The Cheap Thrill-Airport Security Measures run Wild

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp I'll leave it to the nuclear engineers and doctors on the board who know way more than I do about this stuff to tell me what the health risks of 1 billion screenings are but I'd shocked if it wasn't more than 25 fatal cancers per year.

We're going to have to get back to you later on that particular topic. Right now we're considering hiring the UCSF team to take another look at the effects of ionizing radiation from naval nuclear power plants-- and hey, M_Paquette, just how much stay time have you accumulated around the primary coolant sample sink? I'm beginning to have second thoughts about all those monitoring evolutions I so enthusiastically used to volunteer for.

Maybe instead of worrying about the radiation effects of their machines on our testicles, the TSA should have it the other way around. I just hope I don't find myself saying: "No, officer, I don't know why your very sensitive detector screen is glowing like that either!"

I will volunteer that at these low levels of radiation the UCSF & TSA guys need to consider the effects of clothing, and perhaps compare the TSA emitters to cell phones. Using enough power to see that something is strapped to your body is one thing. Using enough power to see where you have titanium staples inserted into various pieces of your anatomy is quite another.

[ls99]

Seems to me TSA should disclose to each customer sucker who went through the machine, the number of times they scanned him/her and the total radiation dosage.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick Or to put it another way, TSA chief reveals to would-be terrorists just how far they have to go. In other news, the USAF reveals exactly which missiles their latest fighter aircraft is vulnerable to, and the Secret Service announces that President Obama will be going for a walk with Michelle, with no bodyguards, on the White House lawn next Tuesday at 11am.

I'm sure Klaus Barbie said he was just protecting his countrymen against the terrorists.

In my view, there are worse things in life than terrorists -- like living in a police state. I agree with an earlier poster; our abject fear has made mockery of the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords We're going to have to get back to you later on that particular topic. Right now we're considering hiring the UCSF team to take another look at the effects of ionizing radiation from naval nuclear power plants-- and hey, M_Paquette, just how much stay time have you accumulated around the primary coolant sample sink? I'm beginning to have second thoughts about all those monitoring evolutions I so enthusiastically used to volunteer for.

Sample sink? Pbthttt. I'm more worried about all that time spent doing manual eddy current probes of the steam generator tubing. Gloves, anti-Cs, pressurized hood, dosimeter 'chips' on the fingertips, back of hands, forehead. How many people do you know that have stuck their arms and heads inside the primary coolant piping of a really old plant?

Given that, and that I just completed the now-annual pruning of my skin ("Bathe in Efudex? Really? Yeowch."), I'm now a little over-cautious of exposure. As in upsetting the poor dental tech who just wanted to update my x-rays.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Sample sink? Pbthttt. I'm more worried about all that time spent doing manual eddy current probes of the steam generator tubing. Gloves, anti-Cs, pressurized hood, dosimeter 'chips' on the fingertips, back of hands, forehead. How many people do you know that have stuck their arms and heads inside the primary coolant piping of a really old plant?

Are we talking "how many people total" or only the survivors? Just kidding. I knew some guys at the original S3G prototype in the 1980s but I thought they were just trying to scare us newbies.

I forgot from whence you came. I thought I had a cruddy plant, but you probably picked up more in one duty weekend than my 311 mrem lifetime. I hope we're not seeing full-page legal ads in the back of the submarine magazines in the next 30-40 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Given that, and that I just completed the now-annual pruning of my skin ("Bathe in Efudex? Really? Yeowch."), I'm now a little over-cautious of exposure. As in upsetting the poor dental tech who just wanted to update my x-rays.

Of course you're still below the federal lifetime limits, so no problem!

I wonder if we can ask the TSA for dosimeters before going through the scanner. That's probably just asking for a smart-ass intrusive patdown.

I guess I'll recommend to my nuke-wannabe daughter that she ask a few pointed questions about general-area and RC after-shutdown radiation levels during her submarine cruise...

[brewer12345]

Considering how I feel about this, I would say it is only a matter of time before some TSA agent is looking for their teeth after "patriotically touching" a protective father's daughter (cue arrests, lawsuits, etc.). Gawd, I hope they kill this nonsense before I fly with the kids in February. If not, whenever I fly for business I plan on refusing the scanner. You want to pat down and pester someone who had to pass a background check to get their current job? Be my guest, I have all day.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette I'm now a little over-cautious of exposure. As in upsetting the poor dental tech who just wanted to update my x-rays.

I had a recent dentist visit where they were attempting to get xrays, but the computer would not cooperate. After the third try, I told the tech "as much as I just love radiation, perhaps I should come back another day when the computer works."

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Of course you're still below the federal lifetime limits, so no problem!

Let's just say that where 10 CFR 20 says '1.25 rem per annual quarter, or 5.0 rem per year', they definitely went for the OR, and went for reduced limits for the other three quarters, based on the TLD on the belt. They also used that '50 rem to the skin or any extremity', which was why we had fingertip dosimeters.

I'm a bit leery of any further dosing, particularly when some $10/hour person whom I'm pretty sure hasn't even been through Intro to Health Physics is controlling my dosage. When I catch The Management telling stretchers about the dosage I become even more concerned.

So, if I am a TSA selectee, I'll be asking them to give the wiggly a jiggly. Maybe I'll toss in some sound effects...

[RustyShackleford]

I am curious if any of the several law-enforcement folk here can
comment on how the TSA "pat down" compares to the standard
"frisk" ? It is fairly common, is it not, for police in big
cities to do "stop and frisk" operations on persons they
believe are suspicious ? Seems like an interesting
constitutional question, especially in light of the recent
outrage over the TSA.

