Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Nuclear Scanning Catches a Radioactive Cat On I-5

Posted by kdawson on Mon Mar 24, 2008 03:09 AM
from the paging-dr.-schrodinger-line-4-please dept.
Jeff recommends Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat's story from a community meeting with Northwest border control agents. Seems their monitoring for dirty bombs from the median of Interstate 5 caught a car transporting a radioactive cat. "It turns out the feds have been monitoring Interstate 5 for nuclear 'dirty bombs.' They do it with radiation detectors so sensitive it led to the following incident. 'Vehicle goes by at 70 miles per hour... Agent is in the median, a good 80 feet away from the traffic. Signal went off and identified an isotope [in the passing car]. The agent raced after the car, pulling it over not far from the monitoring spot.' Did he find a nuke? 'Turned out to be a cat with cancer that had undergone a radiological treatment three days earlier.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 24 2008, @03:12AM (#22842860)
    Schrodinger
  • Lolcat (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 24 2008, @03:13AM (#22842862)
    Schrödinger cat is not amused
  • Ha, ha (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bruce_the_loon (856617) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:14AM (#22842866) Homepage
    Now, how do you explain that you've just had radiation treatment to the mindless TSA buffoon who's found you're radioactive?
    • Re:Ha, ha (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 24 2008, @04:55AM (#22843238)
      Why should I explain the details of my cancer treatment to some TSA agent? My medical history is private and should be protected by law from unnecessary disclosure.
      • Re:Ha, ha (Score:5, Interesting)

        by budgenator (254554) on Monday March 24 2008, @06:19AM (#22843500) Journal
        When I had a cardiac stress stress test there was a sign that informed patients that cross the boarder would trigger radiation detectors for at least three days. I work in a dental office and we are the only office that accepts the DHS's dental plan so we have many patients that are Customs Agents, he told me it took the Canadians 3 days to get their trash cleaned up enough to get it across the boarder without triggering the detectors.
      • Re:Ha, ha (Score:5, Informative)

        by j-pimp (177072) <jdeari01.longisland@poly@@edu> on Monday March 24 2008, @06:45AM (#22843600) Homepage Journal

        Now, how do you explain that you've just had radiation treatment to the mindless TSA buffoon who's found you're radioactive?
        What? Oh I get it... because all TSA workers are mindless, buffoons. Just like all blacks like watermelons, Irishmen are drunks, and Italians are in the mob. Of course.

        Yeah I once had a set of RJ45 crimping tools in my backpack that I happened to use as carry on luggage. As I waited on line to go through the TSA checkpoint and remembered they were in the bottom of my bag I was afraid of 2 things (1) the tools being confiscated because they could be used as weapons, and (2) the agents not knowing what they were and detaining me. Well they did attract TSA attention. The woman operating the scanning machine asked me if they were "telephone tools" and I said yes. She asked her supervisor who let me go through with them. So yes bringing strange things through airport security will raise eyebrows, but its not always a one way ticket to Gitmo.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 24 2008, @03:15AM (#22842874)
    Please, please, please, somebody tag this catscan.
  • cool. (Score:5, Funny)

    by RelliK (4466) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:17AM (#22842886)
    Did the cat have any superpowers?
  • LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumFTL (197300) <justin...wick@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 24 2008, @03:20AM (#22842898) Homepage
    Emitting nuclear radiation is the equivilent of shouting "hey, here, look in my vehicle. I've got something NUCLEAR!" No wonder there's no privacy. I'm sure if the vehicle was glowing no one would feel bad about them being pulled over. This just happens to glow in a very different way.
    • by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:47AM (#22843020)
      True, but since there are legitimate reasons for emitting radiation they should take that into account. The last thing people (or cats) undergoing radiation therapy for cancer need is to be stopped and searched on every corner
      • by fbjon (692006) on Monday March 24 2008, @05:23AM (#22843314) Homepage Journal
        So then, why haven't a human been caught in this net before? It seems there should be more radioactive people than cats being driven around.


        Also, the story has a slight smell of urban legend. Snopes hasn't picked it up yet, though.

