TSA To Retest Full Body Scanners For Radiation 199
cultiv8 writes with this excerpt from USA Today:
"The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected. The TSA says that the records reflect math mistakes and that all the machines are safe. Indeed, even the highest readings listed on some of the records — the numbers that the TSA says were mistakes — appear to be many times less than what the agency says a person absorbs through one day of natural background radiation.
Even so, the TSA has ordered the new tests out of 'an abundance of caution to reassure the public,' spokesman Nicholas Kimball says. The tests will be finished by the end of the month, and the results will be released 'as they are completed,' the agency said on its website."
Maybe I'm mistaken, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't they be testing the radiation output from these machines at regular intervals to make sure they're safe?
(as opposed to just checking them when the public needs "reassuring")
In the past, the TSA has failed to properly monitor and ensure the safety of X-ray devices used on luggage. A 2008 report by the worker safety arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the TSA and its maintenance contractors had failed to detect when baggage X-ray machines emitted radiation beyond what regulations allowed. They also failed to take action when some machines had missing or disabled safety features, the report shows.
Oh, wait, that's right. For the most part, they're incompetent, or just don't care.
The least they could do while subjecting people to discomfort and harm is ensure that they're keeping damage to a minimum. Assholes.
Re:Maybe I'm mistaken, but.. (Score:4, Informative)
Did you not read the blurb? Let alone the article?
These machines are on a maintenance plan. A few anomalies early on prompted the TSA to force retest all machines before their scheduled maintenance window.
They did exactly what you whined about them not doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Well considering the machines have never been looked at by the FDA or any other agency, or any other independent of side review, how do you know they are looking for the right thing in their scheduled maintenance?
Re: (Score:3)
a guy shows up, 'does stuff' and leaves.
what, you want more for your theater?
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds ok, but I want to be reassured - does this guy have some sort of uniform?
Re: (Score:2)
popcorn
Re: (Score:3)
Not to be pedantic, TFA said the FDA isn't involved because they're not medical devices. They are exempt from state inspections because they belong to a federal agency.
Point still stands that these machines operate in a bit of a safety loophole and there's less oversight on them, which is even more worrisome due to the heavy lobbying and conflicts of interest that got these machines put in place to start with.
Re:Maybe I'm mistaken, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
A medical facility that allowed an x-ray machine to expose patients to an order of magnitude more radiation than it was supposed to for any length of time would have hell to pay.
TFA does not say that TSA detected problems and so is re-testing everything. It says that AFTER they were forced by lawmakers and the press to release records AND it was determined that at least 33% of those inspections were rendered worthless by seriously sloppy procedure AND lawmakers rumbled about taking action, THEN and only THEN the TSA reluctantly offered to retest everything.
That's far from your characterization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More a danger to the TSA than passengers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe I'm mistaken, but.. (Score:4, Funny)
Think you are on the wrong site, The Daily KOS is over here [dailykos.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Napolitano's a dem. Not that the GOP didn't start this, but guess who's keeping the tradition going? Too bad George Washington and the rest of the founders are all dead; they'd have all these bastards hung for treason.
Re:Maybe I'm mistaken, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
God damn republicans.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/08/house-democrats-who-voted-for-patriot-act-reauthorization-feb-8-2011/ [irregulartimes.com]
This is not about partisanship, its about freedom. Do you despise the TSA, the PATRIOT act, the erosion of our Constitution, and our loss of Liberty or do you just want something else to wave in the face of the party that you happen to not be in?
Re:Maybe I'm mistaken, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
God damn republicans.
Because if we had a Democratic President, he'd put a stop to this damn quick.
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Maybe I'm mistaken, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
We haven't had one of those since at least the Carter administration. What we have now is not a Democrat, but rather a right winger who used the name of the Democratic Party to get elected. Obama is not all that far to the left of Ronald Reagan, the Republicans' deity. Show me an actual liberal in the White House, and I'll concede your point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best part is the Right wing republicans have moved so far to the right that they consider obama the most massively left wing person since FDR.
I hate sliding scales. they are always wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The President only signed the bill. It was Congress that passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
You make it sound like Congress spontaneously came up the idea instead of Obama fighting tooth and nail to get it passed before the November elections.
It's the same kind of healthcare reform the Republicans have been proposing for years
I knew it, it's those damn Republicans again.
Seriously, it's nothing like the healthcare reforms the Republicans were proposing [gop.gov].
Reagan ran up enormous deficits duri
He's got the tiger by the tail, next Prez too (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So your saying the TSA is a counter coup to the one by the CIA in 1963? Maybe not "counter", just different. Did the top level bureaucrats benefit handsomely?
