TSA Interested In Purchasing Dosimeters 117
OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA recently announced that it is looking for vendors of 'radiation measurement devices'. According to the agency's Request for Information, these devices 'will assist the TSA in determining if the Transportation Security Officers (TSO) at selected federalized airports are exposed to ionizing radiation above minimum detectable levels, and whether any measured radiation doses approach or exceed the threshold where personnel dosimetry monitoring is required by DHS/TSA policy.' A TSA spokeman claims that their RFI 'did not reflect any heightened concern by the agency about radiation levels that might be excessive or pose a risk to either TSA screeners or members of the traveling public.' Concern outside the agency, however, has always been high. TSA has long been criticized for its apparent lack of understanding of radiological safety, even for its own employees. There has been speculation of a cancer cluster, possibly caused by poor safety practices in baggage screening."
I hope they find some... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't want to be mean but I think it would be really really really cool if they find plenty of radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't worried about the people that go through yet, they're only worried about the people standing next to the machines all day.
Finding they've irradiated all their workers would be a good thing for the public.
The question is...did they not bother to find this out before the machines were deployed? Assuming they're safe, do they not go around the area with Geiger counters after installation to make sure they're installed correctly?
Re:I hope they find some... (Score:5, Insightful)
unionized (Score:3, Funny)
"Hey, are you guys unionized?"
"No, we're exposed to ionizing radiation."
Re: (Score:1)
From this report, workers would seem to be ionized rather than "un-ionized."
Re: (Score:3)
Don't want to be mean but I think it would be really really really cool if they find plenty of radiation.
Don't get your hopes up, all it probably means is that someone's brother-in-law makes dosimeters.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution... (Score:1)
Good. (Score:1)
No job is so important, and no service is so urgent, that we cannot take time to perform our work safely. The question is, why weren't these put in when the body scanners were first put into use?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better late than never? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States [wikipedia.org]
A bit more powerful than denial.
Re: (Score:3)
Not in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But any information about how the security equipment works could compromise our security and thus fall under the umbrella of "state secrets", right? And the manufacturers of the equipment will get the same sort of deal the telecoms got for their participation in the alleged-and-unofficially-confirmed wireless wiretapping incident.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably in this case too. "torts committed by persons" So people could sue the government if a TSA agent knowingly injures them. A lawsuit over the scanners would have to prove that a person knew installing scanners would hurt the public more than not installing them, but made the decision to have them installed.
In the end, the asshats will point to some sort of congressional authorization and invoke sovereign immunity.
My original point was that the government has better weapons than denial. Plain ol'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, technically this only applies to the minority of full body scanners used by the TSA. The more numerous scanners are millimeter wave, which utilize millimeter length radio waves (yes, technically still "radiation" but no with regards to common medical usage of the term) that are non-penetrating to the skin.
It's about like standing in front of a radio - or surrounding yourself with radio frequency emitting devices (such as cell phones, computers, monitors, televisions, printers, power lines, etc, etc, etc
Re: (Score:3)
the concept of TSA employees getting cancer from their foul and nefarious acts (y'know, getting a job they probably like less than you do because hey, it's better than starving on the streets)
Is this the excuse that the guards of concentration camps used?
In other words, how many other people one should be willing to hurt or kill to feed his family?
Or I can put it in another way. What is the minimum salary that can convert Mahatma Gandhi into someone like Carlos the Jackal [wikipedia.org]? The pay of a hired assassin
Re: (Score:2)
Free Screenings? (Score:1)
Let them get cancer. (Score:2, Funny)
And don't be shy about calling them traitors to their faces.
Dosimeters? (Score:1)
Surely if they're being exposed to X-rays a film badge would be a better idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely if they're being exposed to X-rays a film badge would be a better idea?
Film badges are one common type of dosimeter.
Har har (Score:2)
It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of folks.
They don't wear them already? (Score:3, Informative)
Education (Score:2)
Even hospital personnel with only occasional, incidental proximity to x-ray devices wear film badges. I'm honestly surprised that people operating technology that emits ionizing radiation aren't wearing exposure devices already!
