TexasCHLforum.com

This whole topic has me pretty fumed. I am not a modest person by nature and I only fly a few or three times a year. I don't really care very much about myself. (Of course, the thought of wife or my daughters being subjected to either the scanners or the feel-up infuriates me.) But it is more than that. It is so far and beyond a violation of the fourth amendment that I can't see how it has gotten this far already. It is the biggest single step toward a police state that I can recall.

Don't give me that 'you don't have to fly' crap either. Our society and our economy has developed around the infrastructures that are in place and the airline industry is but one of those systems. Flying is as critical to some as driving is to most of us.

terryg wrote:This whole topic has me pretty fumed. I am not a modest person by nature and I only fly a few or three times a year. I don't really care very much about myself. (Of course, the thought of wife or my daughters being subjected to either the scanners or the feel-up infuriates me.) But it is more than that. It is so far and beyond a violation of the fourth amendment that I can't see how it has gotten this far already. It is the biggest single step toward a police state that I can recall.

Don't give me that 'you don't have to fly' crap either. Our society and our economy has developed around the infrastructures that are in place and the airline industry is but one of those systems. Flying is as critical to some as driving is to most of us.

One of the steps to creating a "Sheeple-society" is to make them used to the idea of their rights being ignored in order to provide security. It becomes acceptable to rely on your government for protection, as they "know best".

Beiruty wrote:One day, I hope to get my PP Lic. I am sure I will be put under the microscope and questioned a lot, as I am foreign born. That is fine with me. My cousin a leading physician has already got his. So why not myself? Of course, he makes like 10X income that what I do.

Not entirely true.

If you are a US citizen at the time you begin training, you only have to provide evidence of that fact, such as birth certificate, naturalization certificate, US passport.

If you are NOT a US citizen, you have to undergo a background check, which costs (I believe) $130. See http://www.flightschoolcandidates.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for details.

drjoker wrote:Also, you could hire the pilot instructors to fly you places, too. Sorta like a chartered private flight. You could combine flight instruction with chartered flight (kill 2 birds with one stone).

If you choose to do this, be VERY careful how you make the arrangements. If the FAA were to get the idea (and could make the case to an administrative law judge) that you and the instructor were trying to circumvent the requirements of Part 135, you could both lose your pilot certificates.

You don't have to take my word for it. Just ask Professor David Brenner from Columbia University: http://sitfu.com/2010/10/it%E2%80%99s-t ... ou-cancer/ . It is precisely the reason that those in the "X-Ray Industry" don't recognize that radiation can be concentrated that the danger is ignored. When I make radiological medications, I wear an exposure tag. The only exposure that the "industry" recognizes is the total amount per unit time (rems or millirems per hour) as indicated by the exposure tag that I wear, but it does not recognize small amounts of radiation concentrated in a small area. For example, if I were to wear an antique watch with a radium glow in the dark dial, the radiation tag that I wear would not even register anything. However, if I were to implant that little speck of radium under your skin, I'm sure that this will cause cancer. Why? Because the radiation is "concentrated" on your skin. The other reason is that the radiation's effects will be additive over time. Frequent business travelers and children will be at the most risk for cancer from these airport X-Ray scanners. I suspect that you "deal with x-rays on a daily basis at work" because you work for TSA.

bigred90gt wrote:

drjoker wrote:Actually, beiruty, it's already begun. If you refuse the x-ray nude scanner, then they'll do an "invasive" pat down where they'll stick their hands INSIDE your underwear and dig around. Kids are NOT exempt from this. I can expect lots of child molesters applying for this job. The X-ray scanners have lower radiation than hospital x-ray scanners, but they are MORE carcinogenic (cancer causing). This is because the x-ray nude scanners concentrate radiation on your skin to give the nude image. The radiation per square inch of skin is several times that of the radiation per square inch when you get a hospital x-ray because the hospital x-ray machines don't concentrate the x-rays on a specific spot while the airport x-ray nude scanners does concentrate the radiation on your skin. PLEASE write your congressman/senators. This has GOT to stop!

For the record, I do not agree with the x-ray machines on a personal level.

That being said, this entire paragraph is false (with the exception of perhaps the invasive pat down where they dig around inside your underwear, I dont know anything about that procedure). X-rays cannot be "concentrated" on the skin of a human and be "more carcinogenic". The technique is backscatter x-ray. Low levels of radiation waves are sent out by the machine, and as there are no lead screens on the human body to soak up the backscatter, the backscatter (the waves reflecting off of the body) will be reflected back into the machine. The imaging plates are in the machine, and pick up the backscatter, which produces an image of your body. In the X-ray industry, there is no such thing as "radiation per square inch of skin". There are millirems (which is a measure of radiation), and there is standard produced by the USNRC (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission) that states that for the public, there shall be no more than 2 millirem in any 1 hour period from external radiation sources in any unrestricted area, and no more than 100 millirem in any 12 month period from internal and external sources in any unrestricted or controlled area. Occupational limits are higher. According to reports, a person subject to the whole body scan backscatter imaging machines will receive 0.005mrems during the scan, which takes approximately 15 seconds. Just so you know, I deal with x-rays on a daily basis at work (and have for the last 10 years or so), have taken level I and level II x-ray courses which require you to know the regulations for x-ray, and the radiation safety course as required by federal regulations to work with x-ray, so I have a little bit of an idea of what I am talking about.

Again, I do not support the idea on a personal level, but I dont want false information to be believed to be true.

I do not work for TSA. I work in the oil industry.

