General Discussion

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)

123. You really are unable to read?

Sun Jun 23, 2013, 05:10 PM

Jun 2013

I've told you repeatedly that there is very little reason for the scans. And the scanners (that equaled 4 minutes of flight time, from your own three year old cite) have been removed. So your hero Nate is now just a little punkass, wasting everyone's time. And you idolize him for being a selfish ass... Bet you are into Ayn Rand, too, aren't you...

And you are apparently too dumb to know how to use Google for yourself. So yes, this is a pointless conversation since you seem to not understand that I can think Nate Rich is is asshole and you can think he's just dreamy and it doesn't matter one bit.

He's is a selfish jackass, who could just opt out of any scanning, but chooses to fuck up the lines by screwing around first. Maturity of a 4 year old, no wonder he appeals to you.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Opting out of the airport body scanner "cancer machine" [View all] Quantess Jun 2013 OP

You simply state it is a health concern davidpdx Jun 2013 #1

You're kidding right? I've always been forced to get a body search flamingdem Jun 2013 #27

Are you talking about them actually touching your body or waving a wand around you? davidpdx Jun 2013 #41

Oh I've been mauled by many tsa agents flamingdem Jun 2013 #43

If that happened I'd ask them to suspend the process and request a supervisor davidpdx Jun 2013 #46

I'm going to have to wear an ankle boot! flamingdem Jun 2013 #51

I'll sell you mine davidpdx Jun 2013 #61

Last time I went thru that RobertEarl Jun 2013 #55

Ha! davidpdx Jun 2013 #60

Fall on the ground? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #62

Lol, you haven't been keeping up with things. If you refuse, no matter how pleasantly, the TSA sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #104

So my question is.. davidpdx Jun 2013 #116

There have been reports of people being made to feel as if they are being sexually assaulted. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #118

Ironic Major Nikon Jun 2013 #2

Science is not welcome here. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #4

What are you talking about, that "science is not welcome here"? Quantess Jun 2013 #14

The dosage you receive from a backscatter machine is significantly less than from flying... Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #15

Apparently you didn't read the article, or even notice the quotation marks around "cancer machines". Quantess Jun 2013 #17

I never accused you of writing those words. Nice try though. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #19

Weak! Quantess Jun 2013 #21

They've taken the Rapiscans out of the airports csziggy Jun 2013 #53

Thank you for the good news! Quantess Jun 2013 #64

This shit is allover the place Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #95

Did you read the report by scientists from UCSF on this? flamingdem Jun 2013 #26

You are going to have to link me to the report. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #33

Here's the link, Colombia U did a similar study flamingdem Jun 2013 #40

That is not a study. You said UCSF did a study. Show it to me. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #45

Show yourself. That tone leaves me cold nt flamingdem Jun 2013 #52

I'm just going to mark you down as not having it. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #56

I'll give you an F for frickin ridiculous nt flamingdem Jun 2013 #73

I'm starting to think you confused a news article with a university study. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #75

Too lazy to google, eh flamingdem Jun 2013 #78

It's sad that you think being required to post evidence of a claim... Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #80

Why would I bother with flamingdem Jun 2013 #81

How do you define "nuke lover?" Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #82

Here. It is not the original story, but NPR's report of it. Quantess Jun 2013 #120

We need something to back this up. Quantess Jun 2013 #38

Here's a link, Colombia did one too flamingdem Jun 2013 #39

But blind obedience to the expanding facist state apparently is. MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #126

You will notice downthread that I am against full body scanners. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #127

I don't consider it drivel. As a 2x cancer survivor who has had waaay more x-rays and CT scans than MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #129

It is absolutely drivel. Backscatter machines do not give you cancer. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #131

I suppose he could drive or take a bus, Ilsa Jun 2013 #9

How dare you make an appropriate assessment of risk... Thor_MN Jun 2013 #10

Knee jerk reacting to fear & TSA... Quantess Jun 2013 #16

Perhaps you meant to reply to MajorNikkon? Thor_MN Jun 2013 #18

No, I meant to reply to your statement. Quantess Jun 2013 #28

No, there is no reason, but to call them CANCER MACHINES is ridiculous... Thor_MN Jun 2013 #31

Did you notice that this was an article written by someone else, Quantess Jun 2013 #35

It might actually not be clear that I did not write the article, I don't know. Quantess Jun 2013 #37

By posting it, without comment, you appear to agree without reservation. Thor_MN Jun 2013 #50

No. Quantess Jun 2013 #54

Apparently, you agree wholeheartedly with the ass that wrote what you posted. Thor_MN Jun 2013 #57

That's a losing argument, if you are thinking about the bigger picture. Quantess Jun 2013 #59

My calling a selfish ass a selfish ass is a losing argument? Thor_MN Jun 2013 #63

Hey never mind what I said. you just come back here Quantess Jun 2013 #65

Really? Cause I'm not there, you are sitting in your own whiff... Thor_MN Jun 2013 #66

You are the lamest poser "viking" I have ever encountered. Quantess Jun 2013 #68

Really? You haven't said a thing other than desperate attempts to insult me... Thor_MN Jun 2013 #70

All anyone has to do is just read the thread. Quantess Jun 2013 #72

What is your particular defect? Increasingly attempting to insult my screen name is childish. Thor_MN Jun 2013 #76

Time to take a step back from the keyboard. Quantess Jun 2013 #83

Damn, I was so hoping you had something to say... Thor_MN Jun 2013 #84

Only in your imagination Quantess Jun 2013 #86

Sigh, I guess you can't read... Thor_MN Jun 2013 #87

Here ya go, genius. Quantess Jun 2013 #119

Wow, took a long time for you to sober up. Thor_MN Jun 2013 #121

I take it that you still are in favor of gratuitous radiation, in the name of security theater. Quantess Jun 2013 #122