Guess how highly educated the average TSA line worker is. Now compare this with the average education level for hospital personnel. I suspect this disparity might have something to do with the lack of dosimeters among TSA workers.
Instead of x-ray machines and dosimeters (Score:1)
The TSA should consider that dowsing rods and e-meters would be just as effective for the purpose of screening passengers, and much safer all around
Re: (Score:1)
This is for protecting the TSA workers, not for scanning transit passengers.
I would strongly urge they use special bubulous rectal dosimeters. Then, every passenger can thank them, shake their hand, and commend them on the sacrifice they make to keep travel in America safe.
Back scatter (Score:2)
Maybe those back scatter x-ray devices aren't as safe as the TSA says they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if those idiots who allowed them in didn't operate with blinders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinders [wikipedia.org] on they might have thought about things for a bit.
What could possibly go wrong with exposing airline workers to radiation, hmm, cumulative effects, airport radar, aircraft radar (radar altimeters), xray machines, plus of course the workers exposure to random events like dental and other xrays. Now what could possibly go wrong with adding eight hours of backscatter xrays to that load.
Hey, TSA (Score:2)
Why don't you waste a few billion on some of these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 [wikipedia.org]
Oh wait, you already have? Not fucking surprising, you bunch of brainless fuckwits.
No-bid contract? (Score:4, Insightful)
And this being the TSA I bet the dosimeters will be purchased under a no-bid contract from some politician's buddy at the low cost of $100,000 each.
Re: (Score:2)
The cynic in me says that they'll probably also be of a kind that doesn't change color until you've gotten a fatal dose....
Re: (Score:1)
> they'll probably also be of a kind that doesn't
> change color until you've gotten a fatal dose....
Considering who will be wearing them, I have to ask...
So?
TSA (Score:1)
We dont have the budget for this. Hire people smart enough to follow the rules and you wont have a problem.
We have had baggage handlers for years with no problems.
Or let them learn the hard way. could not happen to a nicer group of ass holes.
North Korea has something like this (Score:1)
The TSA employees are the ones to reach out to (Score:3, Insightful)
If all of the employees are starting to raise a fuss and filing lawsuits, that'll get more traction than trying to lobby some senator who (i) flies on a private plane and bypasses security; and (ii) has several million dollars of stock invested in the companies that make the machines and gets campaign donations from their executives.
WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
How do the personnel who work with ionizing radiation NOT have dosimeters already? I'm a graduate student at a state university who works with X-ray diffraction (XRD) occasionally. To just TOUCH the XRD equipment, I had to have ~6 hours of 'ionizing radiation safety training' plus a required dosimeter to track how much radiation I had been subjected to.
The fact that these people have been working around ionizing radiation without any documentation of how much radiation they have been exposed to is trouble
Mini Ask Slashdot - Dealing with TSA? (Score:1)
I'm thinking especially, what kinds of potentially dubious scanners does one encounter these days, and is it practical to refuse any without undergoing a particularly intrusive search or
Re:Mini Ask Slashdot - Dealing with TSA? (Score:4, Informative)
My only experience with the scanners was the Dallas International airport. I just politely told them I'd like to opt out of the scanner. The guy pointed me over to another guy and told him I was an "opt-out" in a loud voice. Several people in line looked surprised there was such a thing as "opt out" (sigh). I got a pat down without any junk-grabbing and I was on my way in about 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:3)
I too find it sad that so many people go in as sheep. There is no way these scans are a good thing for your health.
I got a pat down without any junk-grabbing and I was on my way in about 30 seconds.
You don't have enough data, my friend. While I do find the pat downs reasonably professional (just pointless), I do have some other data points for you:
Once, a TSA employer tried to explain to me how media portrays them unf
Re: (Score:1)
When I loudly demand opt out I follow that immediately with "I need to be able to observe my belongings at all times" and if I cannot I demand a manager be summoned immediately. They are always cooperative.
I further demand private screening as this take two of the little Nazis time, and if two of them start searching my stuff I tell them only one at a time as I cannot maintain observation of the two of them at once.
And yes I am a pain in the ass, thank you very much.
