Ex-Minn. governor sues over body scans, pat-downs

[nytimez]

So when you (not you personally) post accusations (always without proof) of TSA agents child molesting and raping that's ok, that's not sensationalism?
Yes, how could I not think terms like "freedom fondle" were there for sensationalism, I mean hey it's an every day term. How could I possible make a mistake like that.

When you demonize an entire group by now not even referring to them as humans but as a colored material, that's pretty ok? That's definitely used to foster calm rational discussion.

Gotcha, yeah, I'm the one sensationalizing this.... can't understand how I possible got confused.

Personally, I think blueshirts was a poor choice of words in this discussion. Your response to it was equally poor.

 

[sam_gordon]

Some of them clearly are. Like the ones who detained a nursing mother for trying to insist that they follow the TSA's own written rules on breast milk screening (here's a link if you're not familiar with it).

I believe and hope incidents like that one are rare. But the fact that they happen at all bothers me.

I agree 100% with your latter statement. Unfortunately, the screeners are human. They will misunderstand their responsibilities/power and some will even abuse the power. But you can say the same thing about our teachers/school administrators. Does that mean all teachers & administrators should be painted with the same brush? EVERY profession has it's "bad apples". Should we do away with those professions also?

If you've got some way to make sure EVERY TSA employee acts properly 100% of the time, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[nytimez]

I agree 100% with your latter statement. Unfortunately, the screeners are human. They will misunderstand their responsibilities/power and some will even abuse the power. But you can say the same thing about our teachers/school administrators. Does that mean all teachers & administrators should be painted with the same brush? EVERY profession has it's "bad apples". Should we do away with those professions also?

I never suggested doing away with the TSA... or teachers, administrators, priests, etc. and I'm not sure how you got that from my posts.

As I mentioned earlier, my biggest problems here is that the system we have in place now has not been proven to be safe or effective. To me, the other issues are secondary... but since they raise the most emotion, they tend to be discussed more.

Again, as I said earlier, I find it hard to believe that this security system is the best we as a people can do and I hope it improves. And the road to that improvement is by people pushing this debate forward and not simply accepting what the government gives us, but insisting on better.

 

[eliza61]

Personally, I think blueshirts was a poor choice of words in this discussion. Your response to it was equally poor.

but that's the problem, when you post "poor choices of words" as you deem them, on a public forum you have no idea who your audience is. For all you know I could be one of those "shirts" who is tired of being called "rapist, child molester, and grouper".
So when you use offensive language you run the risk of offending people, who will in turn use equally as "poor" language as well.

two wrongs don't make a right true but enough is enough.

 

[sam_gordon]

I never suggested doing away with the TSA... or teachers, administrators, priests, etc. and I'm not sure how you got that from my posts.

Sorry, sort of taking your post but responding to others who have problems with the TSA as an organization.

As I mentioned earlier, my biggest problems here is that the system we have in place now has not been proven to be safe or effective. To me, the other issues are secondary... but since they raise the most emotion, they tend to be discussed more.

I agree with the latter, but not so much the former. I don't think the new screenings have been PROVEN to be UNsafe either. Maybe I've missed it, but I'm pretty sure such a finding would be shouted on every news entity out there. As far as effectiveness, WTMD aren't exactly 'effective' either.

Again, as I said earlier, I find it hard to believe that this security system is the best we as a people can do and I hope it improves. And the road to that improvement is by people pushing this debate forward and not simply accepting what the government gives us, but insisting on better.

I'd love to see better. I'm just not smart enough to know what's out there. It comes down to whether you wait for "perfect" or roll out something sooner that may not be as good.

 

[DebbieB]

I went through the full body scanner last week at PIT. I'm really not concerned about the radiation, we are exposed to radiation everyday. I haven't read any evidence that these machines give off an amount to be concerned about. They did notice my watch and the officer slid my sleeve up to verify. Then I went on my way. No big deal. I didn't anyone getting the pat down.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Again, as I said earlier, I find it hard to believe that this security system is the best we as a people can do

I'm sure it's not. But it's reasonable for me as it is.

