Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ground based terrorists don't need to go through a backscatter machine....
That doesn't explain the inconsistency between your statement and the observed history of terrorism in the U.S.
Europe bans backscatter X-ray machines
- Thread starter Cap'n Jack
- Start date
That doesn't explain the inconsistency between your statement and the observed history of terrorism in the U.S.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well we all clearly know your stance on this topic....
My stance is that there is no reason to believe that "all terrorists are Muslims." Anything beyond that is an assumption on your part.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
And that 1, 10, and 30 additional cases are too many considering the chance of a terrorist blowing up the plane I'm on. As the data is hotly debated, by some that share credentials equal to yours, why not get rid of the machines? It's an additional reason, besides the 4th amendment intrusions, and the benefit analysis mentioned earlier.
It really sounds like you are defending the x-ray backscatter machines.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ok, we will play your game......... not "all" just 99.965 % are.
Sorry, I just can't stop myself from pointing out a famous exception when someone states a generalization in absolute terms.
I agree that it is probably a high percentage, but I hope you're not proposing to eliminate all scrutiny of non-Muslims.
I never said not to look at other people.
This is what I said:
If we believe that the experience of populations who were exposed to millions of times the doses and dose rates in the atomic bomb explosions and the experience of displaced war refugees radiated for head-lice can be linearly scaled down to that level of a backscatter scanner
It is a big 'IF' whether we can scale experience from a wartime population exposed to 100-1000 mSv down to the effects of a scan imparting a dose of less than 0.0001 mSv (Johns Hopkins had one of the scanners for testing, they found 0.0000146 mSv at 50 kVp energy, and yes that is another zero in there).
The fact that we live in a world that exposes us to about 3.7 mSv/year yet we still populate this planet suggests that there is a threshold in place below which individual variability in exposure is meaningless.
iow, in my opinion those 1,10 30 cases dont actually exist and are a theoretical number based on a politically decided 'no-threshold' assumption that is not supported by hard data.
Here is a FAA CAMI paper on the math behind this:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/media/backscatter_research.pdf
And yes, they are not dumb and actually took the dose deposition distribution of low energy x-rays into account.
If I believed that they are truly the solution to the security problem, I really wouldn't have a problem with them, radiation or no radiation.
But then I see the the somali cleaning crew in Minneapolis board the aircraft and really scratch my head. Here are folks who came to this country a year or two ago as treaty refugees, often still have family and allegiances in this terrorism infested hellhole and the airlines think its a great idea to use them for a low paid job in a security sensitive environment
.
Last edited:
This is what I said:
But then I see the the somali cleaning crew in Minneapolis board the aircraft and really scratch my head. Here are folks who came to this country a year or two ago, often still have family and allegiances in this terrorism infested hellhole and the airlines think its a great idea to use them for a low paid job in a security sensitive environment
Bingo.... We have a winner..