What is it with words in the mouth of others? (Score:2)
Let's put it more simply - it's an uncontrolled enormous cash cow getting milked by many and it's both bypassed the chain of command of other groups and absorbed them. For example - WTF is Homeland Security doing getting i
Re:Maybe I'm mistaken, but.. (Score:4, Informative)
Wait wait wait, how the hell are you blaming this on republicans? The TSA chief (John Pistole) was nominated by a D president (Obama). The DHS secretary (Janet Nepolitano) is a democrat, also nominated by obama. The current head of the executive is a Democrat. And all of these machines came in under THEIR watch with THEIR approval.
Where do the republicans come into this again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can only wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, unionizing the TSA workers might fix this problem, since the workers are likely to be the ones most impacted by chronic exposure to higher-than-anticipated levels of radiation. A strong union would be in a much better position to square off against the politically-connected equipment manufactures than any individuals.
Puh-Leeeeeeeeze.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have any mod points, but if I had them, I would give them all to you. This is epic.
http://operatorchan.org/n/src/n121391_citizen%20kane%20clap.gif [operatorchan.org]
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Winner, indeed.
The only free country in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
That, or a good dose of healthy radiation
"Hello sir ! What would you like to have today ? Ball-grope, or radiation ?"
now come to think of it, even that 'hello sir' part may be extra in that sentence.
Re:The only free country in the world (Score:5, Funny)
Take the radiation on the flight out, then the ball grope on the return flight to make sure you don't have testicular cancer.
win-win
Re: (Score:2)
Try taking a train in Asia.
Re: (Score:3)
make it like beavis and butthead do america full (Score:2)
make it like beavis and butthead do america full body cavity search.
Re: (Score:2)
But, its free in america.
Pfft. I wish. Have you seen the price of plane tickets these days?
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't free! you have to buy a plane ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
But, its free in america.
A big part of the problem is that it isn't free; we're all paying for it. Do you know how much those machines cost? Do you know how much the manufacturer lobbied to get them mandated?
Re: (Score:3)
The training that the TSA agents took does require this "groping." (I have talked to off-duty TSA agents about this.) However, I also travel a lot, I always refuse the scanning, and I have yet to be groped. I think that they are just not (by and large) following their training in this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Or your off-duty TSA agent wasnt telling you the truth, or his trainers werent following the official procedure, or you misheard...
The possibilities are endless...
Re: (Score:3)
No, the possibilities are not endless. They had a training film, produced by a contractor. (I don't remember which one, and I can't find a link, but it was one of the usual suspects.) That is the way the Government generally does training. I don't know how explicit the film was, but the discussion was very explicit (I remember the phrase "lift and separate," among others).
I was also told that there was general unhappiness about this new procedure, under the assumption that agents would catch even more hel
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, I recently refused to go through an active millimeter-wave scanner and therefore was subject to the "enhanced pat-down". The agent took longer to explain to me what he was going to do than doing it, and there was no ball-handling.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
what do you expect? - it's San Francisco...!
Re: (Score:2)
TSA Mistake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it works for the banks.
AVG (Score:2)
The TSA's math is real wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Their example of "appear to be many times less than what the agency says a person absorbs through one day of natural background radiation." is a bad one.
The force of a bullet hitting a person is the same as that of the stock hitting the shoulder of the shooter. I'd rather be on the shooter's end.
Just because the amount of radiation is the same (or less) it doesn't mean its the same type. The scanners concentrate that radiation at one frequency, not over a broad spectrum. That frequency is absorbed not by the whole body, but by the first few millimeters of flest. That means that bit of flesh is getting thousands of times higher levels of exposure then that of the whole body mass exposure of back ground radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
The force of a bullet hitting a person is the same as that of the stock hitting the shoulder of the shooter. I'd rather be on the shooter's end.
While I appreciate the analogy, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Force is time-dependent; the bullet keeps getting energy imparted the entire time it's going down the shaft, during which time it accelerates up to speed. It has enormous impact because it's trying to shed all that energy into the material it's hitting all at once, and most materials (like flesh) don't have enough strength to hold up against firepower of that magnitude. However, the butt of the rifle (assuming it's kept against the shoulder) d
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need Mythbusters, just Newton's Third Law.
The force imparted to the bullet and that applied to the rifle are equal and opposite and every instant that gases are exerting pressure on the bottom of the bullet they are simultaneously doing the same to the breech at the other end of the barrel. To suggest that the bullet gains more energy than the rifle is nonsense since its acceleration drops below zero as soon as it has left the barrel - in fact, its momentum starts decreasing at that time.