Impossible! (Score:2)
Re:Karma? (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly does proving that standing around a bunch of X-ray equipment causes radiation exposure hurt those whose policies put those people there in the first place? No karma. Not hardly. OSHA should have been all over this from day one, to protect these employees.
I am a little disturbed they want to (appear to) do their own testing in this manner. I seriously doubt we'll see honest results out of the TSA management. Once again, OSHA needs to run this. Self-reporting will only toe the party line, that the machines are perfectly safe.
Re:Karma? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. They'll just go back and ask for more "emergency funding" to replace all the machines with more expensive ones.
Even if the dosage is 'safe', the chances of it giving you cancer are still HIGHER than those of being blown up by a terrorist. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly does proving that standing around a bunch of X-ray equipment causes radiation exposure hurt those whose policies put those people there in the first place?
It's OK to cheer when the good guys plug the bad guys even though they're just foot soldiers. They depend on our obedience for power.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it would be Karma if the people using X-ray scanners to irradiate people against the 4th amendment got high dosages of radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with Trout007, the politicians aren't the only problem, if people refused to work for the TSA there would be no TSA abuses of power. It's the fact that all those pedo freaks and general scum are willing to work for the TSA that we have problems.
A government agency that can't get employees has an extremely limited ability to commit acts, good, evil or otherwise.
Personally, I don't really care what happens to a bunch of perverts, it's they're own damn fault for being willing to stand near the equipmen
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't agree more. My method of contributing to the solution of this problem (the existence of the TSA) is to make their day just a little bit worse, in hopes that I can tip them over the edge into resigning a job that no honorable man or woman should hold. So I offer job counseling: "Isn't there a concentration camp you should be guarding?", or "You know, male prostitutes generally enjoy more respect and job satisfaction than a TSA employee". On my last walk through the X ray chamber, they wanted to gr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Karma? I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, no matter what. Most of these "guards" are just your average woefully ignorant citizen of America. They believe what the TSA tells them since they don't know any better and don't have the means to think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
So they are just obeying orders?
Well I'm a federal employee too and I had to take this little oath.
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me G
really?! (Score:1)
So they are just obeying orders?
Well I'm a federal employee too and I had to take this little oath.
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
So, please tell us why federal employees have no problem violating the Fourth Ammendment?
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
That way my point. Your oath to support and defend the Constitution should prohibit you from following orders for illegal searches.
Re: (Score:2)
That way my point.
What is 'That'? Which way? Your point?
What are you trying to say?
Your oath to support and defend the Constitution should prohibit you from following orders for illegal searches.
No, that only offers protection from obeying lawful orders, which are affirmed by the courts, which is the issue at hand. Lawful orders are what the courts say they are.
In this case, so far, the courts are backing the TSA, and that is the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because elections require campaigns which require funds which then tend to influence the candidates in favor of those who provided the funds, which hurts the impartiality required of judges. The best system is one in which judges are appointed but then have to run for retention every so often (4 years is typical). That means the electorate can get rid of the really bad judges but it's not a popularity contest to choose a successor.
Re: (Score:1)
So an appointed judge would not be influenced by his crony that appointed him? Someone can do a lot of damage in 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is why I disagree. The US Constitution is about 10 pages and a pretty easy read. I don't need a judge to tell me what it means. Here is the critical part. I will always take the side of liberty. So if a judge rules that the government has more power than Constitution says I'd side with the Constitution.
Dred Scott anyone?
Re: (Score:1)
Bingo.
I hate it when people repeat doublespeak like: "the complexities of constitutional law", and so forth. What I think a lot of people forget is that many of the founding fathers were, themselves, lawyers. It seems obvious that if they had intended for that document to be by lawyers and for lawyers, they were more than capable of writing it in incomprehensible (to a normal human being) legalese.
The fact that they wrote the constitution in plain and simple english says to me that it is a document meant
Re:really?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Definition of "search"
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth.[20] The Court's reasoning was that 1) the defendant expected that his phonebooth conversation would not be broadcast to the wider world and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. This is a threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, since the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If no search or seizure has occurred, the court ends its analysis.