So let's come up with some reasonable ideas. We've got some great minds here. Seriously. We're all intelligent, we're all creative. We're mostly mature.

No, the government isn't going to do away with the current procedures... at least not until there's valid proof that other methods WILL work. Somebody suggested getting rid of everything and going back to just the metal detectors (and then backpedalled). All due respect, that's ridiculous. Why welcome threats with open arms.

But let's work on some SERIOUS suggestions, okay? Not just what's comfortable for me, or for sam gordon, or for ironz, or for nytimez, or for goofy4tink - but for ALL of us. We represent a decent cross-section of the public. Let's work together, okay?

 

[nytimez]

I don't think the new screenings have been PROVEN to be UNsafe either. Maybe I've missed it, but I'm pretty sure such a finding would be shouted on every news entity out there.

I think when it comes to the use of radiation, the burden of proof is to prove it's safe first -- not to prove it's unsafe later. As for the questions over safety, they have been shouted on every news outlet out there, and raised by respected scientists from places such as Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, UC San Fran and more (including a Nobel laureate).

The question is... are we listening -- or are we quick to dismiss it because someone didn't step through a machine and come out the other side with cancer right before our eyes?

For reference:

AOL:
AOL Investigation: No Proof TSA Scanners Are Safe

CNN:
Airport body-scan radiation under scrutiny

NPR:
Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners

USA Today:
TSA workers, experts worry about radiation exposure

The Daily Mail:
Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert

AFP:
'Naked' scanners at US airports may be dangerous: scientists

 

[kaytieeldr]

The Daily Mail:
Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert

Breathing could give you cancer. Your cell phone could give you cancer. The computer could give you cancer - or at least a virus Going outside in the sun could give you cancer. Drinking coffee could give you cancer. Oh, wait. That was 2008. In 2009, different scientists determined coffee could protect you from cancer

AFP:
'Naked' scanners at US airports may be dangerous: scientists

I refuse to even read anything that dubs the scanners - not nearly in as widespread use as these reports would have us believe - 'naked', 'nude', or any similar sobriquet.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm sure it's not. But it's reasonable for me as it is.

So let's come up with some reasonable ideas. We've got some great minds here. Seriously. We're all intelligent, we're all creative. We're mostly mature.

No, the government isn't going to do away with the current procedures... at least not until there's valid proof that other methods WILL work. Somebody suggested getting rid of everything and going back to just the metal detectors (and then backpedalled). All due respect, that's ridiculous. Why welcome threats with open arms.

But let's work on some SERIOUS suggestions, okay? Not just what's comfortable for me, or for sam gordon, or for ironz, or for nytimez, or for goofy4tink - but for ALL of us. We represent a decent cross-section of the public. Let's work together, okay?

Can we decide what we're trying to prevent? As someone pointed out upthread, the reinforced cockpit doors would prevent someone from forcefully taking the cockpit. Do we not want a bomb to go off and bring a plane down?

I hope my question makes sense.

 

[CPT Tripss]

With the OK of the government and using a procedure that (so far) is legal.

Don't make it sound like the TSA screeners are coming up with procedures on their own.

Oh no, the people manning the checkpoints are simply following established procedures . . . each and every one of them.

 

[nytimez]

Breathing could give you cancer. Your cell phone could give you cancer. The computer could give you cancer - or at least a virus Going outside in the sun could give you cancer. Drinking coffee could give you cancer. Oh, wait. That was 2008. In 2009, different scientists determined coffee could protect you from cancer
I refuse to even read anything that dubs the scanners - not nearly in as widespread use as these reports would have us believe - 'naked', 'nude', or any similar sobriquet.

There are currently 464 units installed at 75 U.S. airports, with more being installed over time (and more units at federal facilities such as courthouses).

And I don't care what the headline says. It was written by an editor who never met the respected Johns Hopkins scientist whose work is cited in the story. But don't read it. It's not going to hurt my feelings.