        • Re:LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:5, Interesting)

          by budgenator (254554) on Monday March 24 2008, @06:35AM (#22843568) Journal
          The are all the time, I had a stress test and the office told me that crossing the boarder would trigger the alarm for at least three days and that they had Dr's statements for Customs available for the asking. Customs turn back trash trucks at the boarder for radiation all the time now, you'd be amazed at how much nuclear waste Hospitals used to dump into our landfills unnoticed.
  • by LaskoVortex (1153471) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:27AM (#22842918)

    Signal went off and identified an isotope

    Holy smokes! Isotopes [thefreedictionary.com] everywhere!

    I'm surprised they needed a detector to find something that, by definition, comprises all of matter.

  • So let's say... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ForestGrump (644805) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:30AM (#22842936) Homepage Journal
    1. I'm remodeling my house. I go down to Home Despot/Slowes and buy a dozen smoke detectors. Would I get pulled over for being a suspected terrorist?

    2. I'm a cancer patient undergoing radiation therapy. What can be done to prevent the horror of being pulled over by the KGB? Would it be reasonable to issue "radiology patient" tags, like they issue handicapped tags for the handicapped?

    3. What is the false positive rate of such monitoring? Here, we have a cute example of a sick cat setting off a false positive. What about other incidents like this that fail to get into the newspaper?

    Grump
    • Let's say, then: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Wilson_6500 (896824) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:04AM (#22843078)
      1) Depends on the design of the detector. There's no chance the alpha particles from the Am-241 will be detected, as the cardboard box the smoke alarms are in will stop those, but the photons might be. The cat's scan residue (rimshot, please, along with everyone else in this discussion--but I would guess it's Tc-99 residue from a Tc-99m scan) was picked up by this detector system, so assumedly the Am-241 gammas might as well. That said, I don't know what activity is usually used smoke detectors (and I'm too lazy to look it up), or what activity is usually administered to cats during vet. nuclear med. procedures; questions like these are ones of quantity. You might well be stopped. From their perspective, you might well be buying twelve Am-241 sources to line the casing of a bomb.

      2) I was under the impression that oncologists were in the habit of doing just that--giving "doctor's notes" to patients with outpatient implanted brachytherapy seeds or devices. Being treated with a linear accelerator would not be likely to leave a perceptible amount of radiation in your body (photoneutrons from high energy linacs might cause some activation, but I don't think that it's generally a serious concern as far as setting off radiation alarms). Would it also bother you that you might well set off radiation alarms at nuclear power plants, if you happened to work at one, while being treated for your cancer?

      3) From a machine perspective, this was not a false positive. From a judicial/social standpoint, it was. I don't have much more to add beyond that.
    • by freedom_india (780002) on Monday March 24 2008, @05:41AM (#22843374) Homepage Journal
      Let me play FoxNews plus Gonzales for a while:

      1. I'm remodeling my house. I go down to Home Despot/Slowes and buy a dozen smoke detectors. Would I get pulled over for being a suspected terrorist?
      Yes. You would get pulled over and charged. You need to prove to the Police and the judge beyond doubt that the detectors are for your home. A work contract signed by your contractor, a REAL ID and a passport are necessary to get discharged from the case.
      Plus if you live in Montana or California, tough luck. These states support terrorism by rejecting REAL ID and thus endangering you! (endangering you by your rendition to Gitmo).

      2. I'm a cancer patient undergoing radiation therapy. What can be done to prevent the horror of being pulled over by the KGB? Would it be reasonable to issue "radiology patient" tags, like they issue handicapped tags for the handicapped?
      Yes. That badge would need to be accompanied by REAL ID. The badge itself would be built by the highest bidder who has offered better quality, 3D hologram embossed with your wife's or Eva Longoria's photo on the badge and also has Bluetooth enabled. Oh BTW, your insurance would not pay for the badge which would cost $399 each.

