The Ranting/Debate Thread
- Thread starter Obeliskos
- Start date
Kusanagi
Chief Nippleseer
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,290
- Reputation score
- 308
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Again, I'm not really defending the situation, simply stating that if a search is going to be done, it has to be done properly or else there's almost no point.
Like I said before, searching under the crotch is necessary for a true search because folks do hide shit like razor blades, drugs and so forth up there. I've even seen really small single shot pistols that were small enough to tuck in between one's thighs and behind the testicles. Same with between a woman's breasts.
Again, I'm not really defending the situation, simply stating that if a search is going to be done, it has to be done properly or else there's almost no point.
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
What I find hilarious about the whole backscatter thing is the fact that it's pretty much the only piece of tech or procedures that can properly protect flight from people bringing shit into the plane.
After people complaining and complaining that the airline companies weren't thinking enough about safety, and numerous incidents that have proven that the safetymeasures already put in place are ineffective. When something finally comes out that can improve all that, and make flying safe again. People are outraged by it breaching their privacy.
What you dense twinklefucking morons? You want us to only breach the terrorists privacy to see if they're terrorists? That's not how it works!
Idiots.
What I find hilarious about the whole backscatter thing is the fact that it's pretty much the only piece of tech or procedures that can properly protect flight from people bringing shit into the plane.
After people complaining and complaining that the airline companies weren't thinking enough about safety, and numerous incidents that have proven that the safetymeasures already put in place are ineffective. When something finally comes out that can improve all that, and make flying safe again. People are outraged by it breaching their privacy.
What you dense twinklefucking morons? You want us to only breach the terrorists privacy to see if they're terrorists? That's not how it works!
Idiots.
Newbie
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reputation score
- 180
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
The Backscatter cannot see in body cavities.
It has been foiled by thicker materials, such as corduroy.
It has been foiled by frilled blouses, or any sufficiently thick or layered fabrics.
In one scenario it was foiled by a menstrual pad.
It has been revealed that the previous head of the TSA had some involvement with the company that makes these devices.
My issue is not that they are working towards our security. It is that they are claiming to, and putting on a good show, and not. In most of the accounts of horror stories the agents were somewhere between indifferent to human rights and dignity, and down right belligerent to the passengers for daring to break stride.
How dense are you? Are we going to get to mandatory cavity searches before you decide it's too much?
The Backscatter cannot see in body cavities.
It has been foiled by thicker materials, such as corduroy.
It has been foiled by frilled blouses, or any sufficiently thick or layered fabrics.
In one scenario it was foiled by a menstrual pad.
It has been revealed that the previous head of the TSA had some involvement with the company that makes these devices.
My issue is not that they are working towards our security. It is that they are claiming to, and putting on a good show, and not. In most of the accounts of horror stories the agents were somewhere between indifferent to human rights and dignity, and down right belligerent to the passengers for daring to break stride.
How dense are you? Are we going to get to mandatory cavity searches before you decide it's too much?
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I honesty couldn't care less about the machines supposedly "exposing" me. The operators are going to see thousands of these vague images every day, I very much doubt they give a damn either, and it's not like they distribute the images for later personal viewing or anything. (Hell even if an opperator was enjoying pictures of me I still wouldn't care beyond the fact his/her attention should be on the job not the junk.)
However if the scanners are indeed functionally flawed, or put in place merely for secondary financial motives, then I can certainly object to that.
I'm also left wondering about the validity of the health concerns floating about. People refering to them as X-Rays. Does anyone here know a little more about about they actually work? Is this the same kind of blind paranoia from the types of people who got freaked out about radioactive fire alarms, or is there actually any basis?
I honesty couldn't care less about the machines supposedly "exposing" me. The operators are going to see thousands of these vague images every day, I very much doubt they give a damn either, and it's not like they distribute the images for later personal viewing or anything. (Hell even if an opperator was enjoying pictures of me I still wouldn't care beyond the fact his/her attention should be on the job not the junk.)
However if the scanners are indeed functionally flawed, or put in place merely for secondary financial motives, then I can certainly object to that.
I'm also left wondering about the validity of the health concerns floating about. People refering to them as X-Rays. Does anyone here know a little more about about they actually work? Is this the same kind of blind paranoia from the types of people who got freaked out about radioactive fire alarms, or is there actually any basis?
Newbie
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reputation score
- 180
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
The FDA's response is linked in the article, and can be found
You must be registered to see the links
the article I read on it, but BoingBoing seems to be pretty heavily against all this nonsense, so I'm not sure how impartial it is.The FDA's response is linked in the article, and can be found
You must be registered to see the links
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
So basically FDA had a study committed, and they say that the radiation dose is negligible. And the scanners indeed do use X-rays, which are ionizing radiation and therefore capable of causing mutations potentially leading to cancer. Apparently the x-rays used are supposed to be deflected by skin therefore reducing potential damage to other organs.
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
About the radiation thingy... If you stay on an airplane in the air for about three hours you recieve a radiation dose of 1 mrem. A backscatter scan gives you around 0.009 mrem...
Sure it doesn't show what's inside your body, but it's a lot better than what security we have now, because what we have now is pretty much all for show.