Personally, I prefer to remain informed.

 

[maxiesmom]

Oh no, the people manning the checkpoints are simply following established procedures . . . each and every one of them.

Yep. Just like each and every person at every job follows protocol to a "T".

TSA Agents are no different from any other group of people. You have good and you have bad. But your calling them names and making them sound like they are all out to get us does noting but discredit your own arguments.

 

[eliza61]

Breathing could give you cancer. Your cell phone could give you cancer. The computer could give you cancer - or at least a virus Going outside in the sun could give you cancer. Drinking coffee could give you cancer. Oh, wait. That was 2008. In 2009, different scientists determined coffee could protect you from cancer
I refuse to even read anything that dubs the scanners - not nearly in as widespread use as these reports would have us believe - 'naked', 'nude', or any similar sobriquet.

The odds of getting cancer from one of these machines i believe is some thing like 1 in 300 million. You have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning.

 

[CPT Tripss]

No, it's none of those things you claim. Sad? Perception. Outdated? Nope - current. Discredited? How? My own patdown indicated determined that the WTMD was overly-sensitive that day. I had nothing unauthorized on my person.

Just like you, each employee is doing her or his job. It's fine that you don't agree with the policy - but put your actions where your mouth is. Stop insulting people who are earning a living, supporting themselves and their families - and take action to get the system changed.

But STOP INSULTING INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, some of whom (or whose relatives) read this forum.

Just doing their job you say . . . you don't see a problem with that when it comes to conducting body searches on people? Searching people who have done nothing wrong.

But thank you for acknowledging that the screening devices sometimes do not operate as they should. Have you thought about the x-ray machine scanners and the danger they pose if not operating properly?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Can we decide what we're trying to prevent? As someone pointed out upthread, the reinforced cockpit doors would prevent someone from forcefully taking the cockpit. Do we not want a bomb to go off and bring a plane down?

I hope my question makes sense.

Well, yeah - we need a consensus first on what we want to prevent. I don't want anyone on the plane or on the ground being injured or killed by someone bent on a combination of destruction and (sorry, Moderators) sensationalism.

 

[kaytieeldr]

And I don't care what the headline says. It was written by an editor who never met the respected Johns Hopkins scientist whose work is cited in the story. But don't read it. It's not going to hurt my feelings.

I didn't. I don't trust sensationalism. I did, however, read the first link you posted. Very informative, not so much for whether or not the scanners are safe, but the inaccurate claims made by the TSA about its sources that the scanners are safe.

 

[nytimez]

The odds of getting cancer from one of these machines i believe is some thing like 1 in 300 million. You have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning.

You believe, or you know?

Different people have different risks. Children and pregnant women face different risks than adults. Frequent fliers have different risks that occasional travelers. Seniors have a different risk from everyone else.

It's a misnomer to say the odds are 1 in 300 million.

Also, the best scientists can do right now is estimate -- because Homeland Security has not released its own safety data on the machines.

 

[CPT Tripss]

The odds of getting cancer from one of these machines i believe is some thing like 1 in 300 million. You have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning.

You have a lower chance of being killed by a terrorist too.

 

[eliza61]

You believe, or you know?

Different people have different risks. Children and pregnant women face different risks than adults. Frequent fliers have different risks that occasional travelers. Seniors have a different risk from everyone else.

It's a misnomer to say the odds are 1 in 300 million.

Also, the best scientists can do right now is estimate -- because Homeland Security has not released its own safety data on the machines.

pretty much I do the same thing you do and that's read and google.

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/646395.html

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/16/5477568-are-airport-x-ray-scanners-harmful



the general consensus (sp) is that any radiation is able to give you cancer. My yearly mammogram has a statisical probability of giving me cancer and that to is pretty much based on an educated guess. If you travel in an airplane at all you are exposed to radiation.

All one can do is determine where their personal comfort level is. You're right different people react differently to radiation. Pilots, stewardesses and frequent fliers may have different odds. No one is saying that the problem doesn't need more than one solution.