• 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!

Do you support the TSA procedures

What is your political idealogy and Do you support the TSA procedures

  • I'm Conservative and I generally support the TSA pat downs and body scans

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • I'm conservative and I generally do NOT support the TSA pat downs and body scans

    Votes: 12 32.4%

  • I'm centrist and I generally support the TSA pat downs and body scans

    Votes: 4 10.8%

  • I'm centrist and I gnerally do NOT support the TSA pat downs and body scans

    Votes: 8 21.6%

  • I'm liberal and I generally support the TSA pat downs and body scans

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • I'm liberal and I generally do NOT support the TSA pat downs and body scans

    Votes: 8 21.6%
  • Total voters
    37
chevydriver1123 said:
Not stupid, the public can be collectively conned into fear.
Click to expand...

As we were with Iraq.

But I really see little problem with either the scans or the pat downs. And I actually think few people do.
 
Boo Radley said:
As we were with Iraq.

But I really see little problem with either the scans or the pat downs. And I actually think few people do.
Click to expand...

It's too invasive. They need proof before they can do something so aggressive.
 
Last time I checked this country is at war.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
It's too invasive. They need proof before they can do something so aggressive.
Click to expand...

I don't see much invasive about it. It's just a step up from the metal dectors.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't see much invasive about it. It's just a step up from the metal dectors.
Click to expand...

I think naked images, particularly with no proof of wrong doing or reasonable suspicion, is maybe a bit invasive.
 
Ikari said:
I think naked images, particularly with no proof of wrong doing or reasonable suspicion, is maybe a bit invasive.
Click to expand...

I've seen them, and naked isn't exactly what you get. More of a profile, like my kids did in shadow portraits. I just don't see it as that invasive.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've seen them, and naked isn't exactly what you get. More of a profile, like my kids did in shadow portraits.
Click to expand...

What you see is from the TSA, which is not full resolution, not full size, often very pixelated, and often had the contrast or brightness messed with.
 
Travelsonic said:
What you see is from the TSA, which is not full resolution, not full size, often very pixelated, and often had the contrast or brightness messed with.
Click to expand...

I doubt it is much better. It is clearly not a naked view.
 
Boo Radley said:
I doubt it is much better. It is clearly not a naked view.
Click to expand...

It's got pretty good detail. Would you be ok if somehow this was in handheld form and your kids had it? Plus the effects of millimeter wave radiation on the human is not well known at this point. There is indication that this particular form of radiation is very good at unzipping DNA. Though there would need to be more tests to really find out. It would be nice if those were done before putting in these devices.
 
Ikari said:
It's got pretty good detail. Would you be ok if somehow this was in handheld form and your kids had it? Plus the effects of millimeter wave radiation on the human is not well known at this point. There is indication that this particular form of radiation is very good at unzipping DNA. Though there would need to be more tests to really find out. It would be nice if those were done before putting in these devices.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean in the first question, but as I understand it there is more radition concerns with the flight itself than from the scanner.

Also, I'm pretty sure our kids have seen worse on TV or on the internet regularly. I suspect this wouldn't cause them to so much as flinch.
 
Ikari said:
It's got pretty good detail. Would you be ok if somehow this was in handheld form and your kids had it? Plus the effects of millimeter wave radiation on the human is not well known at this point. There is indication that this particular form of radiation is very good at unzipping DNA. Though there would need to be more tests to really find out. It would be nice if those were done before putting in these devices.
Click to expand...
One would think Israel and its airline(s) would have experience with this sort of thing, considering their situation...

How do they do this security bit?

Perhaps we can get some ideas?
 
Boo Radley said:
I doubt it is much better.
Click to expand...

Doubting =/= knowing

The Mark said:
One would think Israel and its airline(s) would have experience with this sort of thing, considering their situation...
Click to expand...

