Good. If you don't like what the TSA is doing let them know:
https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/DynaForm.aspx?FormID=10
I did. Of course, now I'll probably be subject to the super duper enhanced pat-down.
They need a new slogan: Reach out and touch someone.
There are some lawyers on flyer talk forum that believe you can. A DA somewhere says he will file sexual battery charges against TSA officers if the local laws are violated. That includes unwanted touching outside clothes.Can I file a sexually harrasment claim against a TSA employee if they touch me? Nah, didn't think so......
Thank goodness I'm not the only person who can do the math on this.
Here's a letter sent by members of the faculty of UCSF, a leading cancer research and treatment center:
Or to put it another way, TSA chief reveals to would-be terrorists just how far they have to go.
They need a new slogan: Reach out and touch someone.
A propos of nothing, I read many years ago - in a book! - that the odds of dying for a 60-year-old man are about one in a million every 15 minutes (just by being alive, plus his share of driving cars, flying in planes, jogging, etc, all the risky stuff that 60-year-olds do).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.
With videos of kids being stripped and search circulating
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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?
Of course you're still below the federal lifetime limits, so no problem!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.
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!
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.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."
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.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.
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".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".
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...