety.
You know the ones that were put in because of some scare that I forget right now that was never properly investigated so that Negroponte's consulting group could make a few Billion in no-bid contracts.
Being able to see your naked body under your clothes is going to make us safer? When we haven't investigated the people IN CHARGE of our security, nor have any proof they are even useful?
Maybe everyone wants a random Happy Pill that they pay $200 a month for. It MAY or MAY NOT make you live 50% longer. And if it makes you sick, well, maybe it protected you from something else. Who knows? Well, that's our security today and that's how I feel about SAFETY reports -- who knows? Did someone get a pay-off? Who knows? Because the last few crooks who made Billions were never thrown in jail -- what's the downside of a complete fraud?
>> I don't doubt we have the technology to prove one way or the other if these x-rays are safe -- we just don't have a system of integrity that would prosecute some rat bastard that sold us snake oil.
dilbertMar 29, 2011
They say it is for our own safety, but still 'terrorists' could detonate a bomb at the check-ins. If it really were for OUR safety, they would scan everybody before entering the airport.
id77Mar 30, 2011
if is so safe why they don't let the TSA agents wear Dosimeters around that machine??
brucealmightyMar 30, 2011
The next logical terrorist ploy is likely to be surgical implants of explosives with a remote control trigger....which will be undetectable by any means other than possibly full body X-rays. I wonder if the TSA would even mention that nasty tumor on the X-ray even if it is clearly not an explosive.....?
elmuerte17Mar 30, 2011
random guy: "Hey, those new x-ray machines are an invasion of my privacy and violation of constitutional rights!"
TSA: "Don't worry, the radiation is such a low dose you won't get cancer."
Buried for missing the point.
vanzant38Mar 30, 2011
Comedy is funny, isn't it.
heystoopidMar 30, 2011
No link to peer reviewed papers or authors on the subject matter equals significant reduction in the trust and the reliability, veracity and accuracy of the author of this piece, to between 1 to 5% level maximum, until independently verified at a later date!
holdencApr 6, 2011
Know your rights as a traveller:
http://digg.com/story/r/your_rights_as_a_traveller_and_the_tsa_s_unpublished_policies
holdencApr 6, 2011
Know your rights as a traveller:
http://digg.com/story/r/your_rights_as_a_traveller_and_the_tsa_s_unpublished_policies