Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do you honestly not think this is a nude image?

page: 29
56
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by youguysareidiots
 


ya, I mean, so your boss wants you to fly every week, you can always find another job!!!

modesty is one thing, health concerns are in a whole different ball park!!
somewhere in this long thread someone linked to an article about how some of these scanners seem to pose a risk to our dna structure, and I was reading yeasterday that the version that uses low xrays are raising some eyebrows as far as cancer risks.

As far as "terrorist threats" goes, I am sorry, but I have read more stories about people just snapping and going into their places of work, shopping malls, schools, courthouses, ect, and shooting up a bunch of people of late than I have of people trying to blow up planes! It seems to me, that it would be much more safer to to have these things in these places, since, it is a much more common. So, they get us used to having these things in the airport, and before you know it, they are everywhere....
the technology is fairly new, and as everyone should know, too many times, the new that is supposed to be safe ends up not being so.
So, well, we could very well not only see a rise in the cancer rates, but also do irreparable damage to the human dna structure....which might not show up till our children or children's children reach adulthood!

gee, the terrorists can then retire, since we will have killed ourselves off, or damaged ourselves to the point where we don't matter anymore!

and why?? more than likely, some legislature's friend, has a friend, that is working for one of the companies that is making these things, and well, that legislature has decided to do his friend a favor!

I don't fly, never have, and I don't like this!!




[edit on 11-1-2010 by dawnstar]




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Originally posted by dawnstar
and why?? more than likely, some legislature's friend, has a friend, that is working for one of the companies that is making these things, and well, that legislature has decided to do his friend a favor!

You hit the nail on the head. I wish I could give you more stars. That's the sad fact. Our legislators and their kids won't have to go through the scanners they could care less if the rest of us do.

Imo they have made this world the crappy place it is with their legislation. Yet the rules that apply to us don't apply to them. I'm all for equal opportunity. If terrorists are really so prevalent in our society then maybe we better start searching every living breathing human on this planet. No one gets a free pass. If people want this then lets all do it in every public place we go.

I wish people would get over the image. That's not what my argument is about. It's what they might do after seeing the image that scares the hell out of me. What if they want to take a better look in a private room. Are you all really willing to go that far? I'm afraid that's the point where I would be arrested. I won't go along quietly. Too many people are so confident they won't get caught up in the system that they don't care how it works or doesn't work.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 





and I was reading yeasterday that the version that uses low xrays are raising some eyebrows as far as cancer risks.


It's odd, cancer is the number 2 killer in the United States and yet there seems to be no where near the type of hysteria we see with airplanes. No urgent legislation and relatively very little government interference.

Using today's screening methods we are more likely to die of cancer then an airborne terrorist attack by approx. 1,486,992%. For every one person that dies in an airborne terror attack almost 1.5 million Americans die of cancer. And this is without the use of the scanners!

The true odds of dying in an airborne terror attack (Thanks to this thread)

Odds of dying from cancer

[edit on 11-1-2010 by harvib]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
reply to post by purplemer
 


LOL are you serious?

If that's the case, I guess you won't mind if the goverment sets up cameras all over your house, and watches you or your children have a shower to prevent "terrorism" I mean what's the big deal right?



[edit on 7-1-2010 by _Phoenix_]


the plane you are going on is owned by a company...your house is owned by you...big difference...i don't care if some screener sees the outlines of my body. and what is with this children thing...it is the outlines of the body for christ's sake...what?...do you think that pedophiles are going to be on every scan machine looking at the outlines of bodies??? wow...what an imagination you have, because i can't think of how that would work...maybe you can fill us in on how that would get someone off?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
In fact, the Manchester airport trials of the full body scanner had to be stopped for under 18's until the legalities are worked out, that's partly because the scanners are explicit. This thread may be in the HOAX section, but that is because of the OP's original pictures. There are youtube links to the actual scanner pictures.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 





the plane you are going on is owned by a company...your house is owned by you


Yes but it is not the company that are installing these scanners. It is the Federal Government.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I will never ... EVER.. step foot in one of those Orwellian machines... The fact that people are OK with this makes me sick to my stomach .. the powers we give to the government in the name of "security" is astounding.. honestly.. I am at a loss of words for how I feel ... I can only say, for the first time I think I absolutely hate my country..

PS just google full body scanner images.. most from MSM sites, and tell me thats not explicit..

[edit on 1/11/2010 by Rockpuck]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
So,what if it is?
Big Deal!

