It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tallcool1
...this was just a lame attempt at a stupid joke.
...
I don't believe he was thumbing his nose at those of us who are getting groped and watching our children get groped.
Originally posted by tallcool1
I don't believe he had some sinister meaning behind his dumb joke. He was simply a mortal human being making a dumb joke and was likely unaware that he seemed to offend so many thin skinned people.
Originally posted by tallcool1
Geez, what a pathetic country of sniveling, whiny b!tche$ we have become. It was a stupid joke people - pull up your diapers and get over it.
Originally posted by tallcool1
I can't believe I have now come to Obama's defense a couple of times now on this website and I don't even like or respect the guy.
Originally posted by poe8130
you do know what the a social contract is right.
Originally posted by Annee
I don't agree with pat downs - - but if you refuse a body scan - - what other alternative is there?
We are not gonna go backwards.
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Annee
There are actually many alternatives, including doing little more than what we did prior to 9/11.
Originally posted by loam
There are actually many alternatives, including doing little more than what we did prior to 9/11.
When you realize the potential disaster that can take place with improperly calibrated machines, you'd have to be nuts to stand in one.
Originally posted by BL4CKST4R
May we always have the nerve to teach our kids what freedom was like back then!
Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners
"Many people will approach this as, 'Oh, it must be safe, the government has thought about this and I'll just submit to it,'" says David Agard, a biochemist and biophysicist at the University of California, San Francisco. "But there really is no threshold of low dose being OK. Any dose of X-rays produces some potential risk."
Agard and several of his UCSF colleagues recently wrote a letter to John Holdren the president's science adviser, asking for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing all those airline passengers to X-rays. The other signers are John Sedat, a molecular biologist and the group's leader; Marc Shuman, a cancer specialist; and Robert Stroud, a biochemist and biophysicist.
"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," Agard says.
The San Francisco group thinks both the machine's manufacturer, Rapiscan, and government officials have miscalculated the dose that the X-ray scanners deliver to the skin — where nearly all the radiation is concentrated.
The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the skin, the number would be higher, though how much higher is unclear.
Recent research, Brenner says, indicates that about 5 percent of the population — one person in 20 — is especially sensitive to radiation. These people have gene mutations that make them less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. Two examples are the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations associated with breast and ovarian cancer, but scientists believe many more such defects are unknown.
"I don't know if I'm one of those 5 percent. I don't know if you're one of those 5 percent," Brenner says, "And we don't really have a quick and easy test to find those individuals."
Children are also more vulnerable to radiation damage, because they have more dividing cells at any time. A radiation-induced mutation in their cells can lead to cancer decades later.
If they are wrong about penetration and privacy, can they be wrong about dose?
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being “1,000-times less than a chest X-ray” and “far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight” are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
...the lack of independent safety data...
...the main concern is whether these new scanners increase an individual's risk of developing cancer.
Unfortunately, the answer to that question depends on who is being asked. Both the TSA and the FDA say that the technology is unequivocally safe for all passengers and that the radiation dose is too low to cause any health risk. Some professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, agree with that summation. Other medical groups, such as the American Academy of Dermatologists, have not yet issued a position on the subject, despite concerns that there might be an elevated risk for skin cancer.
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Annee
I guess I'm the only one who can do research.
Here, after 30 seconds of searching:
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by tallcool1
Originally posted by tallcool1
...this was just a lame attempt at a stupid joke.
...
I don't believe he was thumbing his nose at those of us who are getting groped and watching our children get groped.
Perhaps, but I think many saw it as yet another example how unsympathetic and removed he appears to be about those things many Americans find important.
It wasn't funny. It was depressing.
Originally posted by tallcool1
I don't believe he had some sinister meaning behind his dumb joke. He was simply a mortal human being making a dumb joke and was likely unaware that he seemed to offend so many thin skinned people.
That is precisely the point.
When you are the president of the most powerful nation on earth, giving the one speech in the year where everyone will dissect it from Washington to Beijing, don't you think he ought to be held to a slightly higher standard than someone standing around the water cooler at work making an off colored remark?
Originally posted by tallcool1
Geez, what a pathetic country of sniveling, whiny b!tche$ we have become. It was a stupid joke people - pull up your diapers and get over it.
I think it's disturbing you expect so little from those in office expected to represent you.
Originally posted by tallcool1
I can't believe I have now come to Obama's defense a couple of times now on this website and I don't even like or respect the guy.
Maybe you should reassess your views then.edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tallcool1
I used to expect more from the office of the President of the United States, but I also begrudgingly accept that the American people had their say in the last election and, unfortunately, Americans want someone in office who looks nice and speaks well instead of someone with actual leadership experience. The office of the President has become the ultimate American Idol contest.
Originally posted by Annee
I don't see a problem.
Originally posted by Annee
An independent group of experts agrees, as long as radiation doses are kept within the low limits set for the scanners. Still, a few scientists worry that machines might malfunction, raising the risk of cancer.
TSA workers, experts worry about radiation exposure
When investigators with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's workplace safety team visited a dozen airports in 2003 and 2004, what they found was disturbing — at least to federal airport workers.
Although most radiation levels around baggage X-ray machines were low, six of 281 machines used to screen checked luggage violated federal radiation standards, some emitting two or three times the allowed limit, the CDC found.
Perhaps most troubling, the CDC had found what the Transportation Security Administration hadn't noticed. The TSA and its contractors had failed to identify the machines that were emitting excessive radiation — a failure that continues to leave TSA workers and some lawmakers uneasy, especially as the agency continues to deploy hundreds of controversial radiation-emitting machines to help screen passengers.
Lawmakers call on TSA to release X-ray inspection records
Members of Congress are calling on the Transportation Security Administration to release inspection reports that would show whether airport X-ray machines that screen passengers and bags are regularly meeting requirements to emit only low levels of radiation.
The calls by lawmakers came after the TSA didn't respond to USA TODAY's repeated requests since Nov. 26 to review equipment records that would show whether the X-ray machines are properly monitored and maintained. In the past, the agency has failed to identify problems with its X-ray machines, records show, and the USA TODAY request came in the wake of concerns by travelers and some experts about possible health risks if new full-body scanners malfunction.