      3. What is the false positive rate of such monitoring? Here, we have a cute example of a sick cat setting off a false positive. What about other incidents like this that fail to get into the newspaper?
      Those details are "deemed classified." Much like information about cellphone tower coverage which companies used to provide publicly but stopped in 2003/04 when Bush deemed them classified at their instigation. Similarly if you continue questioning about false positives, you would be classified as a "person of interest" and be subject to such intense surveillance that the movie Enemy of State would be outdated. Heck, even your stool shit would be studied after scraping it from toilets.
      • Re:So let's say... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by David Jao (2759) <djao@dominia.org> on Monday March 24 2008, @04:29AM (#22843168) Homepage

        3. What is the false positive rate of such monitoring? Here, we have a cute example of a sick cat setting off a false positive. What about other incidents like this that fail to get into the newspaper?
        I'm not sure this matters. Are people's rights being trampled as a result of this monitoring? I'd feel more strongly about this story if there was mention of someone getting arrested, hassled, held, etc. On the other hand, if they detect cancer patients, they must pull people over pretty frequently, and the program may never catch a terrorist... well, good thing I'm not in politics.

        The false positive rate does matter, regardless of whether or not rights are being trampled. When you conduct any sort of large scale surveillance activity, the base rate fallacy [wikipedia.org] implies that most of the triggering events will be false positives. With too many false positives, your surveillance program is worse than useless -- it wastes money that could otherwise be better used on other security initiatives.

        I know there is some emotional appeal in arguing that "if it saves even one life, etc. etc. then it's worth any amount of money" but in the real world that's just not true. In the real world, spending one billion dollars to save a life might be a bad idea if spending that same money on some other program would save two lives. In comparing the relative merits of two or more different security proposals, the false positive rate is one important factor to consider, because it affects the cost/benefit analysis.

        Of course, people's rights matter as well, because that also affects the cost/benefit analysis. Unfortunately, the American public is seemingly too dumb to perform any sort of analysis involving more than one variable. Since the false positive rate involves math, it doesn't have any political appeal at all. Hence the Republicans fixate only on the terrorists, and the Democrats when not fixating on the terrorists focus only on civil liberties to the exclusion of all else.

  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:34AM (#22842958)
    Of course, it's not serious journalism to simply quote from a random funny story tossed out in an otherwise dull talk. Good speakers often have a collection of slightly oddball fake stories to put the audience at ease. Journalism means actually chasing up the story, interviewing the supposed cat's owner and the agent. If they actually exist, that is.

  • by tekrat (242117) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:42AM (#22842994) Homepage Journal
    The summary says the car was populated by a "cat", but doesn't mention if there was a human driver. Either that, or the car was driven by a 60's beatnik with a fondness for Jazz music. "Hey dude, I just pulled over this radiocative cat, man, I mean he was smokin'."
    Cosmic.

  • by Detritus (11846) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:01AM (#22843070) Homepage
    I remember reading something about them discovering a truck loaded with contaminated steel at the gate of some federal facility. Sometimes radiation sources, like cobalt-60, get mixed in with scrap metal that is going to be recycled. The steel plants are scared to death that they will accidentally melt down a load of scrap that contains a radiation source, resulting in a lot of spoiled steel and a huge decontamination bill. They have their own radiation detectors to check incoming material.
  • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:08AM (#22843086) Homepage
    ... just how radioactive was this cat? If it's sufficiently radioactive to show up at quite a distance in a moving vehicle, how much full-body radiation are the people around the cat getting?

    I do not want a hot cat sitting in my lap.
  • by Aussie (10167) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:33AM (#22843178) Journal
    C: The man didn't have the right form.
    S: What man?
    C: The man from the cat detector van.
    S: The looney detector van, you mean.
    C: Look, it's people like you what cause unrest.
    S: What cat detector van?
    C: The cat detector van from the Ministry of Housinge.
    S: Housinge?
    C: It was spelt like that on the van (I'm very observant!). I never seen so
          many bleeding aerials. The man said that their equipment could pinpoint
          a purr at four hundred yards! And Eric, being such a happy cat, was a
          piece of cake.
    S: How much did you pay for this?
    C: Sixty quid, and eight for the fruit-bat.
    S: What fruit-bat?
    C: Eric the fruit-bat.
    S: Are all your pets called Eric?
  • This is Nothing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gambolt (1146363) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:39AM (#22843200)
    A lot of my family is from Oak Ridge TN, where the nuclear payload for the atomic bombs dropped in WWII was fabricated there is now a national lab.

