zxcvbob wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2010 8:14 AM, --Bryan wrote:
>
> > Any person who has modesty issues with full body scans at airports
> > should realize that:
> > A. the screeners never see who it is they're getting the image from,
> > and
> > B. you can easily find pix of *attractive* nude people on the net for
> > free, and the idea that anyone would particularly want to look at a
> > grainy, grayscale version of *your* body is close to absurd.
> >
> > --Bryan
> >
>
> IMHO, the whole "privacy" uproar is just a smoke screen to divert
> attention away from the safety issues of the low-level ionizing
> radiation used by the devices. The dosage is low, and a background
> level of radiation is unavoidable, but there is no safe dosage and the
> effects are cumulative. (and I really doubt that they'll let you wear a
> lead apron.)
>
> Ten to 20 years from now we may see a big increase in cancer, cataracts,
> and birth defects among frequent fliers. I'm sure we'll just blame it
> on CO2...
>
> Bob

That argument is BS plain and simple, and there are several different
types of devices most of which use non ionizing radiation.

The bigger issue is that the devices provide little to no security
benefit as they only see through clothes. As we should all be aware, the
terrorists ranks include doctors, and they could quite easily implant
probably 5# of plastic explosives in a bomber along with a minimal metal
detonator control, fake medical documents and X-rays to show a hip
replacement to account for the metal detector going off, and none of the
current security screening methods will detect it.

It is as they say "Security Theater".

Pete C. wrote:

> The bigger issue is that the devices provide little to no security
> benefit as they only see through clothes. As we should all be aware, the
> terrorists ranks include doctors, and they could quite easily implant
> probably 5# of plastic explosives in a bomber along with a minimal metal
> detonator control, fake medical documents and X-rays to show a hip
> replacement to account for the metal detector going off, and none of the
> current security screening methods will detect it.
>
> It is as they say "Security Theater".

Did you see _The X-Files_ episode "Jump the Shark"? Terrorists had
biological weapons encapsulated in an organic package (like a large
engineered cyst) that would break down and release after an precise
delay, and surgically implanted inside the body cavity of a "mule" who
carried the payload wherever.

Bob

zxcvbob wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > The bigger issue is that the devices provide little to no security
> > benefit as they only see through clothes. As we should all be aware, the
> > terrorists ranks include doctors, and they could quite easily implant
> > probably 5# of plastic explosives in a bomber along with a minimal metal
> > detonator control, fake medical documents and X-rays to show a hip
> > replacement to account for the metal detector going off, and none of the
> > current security screening methods will detect it.
> >
> > It is as they say "Security Theater".
>
> Did you see _The X-Files_ episode "Jump the Shark"? Terrorists had
> biological weapons encapsulated in an organic package (like a large
> engineered cyst) that would break down and release after an precise
> delay, and surgically implanted inside the body cavity of a "mule" who
> carried the payload wherever.
>
> Bob

I didn't see that episode, and indeed I haven't turned on a TV since
June.

As for the concept, the engineering a precise bio capsule thing is a
waste of effort since there are much simpler ways to release the
contents.

Pete C. wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>> On 1/14/2010 8:14 AM, --Bryan wrote:
>>
>>> Any person who has modesty issues with full body scans at airports
>>> should realize that:
>>> A. the screeners never see who it is they're getting the image from,
>>> and
>>> B. you can easily find pix of *attractive* nude people on the net for
>>> free, and the idea that anyone would particularly want to look at a
>>> grainy, grayscale version of *your* body is close to absurd.
>>>
>>> --Bryan
>>>
>> IMHO, the whole "privacy" uproar is just a smoke screen to divert
>> attention away from the safety issues of the low-level ionizing
>> radiation used by the devices. The dosage is low, and a background
>> level of radiation is unavoidable, but there is no safe dosage and the
>> effects are cumulative. (and I really doubt that they'll let you wear a
>> lead apron.)
>>
>> Ten to 20 years from now we may see a big increase in cancer, cataracts,
>> and birth defects among frequent fliers. I'm sure we'll just blame it
>> on CO2...
>>
>> Bob
>
> That argument is BS plain and simple, and there are several different
> types of devices most of which use non ionizing radiation.
>

The "back-scatter" scanners use X-rays, which are ionizing. The dose
is low, but it's not zero.