Stop and frisk
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).[21]
So, clearly travelers
Personally, I think we should hit 'em where it counts the most: in their pocketbooks. If all travelers simply chose another mode of transportation they would VERY rapidly find themselves with several quite influential allies: the airlines, the "hospitality industry", etc. (and yes, there ARE practical alternatives, at least for "domestic" travel: driving is still possible despite our rapidly deteriorating network of interstate highways and besides that people just don't ask themselves this [tqn.com] question enough anymore anyway!)
Re: (Score:2)
Well most of the public is against these scanners an don't expect to have to strip or the electronic equivalent to board an airplane.
And just wanting to fly isn't a suspicious activity. What next walking down the street while black?
I do agree though with your solution. I have not flown and refuse to do so since the TSA was created.
Re: (Score:2)
Well most of the public is against these scanners an don't expect to have to strip or the electronic equivalent to board an airplane.
Would that this were true. But I think people are so afraid of "terrorism," and watch too many spy movies and want to pretend they're secret agents when they're on vacation, that they accept the current situation without reservation.
In conversations with family members and peers, a constant question comes up, "Well, what do you want to do, you have to have a search."
They don't care that once we get to the steady state, the scanners will kill more people every year than terrorists have killed in the last te
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Driving is definitely possible, but with the high cost of gas these days, it's not really that much cheaper than flying. Even if you pack all the food you'll need along the entire trip, you're still going to need a place to sleep at night. Now, I've done my fair share of cross-country road-trips, and I've spent many a night sleeping in my car at a rest area, but that's not really an option when you've got a family in tow. You could also camp, rather than stay in hotels (which we did a lot when I was a ki
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, I think we should hit 'em where it counts the most: in their pocketbooks. If all travelers simply chose another mode of transportation they would VERY rapidly find themselves with several quite influential allies: the airlines, the "hospitality industry", etc. (and yes, there ARE practical alternatives, at least for "domestic" travel: driving is still possible despite our rapidly deteriorating network of interstate highways and besides that people just don't ask themselves this [tqn.com] question enough anymore anyway!)
Well. they haven't YET started setting up traffic stops. Except maybe in Arizona and Alabama. But if it's alternative travel you want, forget the bus system and Amtrak. And, sadly, the Boston subway system.
Boycotting the airlines is a start, and one that I've done ever since 9/11, but the rot has spread too far and too deep and isn't slowing. It's time to stop taking baths and haircuts, join the "smelly hippies" and Occupy Something.
And, of course, vote out every (censored) public official that doesn't swea
Re:really?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Amtrak is actually pretty good when it comes to the way they handle the TSA. Last time the TSA tried to search random passengers, the Amtrak Police had them escorted off the premises nationwide, and they were banned from Amtrak for a substantial period of time.
The Amtrak leadership is well aware that the only reason their ridership has been skyrocketing the past few years is that they don't put passengers through that bullshit. Riding Amtrak sends about as clear a message as you can send, and short of an explicit Congressional order mandating it, you're not going to see them allow the TSA to pull a power trip any time soon. To the extent that they are there at all, it is entirely at the discretion of the Amtrak Police.
More to the point, even the TSA has to be aware that they aren't useful when it come to trains. If a terrorist wanted to blow up a passenger train, there are approximately 21,000 miles of track that carry Amtrak passengers, and all it takes is one bomb on a trestle somewhere to kill an order of magnitude more people than you could kill with any bomb on the train itself. No terrorist is stupid enough to be a suicide bomber when they could achieve a bigger result (and a much longer-term disruption) by being the non-suicide kind, and any politician or other government official who believes otherwise is too dump to flip burgers.
In short, the TSA is about as useful to Amtrak as a tiger-repelling rock. Amtrak knows this, so they aren't afraid to tell the TSA to get bent when they step out of line.
Re: (Score:2)
Err... too dumb. I don't know how I made that typo.... A hazard of posting on not enough sleep, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet even Amtrak has stupidities like making it practically impossible to purchase a ticket without using some form of identification at some point in its use.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never provided identification when buying a ticket online, unless you consider a credit card number to be identification. And in theory, you have to have a valid photo ID to travel, but I've never had anyone ask for it except when checking baggage.
Still, on a pointless security scale that ranges from "valid photo ID required" to "must walk through the naked porn scanner", I'll take "valid photo ID required" any day. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that I don't believe you, quite the opposite really, but I'd like to see an article or something to back this up. I've had people claim that we need to have TSA style checkpoints everywhere or "the terrorists win" or something just as terrifying. When anyone tells the TSA to get bent that's news to me and worthy of saving for posterity.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for Alabama, but there are no traffic stops in Arizona. There's "immigration sweeps", but these are looking for people who have something obviously wrong: driving without headlights at night, broken taillights, not using turn signals, etc. You can get pulled over for these things anywhere, at any time, by any police officer since they're rules of the road; the Sheriff here just makes use of that fact to target a specific population, since that population has a higher-than-normal incidence of
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for Alabama, but there are no traffic stops in Arizona. There's "immigration sweeps", but these are looking for people who have something obviously wrong: driving without headlights at night, broken taillights, not using turn signals, etc. You can get pulled over for these things anywhere, at any time, by any police officer since they're rules of the road; the Sheriff here just makes use of that fact to target a specific population, since that population has a higher-than-normal incidence of b
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's the same in Alabama,
Doesn't sound the same at all. As I said before, we have NO traffic stops in Arizona. None. If you drive without breaking any rules of the road, you will NOT be pulled over. There are no traffic stops looking for "undesirables".
What we do have is sheriff's officers looking for people breaking the rules of the road, and then pulling them over and asking them if they're here illegally. That's quite a bit different from a traffic stop. Granted, most people break a rule at som
Re: (Score:2)
And I suspect in Maricopa County, the cops look extra hard at tanned skinned people's driving, looking for an excuse to pull someone over.
Re: (Score:1)
Fwiw, there's a joke that's been around for awhile; it's (iirc): How do you know when someone is an illegal immigrant? They drive within the speed limit.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, no. You've obviously never been here.
First, if the cops are operating at night, then how the hell are they going to see what color their skin is at a distance?
Second, in the daytime, you can't see drivers, because everyone (and I mean everyone, rich and poor) has heavy window tint on their car windows. With all the sunshine we have here, it's unbearable to not have any tint.
The cops are selecting certain minorities based on the fact that those minorities (usually being poorer) usually drive crappie
Re: (Score:2)
So which is it, there is or there is not profiling?
I've been through Arizona more than once, as quickly as possible. No desire to be there any longer than necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I've ever heard that, but as a Phoenix-area resident, the illegals aren't generally known to be speed demons, in fact most of them seem to like big pickup trucks and the like. It's their other driving habits that set them apart: they're notorious for drunk driving in particular. Aside from that, many drive very slow, and in very stupid and inattentive ways. Turn signal use is rare, and having all their vehicular equipment in good working order is not that common. It's almost the complete op
Re: (Score:2)
So which is it, there is or there is not profiling?
There may or may not be. The thing is, there is NOT profiling the way the detractors say there is. They say that cops are driving around looking for "brown people" and pulling them over. This is utterly stupid as I've shown; try pulling over to the side of the road and seeing if you can discern the skin color of people driving by you. Try it again at night. Apparently the detractors think that deputies are super-human.
However, as I've shown, it's relat
Re: (Score:2)
That is why you should read slashdot daily.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/10/20/2212225/tsa-doing-random-truck-searches-on-tennessee-highway [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Now just explain to me how I can achieve this and I will happily comply. Any time train or driving is a viable option (i.e., up to 6-7 hours drive) I will, of course, take that option. Even if it costs more. But unfortunately I have to draw the line at 18+hr driving trips.
If only they had at least one airline that flew using the 90s security... I bet that airline would have plenty of business. But at the moment TSA is a monopoly that cannot b
Re: (Score:3)
That's mostly inevitable when you allow one agency to both define the problem it's there to solve and solve the problem. Without something to force the agency to restrain its growth you're not generally going to see it stopping.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it does. Unlike airline flights, most train tickets and bus tickets are refundable and changeable. Therefore, the TSA doesn't have nearly the ability to force people to agree to be searched that they do in the airports.
