View Poll Results: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • invasive pat downs

    12 10.62%
  • Non invasive pat downs.

    31 27.43%
  • Subjected to radiation so you and or your children can be virtually stripped searched.

    17 15.04%
  • Real strip searches

    11 9.73%
  • Cavity search.

    53 46.90%
  • walking through a metal detector.

    52 46.02%
  • other

    29 25.66%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 40 of 50 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 497

Thread: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

  1. #391
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by kal_daka87 View Post

    There are always going to be exceptions. A security officer who's crooked, a faulty scanner, who knows. Murphy's law prevails.
    Thanks for reminding me of Murphy's law. Most everything that's wrong with our system can be attributed to it.

    I don't believe anyone sets out to do wrong or bad things. Uncontrollable circumstances drive them to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do.

    ricksfolly

  2. #392
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,937

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    I think the body scans and pat downs are too intrusive, especially when they are used on random travellers (not just someone who may have set off the metal detector) or every passenger. They treat everyone as a terrorists without probable cause.

    And, they cost more money than they're worth. We pay for all these things, but they can't even prevent every potential terrorist threat, since most of those that have been attempted in the last 8-9 years, the flights originated in other countries that did not have our procedures. And those threats would not have been prevented by any security measure in place. Especially if you take into account that all security measures are public, therefore, all terrorists will know what the TSA is going to be doing to try to prevent them from perpetrating an attack and take appropriate measures to counter those methods. However, some very effect methods against terrorist attacks and even some personal attacks (many of the plane bombings of the 60s were people trying to suicide insurance fraud from my reading), include metal detectors and behavior profiling, along with trained dogs and further screenings when there is a good suspicion that someone might actually be trying/hiding something, not just random searches.

    On top of all this, there is at least as much potential of your plane going down due to mechanical failure or hitting a flock of birds as there is it going down from terrorist attack. And, none of this security is even close to being used in other transportation areas where there is the same potential to take out large amounts of people, such as trains, buses, and intracity public transportation.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #393
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Of course, you know your options are loaded. I don't have to tell you that.

    So, I'll change them to suit myself. ;-)

    Metal detector....everybody.
    X-Ray of all carry-ons....everybody.
    Additional screening based upon profiling:
    Full body scan or --
    A pat down as done by police officers when searching for weapons, sans the cavity search.
    They should get rid of those scanners... they don't do anything useful and emit radiation, violate our human rights and dignity, would be illegal if it was performed by someone not given this false authority.

    That said, if they are going to do a pat down, I would ONLY put up with the pat down as a police would do it, and that means that can't touch your privates without essentially a warrant and only in extreme circumstances after an arrest. The fact is that more planes crash then are victims of terrorist attack.

    Though I am hesitant even on the profiling, THOUGH, the 'profile' should be people that look suspicious... meaning, someone that looks like he's in a gang might be justified in more intensive searches, or people that are acting suspicious... but no matter how you slice it, what's going on at airports has pushed the envelope TOO far.

  4. #394
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,937

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    For the record, from what I have read and what I personally know about radiation due to my former occupation, I am not concerned about the radiation the scanners emit. It is insignificant compared to what a person receives in a year and from just flying. I think that these things should be fought on the premise that they are overly intrusive and not worth the it (financially or practically), and the radiation argument should be left alone. It really is insignificant, even if you fly frequently (going through them even 100 times in a year), at least from the amount that the government is saying these things are putting out. If someone could prove that they are putting out more, then it could be argued from a "too much radiation" standpoint.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #395
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    For the record, from what I have read and what I personally know about radiation due to my former occupation, I am not concerned about the radiation the scanners emit. It is insignificant compared to what a person receives in a year and from just flying. I think that these things should be fought on the premise that they are overly intrusive and not worth the it (financially or practically), and the radiation argument should be left alone. It really is insignificant, even if you fly frequently (going through them even 100 times in a year), at least from the amount that the government is saying these things are putting out. If someone could prove that they are putting out more, then it could be argued from a "too much radiation" standpoint.
    Yes... the actual radiation argument is not very strong... UNLESS you work for the TSA and are running the scanners... THEN, you are getting a dose of radiation from EVERY scan, and THAT over the course of a year would push a person well beyond the 'safe' exposure limit.

