• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    59
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:peace
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.

:peace

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 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.

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.
 
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
 
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.

Was that sarcasm?!?!?! Only al-quaida does that... you're not with al-quaida are you?!?!

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.

Ya, I know...

Had you heard about those vaccines to end stress?? One concept was a genetically modified herpes virus designed to attack certain parts of your brain that deal with stress, so, let's not worry... soon enough everyone will get this shot and when you wake up in the morning everything will be just great....
Stress Vaccine? Don't Worry, Shot is on the Way, Says Dr. Robert Sapolsky - Health Blog - CBS News
Blocking glucocorticoid and enhancing estrogenic g... [J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2009] - PubMed result - They could tell it worked because the rats wouldn't start fighting over things like when there was no more food, they would just sit back relax and starve to death.

So, all this to say, we need to stop abhorrent crimes like independent thought and other atrocities like planning a back yard project.
 
Let the private industries use any means they deem necessary, including profiling, to identify them. Eventually, passengers will gravitate towards the airlines with the best security policies OR they will gravitate towards airplanes where they don't get groped on the way in. It's pretty simple if you just let the consumer control it.
 
What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

A fair yet competitive price, maybe a long line if it's during the travel season.....yeah that's just about it.
 
everybody should have to go through a metal detector and everybody's carry ons should be subjected to an x-ray.

profiling is not the answer. radiation and pat downs are not the answer. what's so wrong with intelligence gathering combined with a sensible use of metal detectors, baggage screening and bomb-sniffing dogs? 9/11 took 3,000 lives and some large buildings and yes that's just horrible. that's what the terrorists did. since then, in the name of defending "freedom and our way of life", our own government has done so much more to remove our rights from us than the actual terrorists. it's bull****.

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 ****.

the other day the FAA reported that "they are missing key information on who owns one-third of the 357,000 private and commercial aircraft in the U.S. — a gap the agency fears could be exploited by terrorists and drug traffickers". that's 119,000 aircraft.

let's not worry about that though. :roll:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

At least one of those Washington ferries however, does pull in within about 200 ft from US government property. In fact, a few travel the same channels of many, many USN ships, including several nuclear powered ships. Imagine how much damage someone could cause from just one of those ferries getting hijacked to attempt to take out one of our nuclear powered vessels, and if they actually succeeded. Even if they didn't succeed, it would be most likely because our own Navy ship was forced to take out a ferry full of passengers. I can think of several reasons that it would be within the government's interest to be more secure with those ferries, but there is almost no security, and absolutely nothing compared to airlines. And unlike airplanes, those ferries carry cars.

And as for your questions, it must be taken into account what actually prevented the people from succeeding in any of those plots that each new security measure that we see was meant to prevent. Was it the security measures in the airport or was it the work of investigators finding out about the plan?

I, personally, do not feel "safer" from the increased security measures in airports. I know that the terrorists know what security measures are in place, so they are either going to figure a way around those security measures or, more likely, target something that is much less secure. Why subject myself to such security just to get to the city I'm going to safe, if someone takes out the airport in that place or the ferry that I have to take to get to where I'm going (the next time that I am supposed to fly, for my AT time with the Navy reserve, I will be taking the ferry from Seattle to Bremerton to get to the base) or the city bus that gets me around?
 
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 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.
 
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.

No, you see it's not PC... We have to call the body scanners "warm glow safety scan", and genital groping as "TSA love-pats", full-body cavity search should be "free-medical probing for safety"...
 
barium enemas for everyone
 
Handcuffed, naked, and sedated. Don't think it wont ****in happen.

barium enemas for everyone

Good idea, but what's your opinion on what we should do for people who want to get onto airplanes?
 
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?

I wouldn't mind the grope down at the airport... I mean you pay enough... but if they are going to do that anyway, they just just take the few extra minutes and call it a happy ending... I'd do that in the name of security.... but I'd demand that a female do it... and if she's ... ummm... not my type I could just close my eyes and pretend.
 
Back
Top Bottom