    It's common knowledge that frogs are a problem for the feds around there. That's amphibians, not the French.

    Here's the problem. Frogs live in the ponds by the cooling towers. The frogs are radioactive. The frogs jump out on the road and get squished. There are then lots of radioactive tires rolling in and out of town. The multi-million doallar system purchased to keep people from sneaking radioactive material out of the area is therefore useless.

    Why the hell is the water in the coolant ponds radioactive? Isn't that a bad sign? Nobody cares, they are all used to it by now. The thing with the frogs sure is funny though.
  • by edwardpickman (965122) on Monday March 24 2008, @05:26AM (#22843328)
    "Feed cat Plutonium pellets with kibble. Wrap cat in detcord. Place timer on cat and set for five minutes. Release mouse on crowded street. Release cat after mouse. Run. Remember to face Mecca at 4:29 after you release cat." "Oh, don't forget to plug ears."
  • Insightful?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adkeswani (1261278) on Monday March 24 2008, @06:19AM (#22843498)
    I check the comments expecting to see a series of Score:5 Funny.

    Instead, I find that most comments are Insightful and Informative.

    Come on people, a RADIOACTIVE CAT!

    Oh well, I guess this may be given an Insightful too...

    • Re:doesn't add up (Score:5, Informative)

      by masonc (125950) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:34AM (#22842952)
      Actually I believe there have been lots of similar events. A friend of mine is a member of some service organization and was on a club outing to nearby Canada by coach. On the border crossing back to America, they were stopped at the crossing when the border guards told the driver to shut the coach down and they boarded it. The club members were apprehensive as they had been replenishing the club alcohol stash and had a bit more than the legal duty free limits in the storage areas.
      The guards finally identified one older gentleman and questioned him, only to find out he had been a radiation trace injection four weeks previously. They were cleared and went on their way.
      If they have this equipment at all the major crossings and on the interstates, imagine the cost and the amount of money that has been spent on these type of projects.
    • Re:doesn't add up (Score:5, Informative)

      by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:09AM (#22843092)
      It has, just hasn't been widely reported. According to this article, there are about 600 radiation scanners deployed around the country and the rate of false positives is so high that the guy in charge of the Homeland Security Dept. nuclear office says they are pretty useless in practice:

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257004,00.html?sPage=fnc/specialsections/homelandsecurity [foxnews.com]
    • by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:39AM (#22842982)
      You never know with those feline terrorists.

      Perhaps it was a persian cat? You can never be too careful with those Al-Qaeda supporters [mwcnews.net]
    • by asliarun (636603) on Monday March 24 2008, @03:44AM (#22843004)

      I assume they promptly cut the cat open
      ...and it would have been quite safe as well. After all, the cat had 18 half-lives.
    • by budgenator (254554) on Monday March 24 2008, @06:29AM (#22843538) Journal
      "Vehicle goes by at 70 miles per hour," Giuliano told the crowd. "Agent is in the median, a good 80 feet away from the traffic. Signal went off and identified an isotope [in the passing car]."

      That is the impressive part, they didn't have to "cut" open the cat because they knew what they were looking for inside a car passing at 70MPH; all they needed to know is how much and in what form. A therapeutic amount in a cat is no problem isn't a problem, half a Kg for a car bomb is a problem. Another interesting point is while he didn't actually say it, it sounds like these things are quite portable and was contained in the vehicle.
    • by dlanod (979538) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:04AM (#22843076)
      I can see the interrogation now...


      FBI goon: "What's the matter??? CAT GOT YOUR TONGUE?"

    • by dbIII (701233) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:14AM (#22843120)
      To make things worse a dirty bomb detector is a bit like having an Easter Bunny detector. It may create employment and the impression that something is being done to detect the kiddies but it's worth considering what phyicists think of the idea instead of various poorly educated coke-addled political advisors.
        • by Martin Blank (154261) on Monday March 24 2008, @05:13AM (#22843284) Journal
          If someone ever sets off a radiological bomb, the first thing I'm doing is taking out a loan to buy the land where it happens, because the value over the following decade is going to be tremendous. I'll even pay to throw in radiation detectors just to put people at ease.