You really are unable to read? Thor_MN Jun 2013 #123

Fine, Todd. You WIN! Quantess Jun 2013 #124

I told you that several posts back. Good to see that you finally understand. Thor_MN Jun 2013 #125

The problem is that many other people are reading this, and they don't all agree. Quantess Jun 2013 #128

Sorry Brainiac, you are the one arguing a pointless case. Try deflecting some more. Thor_MN Jun 2013 #130

I read post 50. Are you really this stupid? Quantess Jun 2013 #132

Do you have ANY point? Thor_MN Jun 2013 #133

Thanks, Todd, for kicking the thread. (no text) Quantess Jun 2013 #134

Let me see if I can sum up your position(s) Thor_MN Jun 2013 #135

My summary of your position Quantess Jun 2013 #136

I've proven you wrong so many times, it boggles the mind that you claim you got anything right. Thor_MN Jun 2013 #137

Oh, picky picky picky. (Thank you) uppityperson Jun 2013 #69

Considering the SI definition of a Sv, perhaps you can clear one thing up. Pholus Jun 2013 #77

Reflections never reflect back 100% of the light. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #85

If transmission were domininant or even comparible to reflection. Pholus Jun 2013 #90

The dose rate is a function of how much energy is absorbed per Kg of mass Major Nikon Jun 2013 #88

Thanks for the definition. Pholus Jun 2013 #89

As mass goes up or down, the effective dose will remain constant Major Nikon Jun 2013 #101

So in order to understand this, you need the additional weighting factor for the particular organ. Pholus Jun 2013 #103

You can get it from Wiki - radiation effective dose Major Nikon Jun 2013 #105

So to get the skin dosage, Pholus Jun 2013 #106

No, the effective dose unit of measure has already done that for you Major Nikon Jun 2013 #107

Rephrase: Pholus Jun 2013 #108

I'm assuming you mean equivalent dose absorbed by the tissue in question Major Nikon Jun 2013 #109

You sure? Pholus Jun 2013 #110

This confuses dose penetration with imaging penetration Major Nikon Jun 2013 #111

Okay, so most of the radiation is not used usefully by the system. Pholus Jun 2013 #112

I'm not sure whom you mean by "them" Major Nikon Jun 2013 #113

Not ANSI, but the revolving door between DHS and the manufacturers for sure. nt Pholus Jun 2013 #115

The millimeter wavelength body scanners emit non-ionizing radiation and are not "cancer machines." Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #3

The TSA still uses x-ray machines Major Nikon Jun 2013 #5

Are backscatter's still being used? I haven't seen one in a long time. Although I don't travel much. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #6

They moved the older backscatter machines to smaller airports Major Nikon Jun 2013 #7

Oh darn I thought they got rid of them all nt flamingdem Jun 2013 #24

I think the Millimeter's use radio waves nt flamingdem Jun 2013 #25

They do. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #32

Radio waves are radiation (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #44

Visible light is also radiation. What is your point? Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #47

I thought flamingdem was saying they are radio waves "as opposed to" radiation Recursion Jun 2013 #49

Sigh Berlum Jun 2013 #8

Couldn't they have used a picture of some who wasn't snooper2 Jun 2013 #30

I've never gone through one either, but snot Jun 2013 #11

Somehow I've missed out on the joyous experience of a "rapiscan". Quantess Jun 2013 #12

It's only a matter of time. Gormy Cuss Jun 2013 #13

when you deliberately create a delay at the security line MindPilot Jun 2013 #20

I bet you never read the studies of the harm the xray could do flamingdem Jun 2013 #23

Do you really think they were removed out of concern for OUR welfare? MindPilot Jun 2013 #96

There you go with gratuitous, baseless judgments. Quantess Jun 2013 #36

"Showdown at the Airport Body Scanner By NATHANIEL RICH " MindPilot Jun 2013 #94

They took away the rapiscan x-ray machines already flamingdem Jun 2013 #22

Good to know, thanks. Quantess Jun 2013 #34

I just say I prefer to be patted down wryter2000 Jun 2013 #29

*facepalm* To avoid radiation, he goes through higher-radiation metal detectors. Recursion Jun 2013 #42

Okay, now that sounds interesting. Quantess Jun 2013 #48

That's absolutely false. LisaL Jun 2013 #67

Metal detectors emit non-ionizing radiation Major Nikon Jun 2013 #71

Can you explain how metal detectors work? Pholus Jun 2013 #93

Magnetic field is radiation Recursion Jun 2013 #97

So I should avoid magnetic fields more than x-rays? Pholus Jun 2013 #99

If what you want is to avoid "radiation", yes Recursion Jun 2013 #100

Yes, but you have made a comparison. Pholus Jun 2013 #102

How can you not trust the machines that the nice Michael Chertoff sold to us? Ian David Jun 2013 #58

Mike looks radiated flamingdem Jun 2013 #74

Chertoff's cancer/porno-scanners are being phased out. Dawson Leery Jun 2013 #79

Breathing the huge amounts of spent jet fuel from the planes titaniumsalute Jun 2013 #91

The flight itself is much worse Major Nikon Jun 2013 #114

I opt out. It is not a big deal. roody Jun 2013 #92

"In May, TSA chief told Congress all Rapiscan full body scanners had been removed from US airports" ucrdem Jun 2013 #98

So if the airport scanners ARE a cancer machine, there might be something to the X-Ray WMD? FrodosPet Jun 2013 #117