Well the only dosage I have seen is one that says that a scan gives about 2 microrem of radiation. So even if it is 20-50x that much that would only be about 40 to 100 microrem. The yearly limit is 5000 millirem. So we're talking a very miniscule dosage.
And the farther back a person is from the machine, the less they will be exposed to. When dealing with radiation we always consider time, distance, and shielding. Here is the distance equation.
Distance Calculation
(BTW, the "mR" stands for milliRoentgen which is generally equivalent to a rem, depending on the type of radiation, the calculations do not change however, no matter if you are using mrem or mR)
So, if the operator is 5 ft away from the source and the person being scanned is a foot away from the source, and the source is giving off 2 microrems per scan at the assumed 1 ft away, then the operator is only receiving about .04microrems per scan. This doesn't take in the shielding though provided by the machine itself, since the person being scanned is inside the machine with metal around it, and many things provide different amounts of shielding, depending on the type of radiation. Now, I have no idea what the actual numbers are for how far away the operator is from the source compared to how far away the person be scanned is, but one of the easiest ways to cut down on the radiation received by the operator (if it is a concern) is to change where the operator sits and/or add more shielding to the outside of the machine.
Even TSA though, would have to abide by the radiation limits already in place for people who work with radiation.
I wonder who these doctors are that believe it will cause skin cancer. The chances of getting any cancer from even working around ionizing radiation from nuclear power (which are higher levels and doses than these scans are) is only increased by .04% when considering the average dose received by a worker over their lifetime. It doesn't make much sense that such a smaller dosage would be likely to increase the chance of getting skin cancer by any significant amount.
I can understand pilots and other aircrew being concerned, since they already receive a high amount of radiation from the many flights that they do take. So getting extra from these machines would be taking a risk of going over limits (and a huge waste of money), although even for them it isn't likely unless they are pregnant (expectant mothers have lower limits).
What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane? Which of the following is okay with you, what is the limit in which you give up your 4th amendment rights?
Invasive pat downs
Non invasive pat downs.
Subjected to radiation so you and or your children can be virtually stripped searched.
Real strip searches.
Cavity search.
Walking through a metal detector.
other
I was told that the 5000 millirem was the limit for someone who works with radiation, and that for the general public is more like 1000 millirem??
But still you have a point about the miniscule dosage per scan...
I can't really disagree with this.. but I would note that this is a variable amount... and the agents often need to stand close to, and sometimes IN the machine to get people to stand the right way, etc... but you would have to consider that even if it was .4 millirems per scan, if we're talking about 100-200 scans per day that's about 12-24 rems per year... and could be alot higher then that depending on circumstance...
Well, the TSA agents DO NOT get a radiation badge to measure exposure, they are NOT following national guidelines, etc... so this one is only true if we go on the assumption that their work keeps them within those radiation limits by chance.
---“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,” Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP.
“No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,” he said.---
I just wish I had more expertise in the subject to be more then just a repeater of information... but the ultimate point that I do know is that when it comes to radiation exposure that the less you are exposed the better... oh also that x-rays are not in the same category as micro-waves... lol, but most of what I was writing was repeated from others I know that work with radiation, namely a nurse that works with cancer patients.
Agree 100%, and with a conservative yet.I show my military ID and go through VIP security: bag x-ray, metal detector, take off the shoes, etc.
I think Israel has it right. They profile. Yes, America should profile, and the ACLU should suck ass and die a slow painful death. America should use Israel as it's example.
I show my military ID and go through VIP security: bag x-ray, metal detector, take off the shoes, etc.
I think Israel has it right. They profile. Yes, America should profile, and the ACLU should suck ass and die a slow painful death. America should use Israel as it's example.
I think the US should require people to walk through a metal detector, and have their hand luggage scanned. No profiling, no invasive measures (unless the airlines implement full body scans themselves).
I haven't heard about anybody in the continental United States (at least none come to mind) who have been killed through terrorism, much less airline terrorism, since 9/11. How many have these crazy procedures actually caught? As far as I can tell they're own incompetence is doing more to prevent airline terror. Check out the shoe-bomber or underwear-bomber for valid examples.
By contrast 1.2 million people are killed in road accidents each year, 430,000 Americans die from consequences of cigarette smoking, 3 million people are killed by AIDS/HIV each year, etc, etc. If you want to spend money to improve the world then fine, do so; 1.2 billion people live on under a dollar a day.
