Is there a way to hack the political process to get this moving ? Can individual states bypass the federal government with some kind of visa ? Some law that this can piggyback on ?
The document was linked here before but is very detailed and interesting, even naming specific issues:
A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at
risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of
melanocyte aging.
B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis provoking
radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women,
who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer,
X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue
beneath the skin represents a similar risk.
C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.
D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer
patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin
dose.
E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to
have been fully evaluated.
F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical
risks to the fetus are determined.
G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for
sperm mutagenesis.
H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?
That's fine though. Society has already determined that 3000 people dying in a terrorist attack is much scarier than 500,000 people that die every year from heart disease. Otherwise we'd be spending money on encouraging a heart-healthy lifestyle rather than preventing someone from bringing a toothpaste-bomb onto a plane.
It's clear that if we can save 200 business travelers and vacationers from incineration, it's worth killing off a few senior citizens. Won't someone please think of the children?
(Hey, this isn't my policy. If someone asked me, "is it worth hurting someone to possibly save someone else", I would have said no. But nobody ever asks me about these things!)
I've been told by an engineer friend of mine that the radiation dose these scanners deliver was dwarfed by the in-flight cosmic irradiation.
He didn't give me numbers, though. It would be nice if a radiotherapist (or another expert) could chime in on this topic.
----------------------------
edit: answering my own question: he's wrong.
from [1] :
>The estimated occupational effective dose for the aircraft crew (A 320) working 500 h per year was 1.64 mSv.
> Other experiments, or dose rate measurements with the neutron dosimeter, consisting of LR-115 track detector and boron foil BN-1 or 10B converter, were performed on five intercontinental flights.
> Comparison of the dose rates of the non-neutron component (low LET) and the neutron one (high LET) of the radiation field at the aircraft flight level showed that the neutron component carried about 50% of the total dose.
> The dose rate measurements on the flights from the Middle Europe to the South and Middle America, then to Korea and Japan, showed that the flights over or near the equator region carried less dose rate; this was in accordance with the known geomagnetic latitude effect.
The PR video/slideshow at the last checkpoint I went through said that the dose was safe because it was equivalent to being in the airplane for 3 hours. This presumably was meant to be comforting, but in my mind I was computing a 3hours:3sec ratio and trying to remember if time-dose averaging was appropriate (I work in MR, and it's been a while since my ionizing radiation course). I was not asked to go through the machine, but I would have refused simply because of the flippant tone of the 3hrs in the air claim.
No, actually your data validates him. Maybe you are confusing 'm' with 'μ', that is, milli- (10^-3) with micro- (10^-6)?
>The estimated occupational effective dose for the aircraft crew (A 320) working 500 h per year was 1.64 mSv.
1.64 mSv (milliSieverts) / 500 hours = 3.28 μSv/hour. A 3-hour flight is 10 μSv.
For comparison, the FDA letter [1] linked in another comment here cites the effective dose of the backscatter x-rays as 0.25 μSv.
The cosmic ray dose from a 3 hour flight is 40 times that of the backscatter x-ray. Pretty much "dwarfs it".
(Note that while the FDA letter says the effective dose is 0.25 μSv, the footnote there (11) says that RapiScan is <=0.05 μSv. Not sure how to parse this -- maybe the 0.25 μSv is a regulatory definition, not the real dose. An NPR article [2] I cited earlier claimed 0.02 μSv, consistent with that <=0.05 μSv figure.
While I'm in these parentheses, NOAA has a table [3] of cosmic ray doses as a function of altitude. Pretty much consistent with your source -- 3 μSv/hr at 30,000 ft, 6 μSv/hr at 40,000 ft).
The health risks can't just be quantified by the overall radiation dose. It depends on how that dose is deposited in the subject. The letter raises the concern that the since almost all the radiation is absorbed by the skin, the dose to your first centimeter or two of epidermal tissue may be fairly high. If the calculations that concluded the devices were safe assumed that the radiation was evenly distributed throughout the body, then the safety of the devices could be suspect.
I could not find the energy of the X-Rays used for these scans, but they would likely be low-energy (high energy rays don't scatter much), hence absorbed mostly superficially, as you said.
Almost no politician would ever vote for removing this awful "security" measure. They would risk being blamed when another incompetent terrorist mastermind passes security and hopefully gets stopped by, now much more vigilant passengers. Going to the courts seems like a good way around that - sue the TSA.
If someone with experience on these types of issues could comment I would be very interested to learn if this has any chance of removing those damn machines from airports.
Make a list of congressmen and senators that require you to let nude photos of your children to be taken by government employees. It's all about how you frame the argument
It depends on how you position the wedge. You start by asking officials why they want to take naked pictures of innocent children. Once they are sufficiently embarrassed about the notion of taking naked pictures of children, you ask why they want to take naked pictures of innocent adults. Every time a TSA or DHS official talks about how they don't store the pictures, bring up the US Marshals Service storing naked pictures of children and adults (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html) using the same technology, despite providing the /exact/ same assurances the TSA is providing now.
When the TSA officials talk about the opt-out process and the subsequent genital groping, ask about the TSA agent that was charged with raping a kid (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100310child...) and wanting to keep that child as a sex slave. Do parents really want strangers feeling up the breasts and genitals of their underage children? What type of person applies for a job where they are allowed to grope children? Is it any better when those same agents want to grope adults?
It's not advanced screening technology, it's a machine that takes naked pictures of children and stores them.
It's not a thorough pat down, it's having your genitals groped by strangers.
Control the language and you control the discussion.
"They" aren't similarly so squeamish about waving fear and flags around to force body scans and invasive pat downs on us. This is an issue that is important and we must use tools that work to get it to stop.
A good first step would be to eliminate separate security lines for First Class/VIP and everyone else. I suspect security lines would end up being shorter if our elected officials had to go through exactly the same process as the rest of us.
As a hack, just go through the first class line regardless of the class you're flying in. I know several people who do this, and none have been questioned about it. The obvious response is: "Why should paying the airline more money get people better treatment from the Federal government?".
In my experience this works every time at Dulles international (IAD) but never works at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International (ATL). At ATL you get sent to the back of the normal line.
The hack is to print FIRST on your boarding pass. The person checking whether or not you are allowed in the priority line does not have access to the reservation system to check that you are actually in first class. You keep your real boarding pass in your pocket and show that to the TSA and gate agent.
Note: untested. I get to use the first-class lines anyway :P
His intention is to make them secondary. I'm sure the TSA would have none of that - it would just be magnetometer set to the highest sensitivity first - scanner second - for everyone.
Not because of the quality of his show and the fact that he has writers. Him having stupid gags is perfectly fine. Having writers watch the gazillion shows on TiVo with him and deciding what is the funniest thing that happened today - this makes the show great.
What depresses me is the sad state of the media. It takes a Jon Stewart, a simple, smart, sincere comic, to show how poor they are doing their job as journalists. He gives a voice to the people who watch the occasional news report and think - WTF! - why is Obama's daughters school menu a part of the news?! There are two wars and half the budget used to pay for them - borrowed money. People getting swept by hurricanes, toxic oil spills - and the politicians and media making it worse - not better. The media should at least show the ineptitude and bad decisions for everyone to see - not what Paris Hilton had for breakfast in jail.
I didn't realize until now how valuable comedy can be not only to entertain but to keep things real. Watching him makes me feel like there is still a boy out there with guts to shout the emperor has no clothes. Making fun of journalists doing a bad job, doing stupid or even harmful things serves to keep them in check. At least those with a shred of self consciousness and decency - not the contract killers. The killers at least get some public humiliation - not that it gets to them that much.
I don't watch Jon Stewart to make me laugh. I enjoy his show because he uses funny as a weapon. Like the kid in Kick-Ass trying to be a superhero. Jon fights injustice with the only weapon he has - his wits and charms. The things he points at are funny (or make me cry) - not the gags so much.
Jon and his writers and fake correspondents are doing what they do best - make jokes - incidentally they also make them at the expense of those who need them most - who need to be put to their place once in a while.
If Jon is able to shape the minds of his viewers, I do hope he succeeds. At the very least, creating a healthy disrespect for the use of hyperbole in political discussions would go a long way to bringing some 'sanity' back into what has become a bitter political divide.
Daily Show has been getting more serious lately. Colbert Report seems to have taken over the funny side. But both are very very relevant still.
Another great political production is Chaser's in Australia. Absolutely love these guys.
I hope there will be more of such shows on a global scale. Countries in Asia, Africa and Europe surely have their own versions, but something that can speak to the whole continent or world would be awesome.
Making salary information available is but one, small step towards greater employee satisfaction. If it is the only step - this can be disastrous. You essentially get the problems described in the article.
The company needs to give much more information than just the current salaries that got set by who knows what way.
First, the company needs to make available what the company is making - this is usually available but in some big numbers like earnings per quarter. If you are working on some product you need to know how much it sold and how much is likely to get sold in the next 6 months. You need to at least be able to know how much the company can afford in the end when all salaries together with all the other costs are added together to still be profitable.
Then you need to know the median salary for your job at other companies. These statistics are usually available - and if not can be found from recruiters.
Finally, you need to think about what is fair in your mind - how much does your husband make, how much does the neighbor make, your friends - compared to what they do? This is something you know and the company does not know about - but it does factor into how happy you are with your salary.
Armed with all this you are ready to set your own salary. This then can be seen by all others and a proper discussion can be done. Discussing things with all this in the open is at least possible. Everyone can participate and after a few months everyone will be armed with additional historical information about Joe the Slacker or Jane The SuperStar and if their salary is fair. If someone really thinks they deserve a huge salary regardless - they can always go someplace else if the majority of her colleagues disagree and get her fired.
Anyone involved in video (movies, music videos, commercials) could put this on heads of a test audience and see what people focus on and how to deliver a message more effectively.
I'm guessing people with autism could be detected with these things easily since they focus on different things than people without the condition.