I liked the comparison, where they said that "The chance of this causing a lethal cancer is about the same as being on a plane and getting blown up by a terrorist."
Well, I'll ignore the fact that the estimate on cancer is completely rediculous, seeing as you recieve 100 times that amount of radiation by staying two days in Denver.
If anybody says: "Oh, the chance of me getting cancer is about the same as me being on a plane with a terrorist, then I'd prefer the terrorist."
Well you know what? I don't think the other people on that plane will agree...
About the radiation thingy... If you stay on an airplane in the air for about three hours you recieve a radiation dose of 1 mrem. A backscatter scan gives you around 0.009 mrem...
Sure it doesn't show what's inside your body, but it's a lot better than what security we have now, because what we have now is pretty much all for show.
I liked the comparison, where they said that "The chance of this causing a lethal cancer is about the same as being on a plane and getting blown up by a terrorist."
Well, I'll ignore the fact that the estimate on cancer is completely rediculous, seeing as you recieve 100 times that amount of radiation by staying two days in Denver.
If anybody says: "Oh, the chance of me getting cancer is about the same as me being on a plane with a terrorist, then I'd prefer the terrorist."
Well you know what? I don't think the other people on that plane will agree...
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
About the estimate on cancer: Any single photon with enough energy(or electron, or positron or alpha-particle) can cause a mutation. Considering how common cancers are, I'd say the estimate is reasonable.
About the estimate on cancer: Any single photon with enough energy(or electron, or positron or alpha-particle) can cause a mutation. Considering how common cancers are, I'd say the estimate is reasonable.
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
...
Nevermind.
Did you read the rest of what I said? It's one hundred times more dangerous to be on the bloody plane! You need to take ONE HUNDRED of these scans to give you the same amount of radiation you're getting from a three hour flight. With numbers that small, there's NO way of being able to calculate the risk. Because we can't even prperly calculate the risk of breathing radon-contaminated air!
There's nearly NO radiation to speak of... Bringing in individual photons and their effect on genes is just stupid... We haven't even been able to sequence a humans entire genome, let alone understood radiations effects on it, and what the propabilities of mutations arising are.
This is not a scientific debate, it's a debate about privacy vs. security. I don't support looking through peoples clothes, but this debate is getting ridiculous. You are given the choice of a pat down or a scan. If you don't want the scan, TAKE THE FUCKING PAT DOWN!
If you wanna be safe you've gotta be able to make a few sacrifices.
Or yaknow, just don't fly.
Or just stop invading countries... That'll probably also help.
Positron? Seriously?
...
Nevermind.
Did you read the rest of what I said? It's one hundred times more dangerous to be on the bloody plane! You need to take ONE HUNDRED of these scans to give you the same amount of radiation you're getting from a three hour flight. With numbers that small, there's NO way of being able to calculate the risk. Because we can't even prperly calculate the risk of breathing radon-contaminated air!
There's nearly NO radiation to speak of... Bringing in individual photons and their effect on genes is just stupid... We haven't even been able to sequence a humans entire genome, let alone understood radiations effects on it, and what the propabilities of mutations arising are.
This is not a scientific debate, it's a debate about privacy vs. security. I don't support looking through peoples clothes, but this debate is getting ridiculous. You are given the choice of a pat down or a scan. If you don't want the scan, TAKE THE FUCKING PAT DOWN!
If you wanna be safe you've gotta be able to make a few sacrifices.
Or yaknow, just don't fly.
Or just stop invading countries... That'll probably also help.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Er, I think you're in the wrong decade.
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Important keywords might include Telomeres and Centromeres.
lrn2science.
But as I said this isn't a scientific debate. So after looking up the human genome, properly, come back and read my previous post again. And maybe we can have a decent debate on this, that doesn't include scaremongering and pseudoscience.
Look it up, and look it up properly... We're lacking a serious bit that can't be sequenced with the tech we have today. -_-
Important keywords might include Telomeres and Centromeres.
lrn2science.
But as I said this isn't a scientific debate. So after looking up the human genome, properly, come back and read my previous post again. And maybe we can have a decent debate on this, that doesn't include scaremongering and pseudoscience.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I don't see what our knowledge of human genome has to do with this, anyway. We know that radiation can cause ionization. We know that said ionization can cause mutations if it happens in dna-molecules. We even know that some mutations can cause apoptosis and other cell processes to malfunction. In short, we know that ionizing radiation can cause cancer. Do you disagree in any of these points?
I don't see what our knowledge of human genome has to do with this, anyway. We know that radiation can cause ionization. We know that said ionization can cause mutations if it happens in dna-molecules. We even know that some mutations can cause apoptosis and other cell processes to malfunction. In short, we know that ionizing radiation can cause cancer. Do you disagree in any of these points?
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
No, but you clearly fail to grasp the fact that there is ionising radiation everywhere, and that compared to all other things this is like saying the sealevel rises if your dog shakes itself dry next to a stream. Yes, some droplets might hit the stream, and yes, that might raise the sealevel just a tiny tiny bit, but it's impossible to measure, and there's going to be no effect from it.
Trying to use science when you clearly haven't researched the science behind it... It just leads to fail. Now could we please move on? This could be a deep, meaningful discussion on ethics vs. security, and on egoism vs. altruism.
That's the discussion I want to have.
No, but you clearly fail to grasp the fact that there is ionising radiation everywhere, and that compared to all other things this is like saying the sealevel rises if your dog shakes itself dry next to a stream. Yes, some droplets might hit the stream, and yes, that might raise the sealevel just a tiny tiny bit, but it's impossible to measure, and there's going to be no effect from it.
Trying to use science when you clearly haven't researched the science behind it... It just leads to fail. Now could we please move on? This could be a deep, meaningful discussion on ethics vs. security, and on egoism vs. altruism.
That's the discussion I want to have.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Yes, I am aware of the existence of the background radiation, thank you very much. Your comparison shows that you don't really understand what you're talking about. All it takes to create cancer is few particles in the right places. Any ionizing radiation can be the source of those particles. Therefore any radiation can cause cancer. All I said that 1/30 million sounds like a reasonable estimate. How many people fly in US every year? 600 million? 20 of those might get cancer because of the scanners. That isn't enough to show up in statistics in any way. In other words, a ridiculously low number.
Then either move on or stop being wrong.
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Ok, let's say that you're right, that the radiation from these scanners will cause 20 people to get cancer out of 600 million.
That means a radiation dose of 0.009 mrem causes cancer once in 30 million times. Which in turn means, that living in Denver, every day someone gets cancer from radiation. Which means that every year 365 people in Denver gets cancer from the natural background radiation. I can only imagine what happens if some of these people smoke or something.
I understand that you don't like radiation, but humans are not that fragile.
I'm not saying this source is unbiased, but regardless of whether these numbers are correct, you put way too much faith in the accuracy of a science that is far from being understood. Just the fact that you thought the human genome had been sequenced shows that you are no expert on molecular biology.
Neither am I. I'm just a kid with a computer and a New Scientist subscription, but as recently as this summer I worked for two days in Norways most respected cancer research center. One of the first things they showed me was a lot of graphs, pointing out that the graphs did not correlate nearly enough to what current science predicts.
We have NO idea what the chances are of getting cancer. As an example I'll ask this:
Can you tell me how many photons get through all the other atoms that make up our body, and then proceed to hit one of the right atoms amongst the six billion base pairs that make up our DNA.
We don't know, but what we do know is that if humans had been as ill-equipped to handle radiation that you predict, then we'd all be dead.
EDIT:
I want to move on, but I'm sure you can understand that I cannot back down when you on baseless grounds tell me I'm wrong.
Ok, let's say that you're right, that the radiation from these scanners will cause 20 people to get cancer out of 600 million.
That means a radiation dose of 0.009 mrem causes cancer once in 30 million times. Which in turn means, that living in Denver, every day someone gets cancer from radiation. Which means that every year 365 people in Denver gets cancer from the natural background radiation. I can only imagine what happens if some of these people smoke or something.
I understand that you don't like radiation, but humans are not that fragile.
I'm not saying this source is unbiased, but regardless of whether these numbers are correct, you put way too much faith in the accuracy of a science that is far from being understood. Just the fact that you thought the human genome had been sequenced shows that you are no expert on molecular biology.
Neither am I. I'm just a kid with a computer and a New Scientist subscription, but as recently as this summer I worked for two days in Norways most respected cancer research center. One of the first things they showed me was a lot of graphs, pointing out that the graphs did not correlate nearly enough to what current science predicts.
We have NO idea what the chances are of getting cancer. As an example I'll ask this:
Can you tell me how many photons get through all the other atoms that make up our body, and then proceed to hit one of the right atoms amongst the six billion base pairs that make up our DNA.
We don't know, but what we do know is that if humans had been as ill-equipped to handle radiation that you predict, then we'd all be dead.
EDIT:
You must be registered to see the links
Forgot to add this.
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
The issue of privacy remains for some.
The issue of the devices efficiency and whether it makes a worthwhile benefit to security remains.
Are these things (currently or scheduled to become) mandatory? The last and only time so far I've flew I simply placed a phone on a conveyer belt and walked through a metal detector, with no other security. I could have been carrying any manner of non metalic weaponry quite easily. I don't remember seeing any dogs either. This was about 3 years ago.
Compared to that, the scanners seem like quite a reasonable addition.
Well that clears it up for me. Regardless about whatever the chances of cancer might be, with those figures it is quite clearly an irrelevant degree of radiation. If anyone considers the radiaton from the scan too much for them, then they should steer clear of flying and most parts of earth altogether. The health concerns side of the issue is a dead point in my opinion.That article said:
The issue of privacy remains for some.
The issue of the devices efficiency and whether it makes a worthwhile benefit to security remains.
Are these things (currently or scheduled to become) mandatory? The last and only time so far I've flew I simply placed a phone on a conveyer belt and walked through a metal detector, with no other security. I could have been carrying any manner of non metalic weaponry quite easily. I don't remember seeing any dogs either. This was about 3 years ago.
Compared to that, the scanners seem like quite a reasonable addition.