Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Airport Scanners Sparking Litigation and Protests.
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 11-17-10 | Wall St. Journal Law Blog

Posted on 11/17/2010 1:24:16 PM PST by FS11

Yesterday, two airline pilots filed a federal suit alleging that airport scanners and aggressive pat-down procedures constitute unreasonable searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: indictments; lawsuits; prosecution; tsa; tsapervs; tsascanners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last
To: ex-Texan

You get more ionizing radiation from sitting in the lane at 30,000 feet than you get from the xray scanners.

The scanners are limited by law to less than 25 micro-REMS, and you get at least 200 micro-REMS per hour from cosmic rays hitting the plane at over 20,000 feet. Depending on the flight, it can be as high as 600 micro-REMS per hour, so the scanners can dose you with as much radiation as you’d get in maybe 20 minutes of flight.

I hate the scanners too, but radiation dose is not going to work to get them shut down.

Better to find the links fom Chertoff to the money to the scanner contractors.


101 posted on 11/18/2010 6:30:52 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; july4thfreedomfoundation; Lazamataz

I was done with Hannity years ago. Not for any particular reason except he never rises above the intellect of a cheerleader.

I don’t find him particularly informative.

I’d catch a glimpse of him here and there but anymore, especially having Karl “The Buffet” on his show, I just skip him altogether.

Now I recall why, He loves Bohemian Grove.


102 posted on 11/18/2010 7:43:43 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Never knew of Bohemian Grove.

So it is true. They actually do meet up to decide our fates.

103 posted on 11/18/2010 7:53:44 AM PST by Lazamataz (Pelosi: Like a rapist, PROUD of their handiwork.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DBrow; stephenjohnbanker; M. Espinola; Quix
Sorry to dispute your argument, old bean. But you are wrong:

"There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations."

http://www.zdnet.com.au/body-scanners-have-mutagenic-effects-339307191.htm?omnRef=NULL

More Reports Here

Frankly I believe anything that a guy like Michael Chertoff profits from after he leaves government is something that I will try very hard to stay away from. Today the local radio station was buzzing with rumors about profiteers.

I'm also very cautious about other X-ray devices no matter what the technicians say. I have a friend who works for a hospital and he is cautious too.

104 posted on 11/18/2010 7:59:01 AM PST by ex-Texan (Ecclesiastes 5:10 - 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
About Bohemian Grove -- check my freeper page and scroll down

It's worse than you can imagine . . . 'Nuff said on FR

105 posted on 11/18/2010 8:02:26 AM PST by ex-Texan (Ecclesiastes 5:10 - 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Gabrial

Very disturbing.


106 posted on 11/18/2010 8:02:42 AM PST by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: GoodDay
“From what I understand, it's sort of the other way around: more perverts will be working for the TSA in order to perform the kind of groping for which they would otherwise be arrested.”

Because the TSA requires “same sex” groping, I am sure the TSA is attracting more homosexuals an lesbians than other agencies. Think about it, homosexuals and lesbians can get their sexual kicks while being paid for it. Government law states they can't be refused a job because of their sexual orientation.

It must be a dream job for those who define themselves by their sexual activities.

TSA: “You don't get on until we get off”.

107 posted on 11/18/2010 8:11:07 AM PST by Gabrial (The Whitehouse Nightmare will continue as long as the Nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
I wonder if perverts will start flying more just so they can be groped by TSA?

In San Francisco and Palm Sproings they're already marketing t-shirts that read "Touch my Junk - Please!"

108 posted on 11/18/2010 8:12:53 AM PST by ErnBatavia (It's not the Obama Administration....it's the "Obama Regime".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

THX THX


109 posted on 11/18/2010 8:23:08 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

From a post of mine on another thread:
..................................

You can get as much as 660 micro-REMS per hour in flight, with 250 micro REMS per hour being a low average. That’s at least ten times ground level background.

If the xray scanners are harmful with their less-than-a-second less than 25 microrem scan, airline flight is many many times more dangerous.

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

Plus, lots of airline radiation is heavy particles and neutrons, not just low energy x-rays.
...........................................

So air flight gives you at least 200 uREM/hour. This memo:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fda-backscatter-response.pdf

says that the scanners are limited by law to 25 uREM per scan, and you’ll find actual measurements in the 5 uREM to 9 uREM from AS&E.

So you get more dose in flight. Plus, the in-flight dose is made up of higher energy photons mixed with particles from cosmic rays, and a bunch of really hot neutrons. Looking at the numbers, you can get more dose in an hour on a plane than you get from a scanner.
.......................