    As to your question, if you're going based off the original claims of the x-rays generated, it has come out since then that it's 20 or 50 TIMES what was originally stated, depending on which machine. Further, Napolitano LIED by saying John Hopkins university called it safe, when the doctors actual statement was more along the lines of 'statistically SOMEONE is going to get skin cancer from those machines'.

    But ya, the radiation is a weaker argument... one that should be relegated to " ... and also it gives you a dose of radiation"

    I would ask though, since you have experience working with radiation, what do you think of the guidelines these TSA agents are following in their use of the scanners?? (Ie : not going to the other side of a lead wall, no radiation badges, no radiation training, etc.?)

  6. #396
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,937

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Yes... the actual radiation argument is not very strong... UNLESS you work for the TSA and are running the scanners... THEN, you are getting a dose of radiation from EVERY scan, and THAT over the course of a year would push a person well beyond the 'safe' exposure limit.

    As to your question, if you're going based off the original claims of the x-rays generated, it has come out since then that it's 20 or 50 TIMES what was originally stated, depending on which machine. Further, Napolitano LIED by saying John Hopkins university called it safe, when the doctors actual statement was more along the lines of 'statistically SOMEONE is going to get skin cancer from those machines'.

    But ya, the radiation is a weaker argument... one that should be relegated to " ... and also it gives you a dose of radiation"

    I would ask though, since you have experience working with radiation, what do you think of the guidelines these TSA agents are following in their use of the scanners?? (Ie : not going to the other side of a lead wall, no radiation badges, no radiation training, etc.?)
    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).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #397
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    He still doesn't have to fly via airport. He could...

    1: Take a private jet.
    2: Take a hired 2 seater plane since those are not subject to the TSA's security measures.
    3: Make better schedules so that they can take a car, train or bus to their destination.
    4: Quit his job and get one that does not require him to fly.

    Flying is not essential to get around the country. There are other options. No one is forced to go through the airport.
    None of those may be feasible given his circumstance. Point is, without tax payer dollars the airline companies wouldn't be there. We subsidize them, we pay for the airports, we pay for the security. And because we so heavily favor the airline companies than any other form of mass transportation, flying becomes, in any practical sense, the only real option for certain travel. Peope are, in short, forced to go thorugh the airport.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #398
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,865
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    None of those may be feasible given his circumstance. Point is, without tax payer dollars the airline companies wouldn't be there. We subsidize them, we pay for the airports, we pay for the security. And because we so heavily favor the airline companies than any other form of mass transportation, flying becomes, in any practical sense, the only real option for certain travel. Peope are, in short, forced to go thorugh the airport.
    The fact that airports get government money is irrelevant. Government funding in no way gives people the right to anything.

    And just because people heavily favor airline travel in no way makes it the only form of transportation or suggests that people are forced to use it. Favoring something does not equal being forced to use it.

    Those things that I listed are alternatives and are choices. Just because those choices may not be as nice/good as flying from an airport does not mean that they are not viable.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #399
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    I voted for all the poll options, including "Other".

    But I wanted to draw attention to the one right above that, "walking through a metal detector."

    It is highly important that there be metal detectors in airports, or when the Zombie Apocalypse arrives, there will be nothing to warn the zombies when a group of survivors tries to sneak up on them with lethal weaponry whilst trying to make it onto the last surviving plane or some such.

    Highly important…
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #400
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    [QUOTE=roguenuke;the radiation argument should be left alone. It really is insignificant, even if you fly frequently (going through them even 100 times in a year), [/QUOTE]

    Have they made actual tests with the scanners, or is it just an educated guess?

    ricksfolly

Page 40 of 50 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •