Is running your hand up the habbit of a Nun immoral? how about a child?
A proper and legal pat down, as perscribed, is neither illegal or immoral. Again, no one is gropped, fondled or felt up.
Joe, I like ya, but willing blindness is no excuse.
Other than yourself, no one is blind. You'll have to show me a freedom lost before I can agree with you.
People that have gone through this have likened it to a sexual assault. Are they exaggerating?
If they did that, they would be exaggerating, yes. And it is still a good question ask, exactly how many have made such a hyperbolic claim?
Absolutely untrue. Reports of these machines, and even the TSA themselves note that the scanners show amazing detail, even to the point of detecting, and showing sweat on someone's back. Now that effectively makes you naked to the person viewing the scan. I doubt metal detectors see that do they?
More detailed doesn't make in much different. Of course it would be more detailed. If it weren't there would be no reason to change. But from a legal stand point, it is a very csimilar procedure.
As of yet inconclusive, but ok.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says a person flying at 30,000 feet will be exposed to 285 to 406 microrems of radiation an hour, or between 4.75 and 6.77 microrems per minute of flight.
So the numbers and science back up Pistole's claim. But, all scientists aren't sold. Four faculty members at the University of California at San Francisco maintain that cosmic radiation is spread over the entire body, but scanners concentrate it in the skin and underlying tissue, so it could be a "dangerously high" amount.
The FDA said that the concerns were unfounded and that health risks associated with the full body scanners were "minuscule."
This fact check isn't declaring TSA's new scanners safe. We're just looking at Pistole's claim that their radiation is "equivalent to about three minutes' worth of air travel by anybody, say, at 30,000 feet." The numbers back that up. So we rate his statement True.
PolitiFact: Radiation of airport scans less than the dose in flight - St. Petersburg Times
Michael D. Story, Ph.D. is an associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas in the Division of Molecular Radiation Biology, he does research on radiation for NASA.
His overall assessment of the scanners? "The risk in this case for cancer is extremely low. An individual should not be worried about that at all," Story said.
Story said the dosage from the body scanners is at least 200 times less than that a passenger receives during a typical airline flight.
In other words, he says, if you're not worried about the radiation you get flying, you shouldn't be worried about the radiation from the scanner.
How Much Radiation in an Enhanced Body Scan? | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth
For a while yesterday there was a story buzzing around about a Colorado TSA man arrested for masturbating while screening a High School girls team through a check point. It was later debunked, however, not so hard to imagine is it really?
I suppose we can imagine any sick thing if we're inclinded to, but you don't need this machine to be that ill. The point is, what the viewer sees isn't particularly sexual and there is no reason for anyone to see it that way.
Except your freedom to fly. And most important your 4th amendment freedom. Now I agree you don't have a right to fly, but it is a freedom.
It's not really a loss of freedom and no one has that absolute right. And you are still free to fly, once all concerns are delt with.
"Torture" is your hyperbole.
j-mac
No, it has been seen as torture, ruled torture by our own government, and seen as torture throughout it's history. It is not the least bit hyperbole. But it is interesting how willing some are to see it as something other than what it is, but object to a simple pat down. There is no lie in that this is at some level humorous.