The BIER report of radiation risks:

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/brp/radon_division/BEIR VII Preliminary Report.pdf


110 posted on 11/18/2010 8:27:45 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
From your final link: "The system cannot find the file specified."

And, of course, you actually believe the reports issued by companies that have cleared these machines so the profiteers can make mega bucks ________ ?

Did you check all the reports on my links _______ ? I know the answer to that question. Do not bother to reply.

I will just keep taking the train. In about two years the scanner companies will be buried in litigation over harmful effects from scanners. BIG SIS will be run out of DC on a rail and the profiteers may be locked behind bars.

111 posted on 11/18/2010 8:41:06 AM PST by ex-Texan (Ecclesiastes 5:10 - 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

My point was, you get more radiation from flying than from the machines. I provided references.

Do you have a reference that shows that the scanners give you more radiation than the 200 microR per hour minimum from flight?

Do you have a reference showing how much radiation the scanners put out?

I think if you cut n paste the whole line, you can see the BIER VII report. I can’t get that link to post properly.

Yes, take the train. At ground level background radiation is around 20 microREM, depending of course on just where you are, the altitude and ground composition being the most important factors. You’ll get less radiation at ground level.


112 posted on 11/18/2010 8:47:33 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Did you read the report that I linked that says basically "pilots object to TSA scanners because of radiation risks _____ ?"

Do not bother to answer. I know you did not read it. I will believe the pilots -- over a testing company that makes money passing machines off on the public.

I would not trust BIG SIS with an electric train. Why should I volunteer to have my body scanned ___ ?

113 posted on 11/18/2010 8:57:12 AM PST by ex-Texan (Ecclesiastes 5:10 - 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

“Did you check all the reports on my links _______ ?”

From your links:

Nov 15, 2010 ... The short answer is that the radiation risk from the TSA scanners is minimal for a member of the general flying public. ...

There are quite a few links to look at from your Google search, and oddly they are the same ones I got when I did the same search! lol

My point was, you get more radiation from flying than from the scanners.


114 posted on 11/18/2010 8:58:03 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

This one:

“A traveler would require more than 1,000 such scans in a year to reach the effective dose equal to one chest X-ray, according to the American College of Radiology.

“But other medical experts point out that the elderly, pregnant women, children and others might be more susceptible to radiation than the average person,” Poole said. “And flight crews and airport workers who have to pass through the scanners every day would receive far more radiation than most passengers.”

That’s one of the reasons the Allied Pilots Association, which represents 11,000 American Airlines pilots, wants its members to opt out of the full-body scan and request another type of screening.”

Or was it another one?

The article oddly does not address in-flight dose. My point was that you get more dose in flight than from the scanners.


115 posted on 11/18/2010 9:03:45 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Great topic for the OFST!!


116 posted on 11/18/2010 9:04:27 AM PST by Rightly Biased (Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

“I would not trust BIG SIS with an electric train. “

LOL yup me too, even if she had adult supervision!


117 posted on 11/18/2010 9:04:55 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan; All

Here is an interesting tool that pilots use to determine in-flight radiation dose:

http://jag.cami.jccbi.gov/cariprofile.asp

One Sievert= 100,000,000 microREM or 100,000 millirem


118 posted on 11/18/2010 9:26:44 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: FS11

I think the mass opt out might happen on Thanksgiving week. Only takes a few and the line goes out to the parking lot.


119 posted on 11/18/2010 9:36:40 AM PST by cornfedcowboy (Trust in God, but empty the clip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

I appreciate your info on the scanner radiation, as many of us laymen do not understand the differences in radiation sources, and wavelenghts, etc. Can you disclose your area of expertise/ professional background at all?
Regards


120 posted on 11/18/2010 9:56:42 AM PST by FBD (My carbon footprint is bigger than yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: FBD

“Can you disclose your area of expertise/ professional background at all?”

No. Or, I’m just like you, sitting at my screen in my bunny slippers.


121 posted on 11/18/2010 9:58:41 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased

Thank you....I needed a topic. ;)


122 posted on 11/18/2010 10:24:07 AM PST by Lucky9teen (Jobs? Nope! Economy? Nope! Disarm the U.S? Yep! Impeach the treasonous Marxist Muslim usurper bast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

bump and bookmark


123 posted on 11/18/2010 10:54:10 AM PST by FBD (My carbon footprint is bigger than yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Ok, I wasn't being a smartass, just curious as to your area of expertise, as you sound like someone with a credible background, that's all.
124 posted on 11/18/2010 10:56:48 AM PST by FBD (My carbon footprint is bigger than yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: FBD

I know you were being serious! I like to keep private, though; giving out too much personal info isn’t good.

I will expand a little- I do have relevant background in radiation issues, but mostly I have a pretty solid background in physics in general.


125 posted on 11/18/2010 11:21:34 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

gotcha, and I understand the privacy concern... this is the internet, after-all. =^)


126 posted on 11/18/2010 11:42:20 AM PST by FBD (My carbon footprint is bigger than yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

You vill obey all TSA orders!

127 posted on 11/18/2010 3:38:29 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never "free")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
You cannot be sued for exercising your rights, or they aren’t rights at all.

You think it's your right to wreak economic havoc on the airlines and on other passengers, as well as ruining their vacations in order to get what you want?

Wreaking as much havoc as you can regardless of the fact that it primarily harms people who aren't the ones causing the behavior you are against, doesn't make you a freedom fighter. It makes you a terrorist. It's pretty much the definition of being a terrorist.

I'm not saying don't protest or exercise your right to free speech.

You unquestionably have the right to opt out of the scans, and I have no objection to anyone doing so. However, that's not where the suggestions for the "protest" ended. The idea was to intentionally obstruct and hinder the process as much as possible without actually refusing in order to bring the system crashing down on the busiest travel day of the year. Intentionally causing harm to other travelers so that the outcry would be great enough to have the process stopped.

Now the system may very well cause enough outcry on it's own to do that, and may cause bad enough delays to cause additional outcry without intentionally obstructing it.

Protests outside the airport might also help get the point across, and are clearly an exercise of free speech.

However, if you organize people with the intention of having them obstruct the process as much as possible (not merely choose to opt out of the scan) then you should be arrested and should be sued for the economic harm you would be intentionally be causing. You can't just do whatever you want, and call it exercising your rights.

128 posted on 11/18/2010 4:09:47 PM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: phormer phrog phlyer

I was in the Navy in 1973 and was going through customs at the Bangkok airport on my way to Diego Garcia. Me and 3 others had spent some time in Bangkok “having fun” and smoking stuff we shouldn’t have been smoking. When we got to the airport one of the guys said to me “I brought some pot with me”.

I said “Are you nuts? We have to go through customs.”

He said “I’ll go to the bath room and flush it.”

When we were about to get on the plane Air Force police brought a dog in and had us law anything we were carrying on the floor then stand back. I was at the end of the line and the dog tried to “eat” my papers. I thought “Oh, man! The guy didn’t flush it. He planted it on me.” I was arrested and taken into this small office where they went through my papers very thoroughly.

They didn’t find anything so the seargent said “Get that dog back in here.”

The handler brought the dog back in and they couldn’t get him to pay attention at all to the papers. The handler said “Well, he hasn’t had a hit in a while so I guess he wanted some excitement.”

I breathed a deep sigh of relief. They called the tower and stopped the C-130 on the tarmac and I was driven out in a jeep and got on that bird! I was happy to get out of there.


129 posted on 11/19/2010 11:03:41 AM PST by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gabrial

Sorry I’m late replying. What you saw IS disturbing. I’m just imagining plane after plane full of passengers, who have just been groped and are feeling demeaned by the experience.

Most every flight I’ve taken was with a sense of excitement for a pleasure trip, or to go visit relatives, etc. Going through what you saw would certainly take the ‘bloom’ off of that!

Why don’t they at least use a curtained area!!?


130 posted on 11/20/2010 10:25:37 AM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

I’d like to be in the airport and see a woman in full islamic garb just get a ‘neck pat’.......I think I’d rise up and start raising he77 about it, lol.


131 posted on 11/20/2010 10:31:45 AM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: potlatch
“Why don’t they at least use a curtained area!!?”

If you are selected for the “enhanced patdown” they do give you the option of going into a private room. When I was watching, no one took this option (I think it would likely take longer).

And yes, it does put a damper on the fun factor. Because everyone is treated with suspicion, it is natural for people to feel uncomfortable with the whole process.

Most Americans are not used to being treated with suspicion, and it can be demeaning to be treated as a suspected terrorist.

132 posted on 11/22/2010 10:29:56 AM PST by Gabrial (The Whitehouse Nightmare will continue as long as the Nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Gabrial

[Most Americans are not used to being treated with suspicion]

I think they are trying to get us used to being herded like animals. It’s like anything bad, once you’ve seen enough of it you become inured to it.

Things are building up, it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.


133 posted on 11/22/2010 6:26:24 PM PST by potlatch ( Life must be lived forward but can only be seen looking backward. - Soren Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson