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 41 of 50 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 497

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

  1. #401
    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
    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.
    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...

    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.
    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...

    Even TSA though, would have to abide by the radiation limits already in place for people who work with radiation.
    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.

    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).
    ---“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.

  2. #402
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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 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.

  3. #403
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    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.
    It is the limit for those working with radiation, but the operators would be considered working with radiation, unless it is not enough to actually be of concern. It would depend on how much the scans are giving off and where the operators are standing. If they are supposed to get monitored, but aren't, then there is a problem, but I don't think this is the case. Also, it is a problem if they are scanning a person with someone else always right there, able to get that same dose. From what I have read and seen in the news, chances are that the TSA workers or operators are getting a smaller dose than those being scanned, even if they are close to the machine, as long as they aren't actually in the machine when it is doing a scan. The design doesn't even look to allow the operators to be standing close enough to get that same 20 microrem dose.

    A closer look at airport scanners - The Denver Post

    I don't know if this is how all of the scanners look, but it certainly would mean that the TSA agent outside of the scanner would be getting a smaller dose, and the operator would probably be getting barely anything. I wonder if they did background radiation scans prior to putting in these machines. Actually, radiation detectors in airports would probably be a good idea anyway. Although most detectors wouldn't go low enough to even detect microrems. The scanners would have to be changing the background radiation levels by at least 1 millirem/hr for the detectors to even be a little useful.

    Also, you keep mixing up millirem and microrem. The dose was reported as 20 microrem, which is a much smaller dose than 20 millirem.
    "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.

  4. #404
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Choice 3 , this is for the fear and ignorance crowd.
    No votes.
    Lets learn from Israel, they seem to have a good method that is non-invasive..
    Until such time as our nation grows up, I'll just use our "world's best" highway syatem.

  5. #405
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    Agree 100%, and with a conservative yet.

  6. #406
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

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

    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.

    Last edited by SirPwn4lot; 12-10-10 at 07:36 AM.

  7. #407
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    What would be the profile criteria?
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  8. #408
    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 SirPwn4lot View Post
    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.

    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?

  9. #409
    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 BmanMcfly View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    How much more absurd does it have to get?
    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.
    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."

  10. #410
    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 SirPwn4lot View Post
    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.
    Look at it this way. It gives thousands of people jobs they wouldn't ordinarily have, and each person with a job represents a house that won't be foreclosed on and children with Christmas presents.

    ricksfolly

Page 41 of 50 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... 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
  •