The most disturbing thing of all about this, to me, is that I'm hearing
that neither the machines nor the pat-down is effective against these
powdered explosives. And certainly not against the "body-cavity
bomb"; is there any good reason to think the terrorists, clearly
willing to die, would not resort to this ? Seems like a device, like
the one that's been used for awhile to detect trace explosive residue
in carry-on bags, is the only effective solution. And it wouldn't have
the issues of privacy or health effects either.

[RustyShackleford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby In my view, there are worse things in life than terrorists -- like living in a police state. I agree with an earlier poster; our abject fear has made mockery of the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

Good point. And for this reason I predict that the outrage will die out fast, and the "whatever it takes to keep us safe" sentiment will win the day.

That being said, a solution that does not have the negative issues of the pat-down/scanner thing - privacy, humiliation (real or perceived, and what's the difference ??), health effects from X-rays - should be sought. Like the chromatography machines to which I allude in the previous post.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford IAnd certainly not against the "body-cavity bomb"; is there any good reason to think the terrorists, clearly willing to die, would not resort to this ? Seems like a device, like the one that's been used for awhile to detect trace explosive residue in carry-on bags, is the only effective solution. And it wouldn't have the issues of privacy or health effects either.

If a bunch of young women are willing to swallow condoms full of cocaine and get on an airplane in Colombia for nothing more than money, I think the answer to your question is obvious. True that they are not facing certain death, but these things do break.

Ha

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford Good point. And for this reason I predict that the outrage will die out fast, and the "whatever it takes to keep us safe" sentiment will win the day. That being said, a solution that does not have the negative issues of the pat-down/scanner thing - privacy, humiliation (real or perceived, and what's the difference ??), health effects from X-rays - should be sought. Like the chromatography machines to which I allude in the previous post.

I personally could give a rat's fat @ss whether someone sees me naked (actually, the guy who draws that duty is to be pitied more than anything else). But I am chagrined to live in a nation full of sissies who are willing to cower in the corner and surrender their civil rights to the first person to say "I'll keep you safe".

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I personally could give a rat's fat @ss whether someone sees me naked (actually, the guy who draws that duty is to be pitied more than anything else). But I am chagrined to live in a nation full of sissies who are willing to cower in the corner and surrender their civil rights to the first person to say "I'll keep you safe".

Even better- "I'm from the Theatrical Security Agency and I'll keep you safe".(now spread 'em...)

[haha]

Yes. This is an old movie that has played many times before, and it has never yet had a happy ending.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Let's just say that where 10 CFR 20 says '1.25 rem per annual quarter, or 5.0 rem per year', they definitely went for the OR, and went for reduced limits for the other three quarters, based on the TLD on the belt. They also used that '50 rem to the skin or any extremity', which was why we had fingertip dosimeters. I'm a bit leery of any further dosing, particularly when some $10/hour person whom I'm pretty sure hasn't even been through Intro to Health Physics is controlling my dosage. When I catch The Management telling stretchers about the dosage I become even more concerned. So, if I am a TSA selectee, I'll be asking them to give the wiggly a jiggly. Maybe I'll toss in some sound effects...

I am making the same choice. Although I am hoping by Jan sanity will prevail. It seems to me if the scanners are safe as they TSA/manufacturers say (1,000 times before they are any health risk) that managers at both the TSA and the scanner manufacturers should be willing to devote one day to go through the real life screening procedures at the airport (as opposed controlled experiments) 100 times and with dosimeters attached to various body parts. If independent Doctors say the scanners are safe than I'll change my mind.

[BigNick]

Although I'm skeptical about the harm that the radiation from one single scan represents, I suspect that there may be an angle here for some subversiveness.

You know when you get an X-ray at the hospital or the dentist how the tech goes behind the lead shielding? They get an even smaller micro-dose than you do, but at a hundred a day it adds up.

Suppose someone asked how much radiation leaks out of the scanner where TSA personnel are standing a few feet away? It it's 1% of what the passenger is getting, some multiplication by 500/day and 250 days/year is going to start setting off some alarms.

Remember, we notice the acute and the relative, but what gets you is the chronic and the absolute. (I might make that my sig line.)

[thefed]

i havent and dont plan on reading this entire thread. bottom line: if you want to fly, deal with it. if you don't, you dont have to. period.

rights? privacy? get over it. i prefer to live. 2 yr old patted down? you think the taliban cares about age?

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefed i havent and dont plan on reading this entire thread. bottom line: if you want to fly, deal with it. if you don't, you dont have to. period. rights? privacy? get over it. i prefer to live. 2 yr old patted down? you think the taliban cares about age?

Is it the Taliban that are doing this now? I was still blaming Saddam Hussein.

[BigNick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefed rights? privacy? get over it. i prefer to live.

I'm from the FBI, and I heard that there might be anthrax in your home. Can I come in and check? No? Well, I'm coming in anyway. After all, there might be anthrax, and that kills people. So I'm coming into your home tonight. And tomorrow. Hey, your wife is pretty hot. I'll come back twice at the weekend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefed 2 yr old patted down? you think the taliban cares about age?

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that if the Taliban abuses kids, that it's OK for us to abuse kids? I presume that that's not what you mean, but I'm struggling for another interpretation of your words.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that if the Taliban abuses kids, that it's OK for us to abuse kids? I presume that that's not what you mean, but I'm struggling for another interpretation of your words.

That they would not be adverse to planting explosives on a child/infant.