X-rays are not "concentrated on the skin". when you have an x-ray performed for a broken bone, you are not concentrating the x-rays on the bone, the bone has a higher density than the skin, and therefore if absorbs more of the x-rays, providing the contrast on the image between the bone and the skin (or muscles, organs, what have you), which is why the bone shows up lighter on the image that everything else, with the exception of the lead letters used for identification. The x-ray technique used in the backscatter machines is not of sufficient strength to penetrate the skin, therefore it is reflected back and processed as an image.

If you put a radioactive isotope on your skin (gamma rays by the way), yes it will "burn" you, more so in the area immediately around the isotope. However, you are not "concentrating" the radiation on the skin, it is closer to the source and generally is of higher energy than most x-rays, therefore receiving a higher dosage than areas further from the source, but that is a non-point in this issue because x-rays are not produced by radioactive isotopes, that is gamma rays (though some people do like to interchange the terminology). Radium is an entirely different animal than x-ray machines.

I'd imagine that in the case of the backscatter x-ray systems being used, they are using an x-ray tube of some kind, which generates x-rays through mechanical means of linear acceleration. X-rays are projected from the source, and pass through the object, then typically into whatever imaging media is being used (film, phosphorus plates, etc). The strength of the x-rays emitted would have to be low enough to not penetrate the skin, instead reflecting back toward the source to be received by an image processing plate of some kind. This is not "concentrating" them on the skin, it is simply not strong enough to penetrate therefore it is reflected back, which is referred to as backscatter. Yes, your skin will absorb some of the x-rays, but from what I have read, I do not believe it to be a dangerous amount. If I'm proven wrong, I will gladly admit it and take that knowledge with me for future use.


interesting statement by a professor at Columbia University. How about this one?

"Other scientists at Columbia University have made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners:[44]

"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said. By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States, Einstein said. "I believe that the general public has nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation from airline scanning," he added. For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners, Einstein added. "A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport," he said."

I'm just going to request the pat down. Maybe make some appreciative sounds throughout.

And then after they're done request another one.

Edit: I stink at spelling. fixed now.

74novaman wrote:I'm just going to request the pat down. Maybe make some appreciate sounds throughout.

And then after they're done request another one.

Play some Barry White from your iPod (if you could keep it with you)!

terryg wrote:

74novaman wrote:I'm just going to request the pat down. Maybe make some appreciate sounds throughout.

And then after they're done request another one.

Play some Barry White from your iPod (if you could keep it with you)!

Just writhe slowly and sensuously, showing your appreciation for a well-executed pat-down.

y'all do realize that TSA regs require that male passengers be groped by male TSOs and female passengers by female TSOs, right?

How many of your friends and family will be around to see you so thoroughly, um, enjoying it?

austinrealtor wrote:y'all do realize that TSA regs require that male passengers be groped by male TSOs and female passengers by female TSOs, right?

Breaking News

ACLU files suit under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Equal Protection clause for failure to provide separate lines for persons who only partially completed their gender deception transformation cosmetic surgeries.

(Just kidding, but I wouldn't put it past them)

austinrealtor wrote:y'all do realize that TSA regs require that male passengers be groped by male TSOs and female passengers by female TSOs, right?

How many of your friends and family will be around to see you so thoroughly, um, enjoying it?

(There are just SO MANY comments that I just CAN''T say here.... Trying to resist... Perhaps this thread should be locked while my self-control is still in tact!)

austinrealtor wrote:y'all do realize that TSA regs require that male passengers be groped by male TSOs and female passengers by female TSOs, right?

How many of your friends and family will be around to see you so thoroughly, um, enjoying it?

What difference does that make?

The real question is how much are you supposed to tip for a happy ending?

Bennies wrote:

bnc wrote:Bennies, I applaud you for putting your money where your mouth is. Sacrificing a job for principles is difficult enough, let alone in a crumbling economy. I hate to see decent people regulated, legislated, and bullied out of their professions.

I'm sure it is no surprise that I have already opted out of flying all together. Most of the time it won't be a big deal, but I do have family on the other side of the country. Looking on the bright side, I might have some nice road trips in the future.

I'm hoping the opt out day on Nov. 24, where passengers will refuse the naked scanners and demand the pat down, will delay flights all over the country.

I think I am working on the 24th and i hope there is gridlock in all of the screening lines. It would sure be nice to see people stand against this.

Interestingly enough I decided to pull one of my old text books from my aviation law class. There was a whole chapter dedicated to security. It was a fascinating read as there are many examples of established case law in regards to airport security screening vs our 4th amendment rights. Now I am not a lawyer (although i would have went that way in my career) but from what i read I do not no how these scanners and pat downs could even be considered reasonable search under the 4th amendment. Especially after some of the previous case law. While the 4th amendment does not prohibit searches of any kind, if there are to be searches they must be reasonable and non invasive unless PC can be established. Therefore in my opinion, the new procedures are way to invasive and can not be defined as reasonable. Hopefully the courts will see it that way too.

The book is "Aviation and the Law". Authors are Laurance Gesell and Paul Stephen Dempsey. If you can find it at a library or somewhere and read that chapter it is well worth the read.

That was before the Patriot Act. All they have to say now is it's for suspected terrorism. Your rights...gone.

(The Devil made me do it!)


The TSA is doing such a fine job of protecting all of us from terrorists doing bad things with a airliner with all the body scans and groping.

Since the White House and Federal buildings are, no doubt, at the top of the terrorists list of targets, then certainly the TSA body scans/grope inspections should IMMEDIATELY be installed at the WHITE HOUSE and ALL FEDERAL BUILDINGS.

EACH AND EVERYONE ENTERING, SHOULD GET THE FULL INSPECTIONS, EACH TIME, NO EXCEPTIONS.

----It's for everyone's safety and security!----