They don't use these pat downs or scanners, have a better record than us. IIRC, multiple layers of profiling is one of their tactics.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Not sure what you mean in the first question, but as I understand it there is more radition concerns with the flight itself than from the scanner.

Also, I'm pretty sure our kids have seen worse on TV or on the internet regularly. I suspect this wouldn't cause them to so much as flinch.
Click to expand...

The first part is a hypothetical. The scanning technology they have that lets you see past cloths and such. If there were some form of handheld device, or maybe like X-Ray specs that contained the technology so you can put them on and run around outside or something. Would you be comfortable with your kids having that. Ignoring the possible health concerns of course, for the sake of the hypothetical.

You do get a good amount of radiation on a plane too, but the radiation is different. The high energy, ionizing radiation in the upper atmosphere has potential to do more harm. But it also has to interact. The millimeter wave radiation is all absorbed, which is how they make the images. And there is preliminary research indicating that while it is much lower energy than other forms of radiation, this one in particular can couple strongly with DNA causing it to unzip.
 
Travelsonic said:
Doubting =/= knowing
Click to expand...

True, but more than a few news sources, in fact all of them, report that the image is not something akin to the actual human body. To suggest that it is would require some evidence, I would think.
 
Ikari said:
The first part is a hypothetical. The scanning technology they have that lets you see past cloths and such. If there were some form of handheld device, or maybe like X-Ray specs that contained the technology so you can put them on and run around outside or something. Would you be comfortable with your kids having that. Ignoring the possible health concerns of course, for the sake of the hypothetical.

You do get a good amount of radiation on a plane too, but the radiation is different. The high energy, ionizing radiation in the upper atmosphere has potential to do more harm. But it also has to interact. The millimeter wave radiation is all absorbed, which is how they make the images. And there is preliminary research indicating that while it is much lower energy than other forms of radiation, this one in particular can couple strongly with DNA causing it to unzip.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that exposure be greater than the few time one flies? It seems quite different to me. There are a lot of things that are reasonable that I wouldn't want my children running around with.

I'm not sure on the science, not my area, but when I look this up, what I find seems to suggest it isn't really a concern. I would need something to show otherwise.

I have to leave now, but I will return later.
 
I'm liberal and I have no problem with it so long as they buy me dinner afterward. Otherwise, I don't support it. No free grabs!
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure on the science, not my area, but when I look this up, what I find seems to suggest it isn't really a concern. I would need something to show otherwise.
Click to expand...

How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA - Technology Review

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.

And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic
effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.

This should set the cat among the pigeons. Of course, terahertz waves are a natural part of environment, just like visible and infrared light. But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.
Click to expand...

It's not conclusive as there isn't enough research yet. But there are indications that this particular form of radiation could have significant effects on biological systems.

here's the research paper
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.5294v1.pdf

We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific c terahertz radiation exposure may significantly a ffect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Not sure what you mean in the first question, but as I understand it there is more radition concerns with the flight itself than from the scanner.
Click to expand...

I've listened to radiologists discussing the radiation concerns, and part of the concern in dealing with radiation for these TSA agents is that... well, they are not trained to work with radiation. So, while the TYPICAL exposure would be about 20 millirems (1000 millirams being what is considered that maximum safe dose over the course of a year), however, if a button sticks or the scanner isn't shut off instantly, there IS a risk that someone could wind up literally getting radiated to death and the TSA agents wouldn't even know what to do about it.... a low enough risk that it shouldn't be a concern to the travellers but enough of a risk that it was phrased as 'it's only a matter of time'.

Further, the greater danger is not so much to the casual traveller, but more to the really frequent flyers (3-4 flights / week or more) but especially for the agents themselves are being CONSTANTLY being exposed to the backscatter radiation from the machines (the reason why a dentist will go to another room)... and given that these people will be exposed far beyond what is considered safe, it is actually relatively highly likely that in the next 5 years or so, unless the machines are removed, that TSA agents are going to start being diagnosed with cancers, mainly of the skin, breasts, and genitals (because that's the limit of how deep the radiation gets into you... and yes, look at the images and you can see in some of them the calf bones or finger bones).