Also, I'm pretty sure the TSA has no legal authority to detain you anywhere other than an airport (and it is dubious even there), which means in the worst case, you just call a cab and beat the bus/train to the next station. That's not so easy with an airplane that doesn't make s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, we should stop prosecuting Nazis that were only following orders and issue formal apologies to the ones that weren't issuing the orders?
Cancer sucks, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for anybody that got cancer as a direct result of following criminal orders and sexually abusing random citizens.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Karma is blind to intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Another minor act in the continuing "Security Theatre".
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when you look at the reality.
On 9/11 the only thing the terrorists had were boxcutters. You could sneak a sharpened glass or ceramic knife today to do the same damage. The reason 9/11 was possible is because the FAA policies trained flight crews to submit to the terrorists demands. I'm sure the flight crews that weren't killed were helping the terrorists herd the passengers into the back telling everyone it will be alright against everyone's natural instincts. It wasn't until people on the last f
An eye for an eye (Score:2)
More like physics. If you use an equipment to irradiate others, you will get some of that radiation too.
Re:Karma? (Score:4, Informative)
The TSA agents are people, people that need a job. Just because their job make your airport visit a little less comfortable does not mean you should wish cancer or infirmity on them. Bad Karma on you, I say.
They absolutely should be wearing dosimeters. OSHA should be all over this, but that would be like your cop uncle giving your dad a parking ticket.
As far as the policy goes, I agree with Bruce Schneier, it is "security theater" and I don't believe it is effective.
read this: http://www.cntraveler.com/travel-tips/safety-and-security/2007/03/Inside-Job-My-Life-as-an-Airport-Screener.print [cntraveler.com] to find out what it's like on the other side.
"Within an hour, two of the three lanes at our location are shut down because of possible radiation leakage from the X-ray machines—an inspection reveals that the heavy flaps which seal the compartment are defective. A co-worker who's been on the job since before 9/11 tells me that screeners used to be given dosimeters to measure their exposure to radiation but that the devices were eliminated in a cost-cutting measure. We were told in training that OSHA has determined that our exposure levels are acceptable, and that is the last time I hear it mentioned. It takes days before the machines are back up and running."
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, they're felons or at best guilty of committing misdemeanors. It's not just a job, it's a job where they're being specifically paid to break the law and with great frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is, at best, a ridiculous hyperbole.
read this: http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/ [boardingarea.com]
The Feds have given them the authority. It's "reasonable", and unfortunately currently legal.
Don't like it? Write your congress-critter. Run for office. Lobby. Protest. Sue the feds. Don't fly.
Me? I don't like it, but I like how a jet aircraft can get me 1,000 miles away in ~2 hours, compared to driving 15-20 hours. The TSA screeni
Re: (Score:2)
[TSA employees] make your airport visit a little less comfortable [...]
No, they don't make it "a little less comfortable." These are criminal thugs violating my fourth amendment rights in a systematic manner. That's not "less comfortable;" that's a fucking outrage that makes me depressed and sick to my stomach... just reading about it. I stopped flying six years ago, and they've only gotten more cavalier in their abuse of Americans and (the few remaining) foreign visitors since then.
Re:About time (Score:5, Funny)
I'm totally for the dosimeters since our heroic not-quite-officers-of-the-law TSA employees are subjected to MASSIVE radiation due to the oodles and oodles of dirty nucular bombs being smuggled into the US. If the badges show anything then I'm fairly certain this will be the explanation. Why haven't they found anything? Because they do not have enough authority and the damn liberals hold our beloved TSA Nightwatch back. Illigal immigrants smuggly dirty bombs past our borders using sophisticated anal concealment methods. That's at least a pound per trip per border crossing.
Also we need new uniforms. With skulls on them.
endofrant
Re: (Score:2)
Also we need new uniforms. With skulls on them.
Would these be actual skulls or just images of them? Are we talking human skulls or would the skull of an animal do? How about the skull of a bald eagle? We've killed just about every other symbol of freedom in this country so, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
"Mum, mum! That ork fondled me bum."
Yep, nothing to be seen here.
Re: (Score:2)