Kasz216 said:
SvennoJ said:
Kasz216 said:
SvennoJ said:
Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:
2) You're protected against unreasonable search and seizure... not all search and seizure. TSA patdowns happen when you repeatidly fail a metal detector/body scanner or something is picked up on either of those.
|
That is bullshit because I know for a fact that they send random people in the line to the body scanners, and if you don't like the body scanner then you have to get a pat down. To these random lucky people simply walking through the metal detector isn't an option.
|
That was metal detector or body scanner. As in, you have to go through one or the other. Some places it's just all body scanners.
Body scanners aren't unreasonable.
|
I didn't even have a choice, I simply got a check on my ticket as I joined the line to go through security, randomly selected for a search. Had to go through the metal detector, stand in a glass cage while my carry on was searched, and get a thorough pat down.
Sure I could refuse and then figure out an alternative way to get home. I went along with it but the next time I had to travel I choose to drive 9 hours instead of taking the plane, screw that.
Body scanners aren't unreasonable?
http://www.google.ca/search?q=body+scanner+status&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=7hE_T5GkJcnm0QHslcWqBw&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1400&bih=862
You know what would be even safer, if we all fly naked, stick the clothes and luggage on a 2nd plane.
And if you don't care about your privacy then maybe about your health, the new backscatter x-ray body scanners
http://ihrrblog.org/2011/12/12/body-scanners-health-risk-and-politics/
|
No Body scanners aren't unreasonable, for boarding an object that weights 45 tons empty, that travels at 600 miles an hour and has around a hundred other people on it.
As for the health risk point... I'd note that your source is a blog... and not a health journal... and there is a very good reason for that.
Because there really isn't a health risk. The only quote they could get from anyone remotely related to the issue was that there was a "Very small" risk. Which could be something like .000000001%.
A poweful body scanner is estimated to give someone radiation equivlent to somewhere between .1% to 1% of a Chest X-ray.
Worst case scenario if you fly 100 times a year , the body scanner is equal to one Chest X-ray... except it's been spread over 100 days.
You actually get more Radiation from the actual act of flying then you do a body scan. Being higher in the air your exposed to much more radiation then land travel. So in otherwords, if you are afraid of body scanner radiation... you shouldn't be flying anyway.
|
What about trains, subways, busses, boats, schools.
The point of that article was that there is still a lot unknown about the risks and there is nobody but the tsa themselves testing them. The EU didn't ban them for fun. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2062646/Naked-airport-X-ray-body-scanners-banned-Europe-cancer-fears.html
The passengers are probably fine, how about the person working next to the machine 8 hours a day. What happens if the machine breaks and starts leaking radiation, is that possible.
I don't want my children to grow up in a world where it is normal to treat eachother like what happens now at airports. Oh well 30 more years and we won't be flying anymore anyway if we don't find an alternate source of fuel.
|
Well actually that's completely untrue. Other people have been testing them... and deemed them harmless. The EU ban is nothing but rank popular scare based on nothing.
|
who else has been testing them? and what kind of test did they run? I couldn't find much besides this article which suggests there was not long term safety testing done, but just a one time test of how much radiation is used in one scan. It was done by NIST, but it did not metnion any long term testing.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-scanners-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/