Also, I'm pretty sure our kids have seen worse on TV or on the internet regularly. I suspect this wouldn't cause them to so much as flinch.
Click to expand...

I'm also pretty sure that in most places photographing a nude child is referred to as child pornography and typically sees offenders locked up for 5-10 years AND placed on a sexual offenders list.

Oh, also, touching a persons private areas OVER the clothes IS an arrestable misdemeanor and under the clothes is sexual assault / battery and IS a felony. Do what the TSA agents are doing on the streets and YOU WILL go to jail...

So, this begs repeating the question : How much will YOU put up with in the name of 'security'????
 
BmanMcfly said:
Absolutely AGAINST this procedure on so many levels :
1 - It is unconstitutional; guilty until proven innocent, violates your person.
2 - The scanner DOES give you a dose of x-rays, granted a small amount, but you are further exposed to a higher then normal radiation in flight, and the scans DO show bones of legs / fingers.
3 - The scanner produces a high def view of a persons genitals and so photographing children in such a way violates child porn laws in many places
4 - IN cases of attempted plane bombings the perpetrator got around any security checks, and so putting people through this is senseless.
5 - The TSA agents are trained for SECURITY NOT as medical professionals dealing with radiation.
6 - Pat downs of the genitals over the clothes is a criminal misdemeanor, under the clothes is sexual assault.
7 - It's a tactic of humiliation and dominance.
8 - Sexual predators and felons are getting jobs at the TSA
9 - This is security theater
10 - "Who says it's gotta be a man to grab another man's privates, I would get a woman to do it and if she's ugly I can close my eyes and if I'm lucky I'll get a happy ending." - Gerald Celente



No, this MUST be challenged, even look at the circumstance surrounding these things getting put in place. Chertoff orders these machines and right at the time the order is ready for mass delivery and implementation of these systems, all of a sudden some retard gets past security with the help of a "sharp dressed man" who insists that they let him on the plane without credentials, and then in the news they say 'well, good thing that they just came out with this new machine to prevent people from trying to blow their balls off at 40000 ft. Then to top it off, once he's out of politics, Chertoff goes and gets a job running the company that makes the machines he bought with his political clout.

Oh, and don't fly... so what next, there's gonna be some lunatic strap a bomb to his chest in a mall somewhere and all of a sudden these body scanners gotta go into the malls??? Where does it end?? How much will YOU PUT UP WITH??? If they have to do an inspection of all your bodily cavities???

Or maybe you gotta go through the scanner to leave your house in the morning??
Click to expand...

LMAO I stopped reading where I boded above because its VERY CLEAR you dont understand thew consitition LMAO
Thanks for the answer though Im sure the rest of it probably made some sense <sarcasm>
 
O_Guru said:
LMAO I stopped reading where I boded above because its VERY CLEAR you dont understand thew consitition LMAO
Thanks for the answer though Im sure the rest of it probably made some sense <sarcasm>
Click to expand...

Allright... explain yourself then?? If it's so 'laughable' I would hope that you could point out the justification to have a government agent violate your person and fondle your wife and children???

I bet it's the commerce clause, but I look forward to this.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Allright... explain yourself then?? If it's so 'laughable' I would hope that you could point out the justification to have a government agent violate your person and fondle your wife and children???

I bet it's the commerce clause, but I look forward to this.
Click to expand...

LMAO
"violate your person and fondle you"
hahahahahahahahahahaqhahaha
where do you get this stuff? talk about being dramatic its so entertaining I almost want to go back and read the rest of you post its probably hilarious.

the answer is EASY and common sense
1 you arent losing any rights
2. if you want to fly you get the pat downs or what ever they want to do, its a CHOICE you make lol if you dont want to do what they say just dont fly

there is no violation of the constitution LMAO
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom