5 ms·

How many people here are willing to get arrested? Because that's what it's going to take to reverse this trend. We need hundreds/thousands of non-violent prot

How many people here are willing to get arrested? Because that's what it's going to take to reverse this trend. We need hundreds/thousands of non-violent protesters politely and professionally refusing these intrusions and getting arrested for it. Until that happens these intrusions will continue.

sneak 14y ago
None, as the ionizing radiation and sexual assault at airports has clearly and unambiguously illustrated. Your notion of vast public dissent is a fantasy.
- smutticus 14y ago
  I hold no such fantasy. I'm simply pointing out that until mass non-violent protest and the accompanying mass arrests civil liberties will continue to degrade. I never said it was going to happen. I just said it's what needs to happen.
- polyfractal 14y ago
  I'm not condoning the TSA in any way (I also think it is a deplorable organization), but as a biologist I feel compelled to state that you receive vastly more ionizing radiation looking out the window of your plane than you do in the one of the TSA scanners. Again, not condoning the invasion of privacy for security theater, but the "threat" of ionizing radiation is almost always over-stated.
  - epoxyhockey 14y ago
    How about with this model scanner? http://www.mikrondigital.com/uploads/media/RadPRO_SECURPASS.pdf http://www.mikrondigital.com/uploads/media/RadPRO_SECURPASS.... High Penetration Model: (500/y/subject) < 2.0 uSv (0.2 mR) / per scan
    - polyfractal 14y ago
      I feel a little silly linking an XKCD image, but it's accurate and relevant: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/ An average human receives 10 uSv during an average day from background radiation, and 40 uSv on a cross-country flight. Living in Denver, CO for a year will expose you to 1800 uSv. Some more dosages for various routine living situations and medical procedures (note, they are in mSv, not uSv): http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Rad...
      - epoxyhockey 14y ago
        I get that and I appreciate the additional info on radiation exposures (I had not seen the 2nd link you posted before). I was trying to imply that the argument of "it's not that bad" can quickly become moot considering that imaging companies have more powerful scanners standing by for purchase & use. It really becomes a question of how much is too much? And, for what benefit am I being dosed with an extra amount of radiation? Unfortunately, most travelers are unaware that they are even being dosed with radiation by a scanner. No doubt, the TSA would like to keep that fact hidden.
        polyfractal 14y ago
        Yeah, I agree that it is a slippery slope. The difference between their two models right now is the difference between someone throwing dust at you, vs throwing grains of rice. Neither hurt...but it could quickly escalate to throwing pennies or bricks. And for basically no value-add, since it's the TSA. All in all, I think the TSA is awful and would love them gone. At the very least there should be regulation on the max amount of radiation that is allowed by a machine (not sure if this exists).
        sneak 14y ago
        They actively prohibit their screeners (that work next to the machines all day) from wearing dosimeters.

sneak 14y ago

None, as the ionizing radiation and sexual assault at airports has clearly and unambiguously illustrated. Your notion of vast public dissent is a fantasy.

smutticus 14y ago
I hold no such fantasy. I'm simply pointing out that until mass non-violent protest and the accompanying mass arrests civil liberties will continue to degrade. I never said it was going to happen. I just said it's what needs to happen.
polyfractal 14y ago
I'm not condoning the TSA in any way (I also think it is a deplorable organization), but as a biologist I feel compelled to state that you receive vastly more ionizing radiation looking out the window of your plane than you do in the one of the TSA scanners. Again, not condoning the invasion of privacy for security theater, but the "threat" of ionizing radiation is almost always over-stated.
- epoxyhockey 14y ago
  How about with this model scanner? http://www.mikrondigital.com/uploads/media/RadPRO_SECURPASS.pdf http://www.mikrondigital.com/uploads/media/RadPRO_SECURPASS.... High Penetration Model: (500/y/subject) < 2.0 uSv (0.2 mR) / per scan
  - polyfractal 14y ago
    I feel a little silly linking an XKCD image, but it's accurate and relevant: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/ An average human receives 10 uSv during an average day from background radiation, and 40 uSv on a cross-country flight. Living in Denver, CO for a year will expose you to 1800 uSv. Some more dosages for various routine living situations and medical procedures (note, they are in mSv, not uSv): http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Rad...
    - epoxyhockey 14y ago
      I get that and I appreciate the additional info on radiation exposures (I had not seen the 2nd link you posted before). I was trying to imply that the argument of "it's not that bad" can quickly become moot considering that imaging companies have more powerful scanners standing by for purchase & use. It really becomes a question of how much is too much? And, for what benefit am I being dosed with an extra amount of radiation? Unfortunately, most travelers are unaware that they are even being dosed with radiation by a scanner. No doubt, the TSA would like to keep that fact hidden.
      - polyfractal 14y ago
        Yeah, I agree that it is a slippery slope. The difference between their two models right now is the difference between someone throwing dust at you, vs throwing grains of rice. Neither hurt...but it could quickly escalate to throwing pennies or bricks. And for basically no value-add, since it's the TSA. All in all, I think the TSA is awful and would love them gone. At the very least there should be regulation on the max amount of radiation that is allowed by a machine (not sure if this exists).
        sneak 14y ago
        They actively prohibit their screeners (that work next to the machines all day) from wearing dosimeters.