          There are reasons to do some scanning for nuclear material, but if a few stray particles from a medical procedure is going to be enough to stop someone, there needs to be some decisions made on the sensitivity of the scanner.
        • by SharpFang (651121) on Monday March 24 2008, @06:18AM (#22843494) Homepage Journal
          Yes, except:
          fear factor. People are deadly scared of radiation and it isn't enough to say 'the levels are harmless' to stop the panic.

          See this: http://radarmagazine.com/features/2006/12/toys-print.php [radarmagazine.com]

          "4. Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab"
          Honey, why is your face glowing? In 1951, A.C. Gilbert introduced his U-238 Atomic Energy Lab, a radioactive learning set we can only assume was fun for the whole math club. Gilbert, who American Memorabilia claims was "often compared to Walt Disney for his creative genius," had a dream that nuclear power could capture the imaginations of children everywhere. For a mere $49.50, the kit came complete with three "very low-level" radioactive sources, a Geiger-Mueller radiation counter, a Wilson cloud chamber (to see paths of alpha particles), a spinthariscope (to see "live" radioactive disintegration), four samples of uranium-bearing ores, and an electroscope to measure radioactivity.

          Called one of the most dangerous toys of all times, despite totally harmless radiation levels, yes?

          Imagine a dirty bomb made from ground depleted uranium bullets (Iraq, Afghanistan and some more have a plenty of them, just to pick up and use) goes off in Manhattan. Of course you and me know depleted uranium is called 'depleted' for a reason and you'd have to try really hard to get any results off it. But imagine how would a "Joe Average" react to the news: "Manhattan has been contaminated with slightly radioactive Uranium dust. The radiation level is entirely harmless. There is no reason to panic, the radioactive dust will not affect your health."
          • by camperdave (969942) on Monday March 24 2008, @06:48AM (#22843618) Journal
            You know perfectly well that the news would be: "Manhattan has been contaminated with radioactive Uranium dust.". Lines like "The radiation level is entirely harmless." and "There is no reason to panic, the radioactive dust will not affect your health." might appear in the article, but it would be after the "continued on A7" hyperlink.
    • by Rocketship Underpant (804162) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:24AM (#22843144)
      It occurs to me that if someone actually wanted to transport a dirty bomb across the US, all they have to do is have a car a few miles ahead containing a radioactive cat, and they'll know for certain if and where there are radiation checkpoints.
      • by cheater512 (783349) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Monday March 24 2008, @04:40AM (#22843204) Homepage
        Or, if they cared about their sexual organs, they would use lead which would render the fancy detectors useless if done properly.
          • by SharpFang (651121) on Monday March 24 2008, @06:41AM (#22843584) Homepage Journal
            Imagine a hidden compartment at the end of a container.
            An 18-wheeler truck would hardly feel it. A meter at the end, a fake wall hiding the content, pretty hard to spot.

            A different hideout: in Poland, the police found drugs smuggled that way but only thanks to a tip they got.
            A transformer (no, not the robot. A voltage changing device), and hide the material in the core. You can't take it apart without damaging it without unwinding a few miles of wire off the coil. In Poland, these were electric welding machines, each housing a few pounds of cocaine right inside the hollowed-out transformer core. If you want nuclear materials transported, you can get an industrial size transformer, the size of a small house. It can't be checked without being damaged beyond repair, its composition is mostly densely wound copper wire and closely laid steel plates (5 tons of lead wouldn't make a difference, plus the steel and copper mean a good shield already) and inside of the core is spacious enough to host a quite large nuke, not just a dirty bomb.
    • by Wilson_6500 (896824) on Monday March 24 2008, @04:12AM (#22843116)
      The fear of a dirty bomb is not that people will die--not many would probably die from the blast, or the radiation. Dirty bombs are nothing more than panic weapons. The public is, by and large, so terrified of anything "nuclear" that a large radiation dispersal device going off in a crowded area would cause literal waves of _redoubled_ panic as soon as someone realized and communicated that the bomb had radioactive isotopes inside it. Justifiably or not, it would then be a blind panic--these people would be running from something they can't see or smell, and probably don't understand in the slightest. Now, being informed about radiation won't keep it from bringing you harm if you happen to be exposed to it, probably wouldn't be much comfort if a radioactive bomb exploded across the street, and won't give you instantaneous wind-direction and plume information; it might help to allay the fears of those who're outside the blast zone, and might help ease the process of relocating back into the contaminated region.