Bob

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:15:10 -0600, Pete C. wrote:

> zxcvbob wrote:
>>
>> On 1/14/2010 8:14 AM, --Bryan wrote:
>>
>>> Any person who has modesty issues with full body scans at airports
>>> should realize that:
>>> A. the screeners never see who it is they're getting the image from,
>>> and
>>> B. you can easily find pix of *attractive* nude people on the net for
>>> free, and the idea that anyone would particularly want to look at a
>>> grainy, grayscale version of *your* body is close to absurd.
>>>
>>> --Bryan
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, the whole "privacy" uproar is just a smoke screen to divert
>> attention away from the safety issues of the low-level ionizing
>> radiation used by the devices. The dosage is low, and a background
>> level of radiation is unavoidable, but there is no safe dosage and the
>> effects are cumulative. (and I really doubt that they'll let you wear a
>> lead apron.)
>>
>> Ten to 20 years from now we may see a big increase in cancer, cataracts,
>> and birth defects among frequent fliers. I'm sure we'll just blame it
>> on CO2...
>>
>> Bob
>
> That argument is BS plain and simple, and there are several different
> types of devices most of which use non ionizing radiation.
>
> The bigger issue is that the devices provide little to no security
> benefit as they only see through clothes. As we should all be aware, the
> terrorists ranks include doctors, and they could quite easily implant
> probably 5# of plastic explosives in a bomber along with a minimal metal
> detonator control, fake medical documents and X-rays to show a hip
> replacement to account for the metal detector going off, and none of the
> current security screening methods will detect it.
>
> It is as they say "Security Theater".

i'm sure bin laden's boys will get right on this in their lavishly
appointed cave operating rooms.

blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:15:10 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > zxcvbob wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/14/2010 8:14 AM, --Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Any person who has modesty issues with full body scans at airports
> >>> should realize that:
> >>> A. the screeners never see who it is they're getting the image from,
> >>> and
> >>> B. you can easily find pix of *attractive* nude people on the net for
> >>> free, and the idea that anyone would particularly want to look at a
> >>> grainy, grayscale version of *your* body is close to absurd.
> >>>
> >>> --Bryan
> >>>
> >>
> >> IMHO, the whole "privacy" uproar is just a smoke screen to divert
> >> attention away from the safety issues of the low-level ionizing
> >> radiation used by the devices. The dosage is low, and a background
> >> level of radiation is unavoidable, but there is no safe dosage and the
> >> effects are cumulative. (and I really doubt that they'll let you wear a
> >> lead apron.)
> >>
> >> Ten to 20 years from now we may see a big increase in cancer, cataracts,
> >> and birth defects among frequent fliers. I'm sure we'll just blame it
> >> on CO2...
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > That argument is BS plain and simple, and there are several different
> > types of devices most of which use non ionizing radiation.
> >
> > The bigger issue is that the devices provide little to no security
> > benefit as they only see through clothes. As we should all be aware, the
> > terrorists ranks include doctors, and they could quite easily implant
> > probably 5# of plastic explosives in a bomber along with a minimal metal
> > detonator control, fake medical documents and X-rays to show a hip
> > replacement to account for the metal detector going off, and none of the
> > current security screening methods will detect it.
> >
> > It is as they say "Security Theater".
>
> i'm sure bin laden's boys will get right on this in their lavishly
> appointed cave operating rooms.
>
> blake

If you believe that all the "west's" enemies are reduced to hiding in
caves, there is little hope for you.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:37:02 -0600, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:15:10 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2010 8:14 AM, --Bryan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any person who has modesty issues with full body scans at airports
>>>>> should realize that:
>>>>> A. the screeners never see who it is they're getting the image from,
>>>>> and
>>>>> B. you can easily find pix of *attractive* nude people on the net for
>>>>> free, and the idea that anyone would particularly want to look at a
>>>>> grainy, grayscale version of *your* body is close to absurd.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Bryan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, the whole "privacy" uproar is just a smoke screen to divert
>>>> attention away from the safety issues of the low-level ionizing
>>>> radiation used by the devices. The dosage is low, and a background
>>>> level of radiation is unavoidable, but there is no safe dosage and the
>>>> effects are cumulative. (and I really doubt that they'll let you wear a
>>>> lead apron.)
>>>>
>>>> Ten to 20 years from now we may see a big increase in cancer, cataracts,
>>>> and birth defects among frequent fliers. I'm sure we'll just blame it
>>>> on CO2...
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> That argument is BS plain and simple, and there are several different
>>> types of devices most of which use non ionizing radiation.
>>>
>>> The bigger issue is that the devices provide little to no security
>>> benefit as they only see through clothes. As we should all be aware, the
>>> terrorists ranks include doctors, and they could quite easily implant
>>> probably 5# of plastic explosives in a bomber along with a minimal metal
>>> detonator control, fake medical documents and X-rays to show a hip
>>> replacement to account for the metal detector going off, and none of the
>>> current security screening methods will detect it.
>>>
>>> It is as they say "Security Theater".
>>
>> i'm sure bin laden's boys will get right on this in their lavishly
>> appointed cave operating rooms.
>>
>> blake
>
> If you believe that all the "west's" enemies are reduced to hiding in
> caves, there is little hope for you.

i'd rather believe that than do the equivalent of hiding in a cave myself.

blake