Stupid Americans and their puritan attitudes.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wookiee
 





So,what if it is?
Big Deal!

Stupid Americans and their puritan attitudes.


I find your signature ironic. "I'm a free man--a citizen, not a subject".

You realize a free man would be able to do business with another party without walking through a scanner?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wookiee
 
I'm not American, I'm not puritanical, I'm not even all that religious. I do object to an invasion of privacy, and unproven technologies. The whole thing is problematic, what if you are travelling through several airports and subject to many scans? what's the upper limit?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I can only say, for the first time I think I absolutely hate my country..




Don't do that.

Hate the scumbags and cowards to go along with it.

Hate the disgusting individuals who passively support this.

They're the ones who wrecked the place.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by alaskan
 


If they profiled everyone like El Al does, then they wouldn't have to buy all this expensive electronic equipment.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I can only say, for the first time I think I absolutely hate my country..




Don't do that.

Hate the scumbags and cowards to go along with it.

Hate the disgusting individuals who passively support this.

They're the ones who wrecked the place.


What if, and this is just a what if. What if there were a person that did not feel that patronizing a private airline was all that free to begin with? Ever seen how much luggage goes "missing" and then turns up for sale in their unclaimed baggage warehouse? I do not trust that. You already have to go through security measures. You cannot get up and walk around whenever you like. You are told when you have to wear a seatbelt. If the plane gets into trouble, you are at the mercy of the pilots and the plane. You cannot smoke and there is an entire thread about how that is stealing your freedom alone.

What if someone just happens to already think there is nothing particularly liberating about all that mess? What if they feel like just paying to pull their car into the airport is an invasion. The most free they feel is walking or driving in their own car (even though that comes with restrictions as well.)

What if you have a person like that that just looks at this scanner thing as nothing really all that new when it comes to airtravel. It is just another piece of what makes it no fun to do. It was never all that free to begin with. So to see people cry about this sudden huge invasion of privacy and repeal of rights might seem a tad funny.

This same person might also have all kinds of concerns about the health effects of the scanners but then they would also have to worry about the radiation they get all day everywhere else. Best to avoid the airport all together. They do not feel free utilizing private travel anyway.

Is that passively supporting this or just not caring that willing slaves are whining that they just added one more chain?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

In a USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday, 78 percent of respondents approve of the use of state-of-the-art scanners at airport security checkpoints, with 67 percent saying they would be willing to submit to a scan. According to 84 percent of the 542 adults polled, the scanners would deter terrorists from carrying hidden explosives onto airplanes. (The survey, taken on Jan. 5 and 6, targeted people who have flown at least twice in the past year.)


I just thought this was interesting. The difference between the number of people that approve of the scanners and the number of people willing to be scanned.

Americans: Bring on the Body Scanners, Poll Says



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
its disgusting to think our children will have to go through this process. Those people wathing us could be sexual predators or rapist.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Actually it would be a good reason to sue that person who put those naked pics on the net will surely get a beating and a half. That or sue the airport for hiring that person.

Hey man, maybe a penis can a dangerous weapon if it's too long.


[edit on 13-1-2010 by Shrukin89]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Some of you are so paranoid it's ridiculous, ... but mostly sad, to think people are gonna be getting their Jolly's while you go through a scanner.

you do realize ... its for YOUR protection..... and it may very well save lives, if not by directly capturing terrorists, then by repelling them.

If there's anything crooked going on, ... someone in the government is getting kickbacks from the company that makes these scanners.

but other than that, ... I don't see any harm in them AT ALL. and would feel much safer flying.

I swear, .... if the government gave away free surplus cars, ... some of you would think they were bugged or rigged to kill you somehow, lay off of the caffeine.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by IntastellaBurst
 





I don't see any harm in them AT ALL. and would feel much safer flying.


Yes but what qualifications do you have to identify if they are harmful or not.

Cancer is the number 2 killer in this Country and statistically speaking 1 in 7 of us will die from cancer.

However 1 in 10,000,000+ will die from airborne terrorism. And that statistic is from our current security measures.

So you tell me. Does it make any sense to have Americans walk through a machine that admittedly produces radiation, thereby potentially increasing the cancer rate, in order to try to reduce the odds of 1 in 10,000,000?

1 in 7 or `1 in 10,000,000 where do you think our priorities should be???



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


It would be interesting to know the adults polled political affiliation. If they were mostly Republicans then yes of course they would support it. Right up their ally(New Republicans, Not the Real Republicans).





new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join