      Sure, they're not weapons that'll kill millions of people at a stroke, but isn't one of the common themes of life that the most striking, obvious, and dramatic dangers aren't always the ones that should merit the most respect and attention?
    • Re:Hardly dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zymergy (803632) * on Monday March 24 2008, @04:57AM (#22843242)
      I strongly disagree. The Chernobyl explosion and resulting contamination was not designed to disperse radioactive material. It did a fairly good job of doing that *anyway*. I agree that the predicted effects are fortunately much less (20 years later) than previously predicted, but it was nonetheless extremely effective at effecting FEAR and Terror into that portion of the World. If Terrorists with high explosives expertise also had access to MORE deadly radioactive substances than Chernobyl contained, that would be VERY SCARY.

      Terrorists are likely more interested the FEAR and the sensationalized terrifying concept of "Nuclear Fallout" rather than the actual scientific effects of such a dirty radiological High Explosive dispersion device (AKA Dirty Bomb).
      Terrorists may actually target key water and food supplies or river systems with radiological explosive dispersion devices.

      Any primary "Dirty Bomb" Victims that inhale, eat, drink, or consume into their bodies ANY energetically decaying radioisotopes (especially ones with relatively short half-lives) will have an *almost certain chance* of developing lung and/or bone cancers.
      Plutonium-238, curium-244, strontium-90, polonium-210, promethium-147, cesium-137, cerium-144, ruthenium-106, cobalt-60, curium-242, and thulium isotopes all can produce oncogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects on the human body (especially if ingested or inhaled). This happens if the initial exposure does not kill the primary victims.

      In any case, it is very very unlikely that a citizen jury of peers would consider the passive monitoring of specific "hot" radioisotopes by US authorities to be a violation of the 4th Amendment's "unreasonable searches and seizures".
      NOBODY should have any of the above in their possession unless they are professionals and they would have clearly marked DOT placards on their commercial vehicles as well as DOT, NRC (and probably DOE) approved possession and transportation paperwork and approved containment vessels. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/11.pdf [nrc.gov]
      Also, they would have to follow controlled HC (Hazardous Cargo) approved routes within the US highway system. http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/guide/hazard.htm [orau.gov]

      I agree that it is interesting some animal and human cancer patients (and other radiologically medicated persons) have been flagged "hot" by roadside sensors and detained by authorities. It is likely that those same sensors can determine the quantity and difference between the americium-241 (one gram is enough for 5000 smoke detectors) from the other more dangerous materials no civilian should never have. http://www.uic.com.au/nip35.htm [uic.com.au]

      I am a US citizen, and I DO feel better knowing that these things ARE being actively screened for by our government. It would be terribly irresponsible for our government to NOT look for radioactive substances if technology would allow it to conducted as unobtrusively as it is from the side of a PUBLIC highway or port of entry. Americans don't have a right to own dangerous radioactive components.

      OTOH, if they decide to screen for GUNS in the US... that's a Second Amendment right we DO have... and whole other issue.
      • by mikelieman (35628) on Monday March 24 2008, @06:25AM (#22843530) Homepage
        "Americans don't have a right to own dangerous radioactive components. "

        I believe you misspoke, when you used the word "right" there.

        Perhaps, you meant to say, "Americans aren't PERMITTED to possess dangerous radioactive components?"

        While the "Right to Keep and Bear Property" isn't one of the explicitly enumerated ones in the Bill of Rights, the "Right to Keep and Bear Property" is the Right upon which *all* other Rights are founded.

        Without that absolute right, the notion of having any Freedom or Liberty is ludicrous.

        Yes, there's an obvious contradiction in being told that one is Free and at Liberty, but also told that they cannot own, possess or use property without obtaining prior permission from their Masters.

        My only advice is: When presented with this historical opportunity to watch a civilization fall, enjoy the show!