Even if you could make it that 100% of terrorists are detected before they can get onto planes, they'll just go blow something else up anyway. Think of it like "free market terrorism". Increase the cost on one good/service and they'll simply flock to another.
And I absolutely can't believe that Conservatives aren't going apes*** over the ridiculous amount of spending that has gone into "fighting" terror, and the amount of personal liberty that's been sacrificed for slightly increased security.
eace
I got the solution to your problem... we put these naked body scanners EVERYWHERE, have those intrusive searches every morning as you leave the house, a police check point at every intersection, 3 layers of such security to get into the malls (metal detector, naked body scanner and a full body cavity search.
Hell, we should make new cavities in people to make sure they didn't give themselves surgery for the cause of terrorism.
But even that's not far enougg, people might sew bombs in a dog, so we need to gut every seeing eye dog in the name of security... oh and a game of soccer, you can't kick a bomb around safely, so we should deflate every ball to search if there's explosives.
Oh, internal combustion engine, that's explosions of gas, FORBIDDEN.
How much more absurd does it have to get?
I haven't heard about anybody in the continental United States (at least none come to mind) who have been killed through terrorism, much less airline terrorism, since 9/11. How many have these crazy procedures actually caught? As far as I can tell they're own incompetence is doing more to prevent airline terror. Check out the shoe-bomber or underwear-bomber for valid examples.
Even if you could make it that 100% of terrorists are detected before they can get onto planes, they'll just go blow something else up anyway. Think of it like "free market terrorism". Increase the cost on one good/service and they'll simply flock to another.
Well why not? I mean, they're here to keep us safe so why should we even consider questioning their methods and authority. Just accept it, turn your head and cough, and move along.
The sad thing is that with the Scared ****less crowd you can't tell how far down the rabbit hole we'll have to go before they start to look around at what they've been excusing.
What would be the profile criteria?
What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?
people will say ''well don't fly on a plane then if you don't want to be subjected to the new measures, but where does it end? what about the subways? how is a bomb on a plane any worse than one on the subway? if you don't want to be scanned or felt up are we going to one day be told don't ride a train. don't ride a bus?
if the government is so concerned about my safety, why are they so selective about when to enforce additional measures to "ensure" it? such a crock of ****.
Just a point of interest for you. Subways do not cross borders so are not subject to federal oversight. That would be the states job.
As for trains...they probably don't consider them as big a threat since a train can only go where the tracks take em. A plane however can go in any direction and can be flown into more things than just the end of the line train station. As such planes have the potential to cause far more damage than any train possibly could.
a wise man once said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." i guess my point is that planes aren't the only thing that have potential to cause large loss of life.
there's over 2000 people on each Washington State Ferry at rush hour. that's an awful lot of people. no pat downs or scans required for them. airports though, well that's a whole different ballgame apparently.
it's all about the fear. the terrorists have won. they must be laughing their asses off.
Again, a ferry does not cross borders. The feds can only do something if it crosses borders.
And you only give up your liberty if you voluntarily go through the airport security. The choice is yours. You are in no way forced to go through an airport security checkpoint.
I agree with you that there are other things that have the potential to cause large loss of life. But life isn't the only things that must be weighed in this situation.
Is it cost effective to place X type of security for X purpose?
Is it feasible to place X type of security for X purpose?
What is the potential dangers of ________?
What is the potential cost of the aforementioned dangers?
Can those aforementioned dangers shut down great swaths of the country? The whole country? (In this case airplanes most certainly can)
And probably many more questions that I can't think of off the top of my head.
I could name you several ways of hurting the US, quite possible crippleing it for at least a couple of months, and none of them have to do with any sort of transporation. Does that mean that airport security should be lessened though? IMO, no.
And if you think that the terrorists have won I would suggest that you take a look at the Constitution of the United States. It is still there and it is still followed. Albeit the interpretations of various clauses in it have changed, but that's been happening long before 9/11. Long before Pearl Harbor even.
The questions are worded so as to elicit specific responses by those taking the poles. The questions need to be rewritten so as to not demonstrate specific bias.
The question and the poll choices are worded to be accurate. Are you saying that you are not subjected to radiation,virtual strip searches or invasive pat downs? "New scanning methods" and "new pat down procedures" are too vague. They do not describe what exactly it is you are subjected to.
barium enemas for everyone
Handcuffed, naked, and sedated. Don't think it wont ****in happen.
Good idea, but what's your opinion on what we should do for people who want to get onto airplanes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?