PS, bulle
Re: (Score:2)
The FORCE imparted to your shoulder by the stock is not the same as the force of the bullet when it HITS--it's the same as the energy the bullet receives as it gets up to speed. You could get a city bus up to speed (say 5-10 mph) by pushing it with weak fleshy human hands, but if it hits a brick wall, chances are metal and/or brick will break, while your hands did not sustain any injury at all.
I'm not saying you wouldn't sustain injury if the stock of your rifle was the size and shape of a bullet, but I'd
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bullet is not pushing against the back of the gun; it's pushing against the rapidly expanding gas from the cartridge, which is distributing the rest of its energy in all directions, which means that a lot of energy is lost in places other than momentum of the gun itself (such as chemical energy, heat energy, or places where the gas itself escapes and transfers momentum that way).
That probably isn't a big factor, admittedly. More of note, kinetic energy is a function of the square of the velocity, so if
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my. No. Newton's third law discusses force, not energy. While the net forces on the individual components are balanced, action and reaction, the energy imparted into the bullet is much higher. Energy is equivalent to force times distance: that force is applied to the bullet over the length of the barrel, and the rifle's distance moved is only the distance of the recoil against the shooter's shoulder or hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, dear. That's a disarming belief, but I urge you to study some radiochemistry. Alpha radiation would be useless: it wouldn't typically get through clothing.
Carry a radiation detector (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a keychain-sized radiation detector [nukalert.com] available for $160. It's a sealed unit, always on, and has a 10-year battery life. It sounds a burst of "chirps" if it detects radiation, with the number of chirps indicating logarithmically the level of hazard. One chirp, the level of radiation is safe for 40 days of exposure. 10 chirps, lethal within hours. Putting one in front of a dental X-ray machine produces about five chirps.
Carry one of those through a body scanner and see what happens.
Re: (Score:3)
what will happen? they'll take it from you and throw it into the anti-freedom(tm) water/liquid/soap drums.
100% chance they can come up with an excuse to detain you or search you for pretty much any whim of theirs. your 'detection device' could be seen as trying to spy or interfere with them. in their sick anti-freedom(tm) minds, you would be the bad person, not them!
Re:Carry a radiation detector (Score:5, Interesting)
They're illegal in New York City. The reason given is to prevent public panic.
Re: (Score:2)
But.. you'd have to go through the machine. If it's not safe to go through, the detector isn't going to do much other than say, "yeah, you're screwed"
Michael Chertoff's folly (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, even the highest readings listed on some of the records — the numbers that the TSA says were mistakes — appear to be many times less than what the agency says a person absorbs through one day of natural background radiation.
That is irrelevant, and in my recommendation whoever came up with that formulation should be fired, or at least reassigned to duties far from any actual responsibilities.
I have been unable to find any actual numbers for dosage recorded in this case, so let's look at the National Council on Radiation Protection Commentary No. 16 - Screening of Humans for Security Purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems [ncrppublications.org], which I believe governs this.
The Commentary states that general-use systems should adhere to an effective dose of 0.1 microsievert (Sv) (0.01 millirem) or less per scan, and can be used mostly without regard to the number of individuals scanned or the number of scans per individual in a year. An effective dose of 0.1 Sv (0.01 mrem) per scan would allow 2,500 scans of an individual annually [i.e., if each scan required 0.1 Sv (0.01 mrem)] without exceeding the administrative control of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to a member of the general public for a single source or set of sources under one control. Assuming 250 workdays per year, this would correspond to an average of 10 scans each day, a frequency that is unlikely to be encountered.
So, if the actual dose is 10 times that, or 1 micro Sv / scan, then the "administrative control" of 250 microSv / year would require only 250 scans, or one per workday, a frequency which would not be "unlikely to be encountered." In fact, both really frequent flyers and airline crew would be likely to match or exceed this. To be blunt about it, the TSA chose words intended to obscure the likelihood that their radiation guidelines are being violated, at least for some members of the public. This does not inspire confidence.
Remember, too, that this technology was pushed heavily by Michael Chertoff when he was in office, and now he is profiting from its deployment. That also does not inspire confidence.
I think that there should be an independent audit of the TSA's use of X-Ray backscatter and that until that is done members of the flying public should refuse to take those scans. It is better to get groped than to get cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Background radiation is typically (depends where you live amongst other things) 2.4 miliSieverts per year. So even if the dose was 1 microSievert, and you flew through that particular machine 250 times per year, that's still 10% of background.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd settle for the person in question being charged with criminal negligence.
Placation (Score:2)
Does anybody really expect that the TSA would admit that their scanners are dangerous and then remove them? No way. Not after the hundreds of millions of dollars they've spent buying them. I guarantee their tests will show that everything is A-OK regardless of what the truth might actually be.
Re: (Score:2)
#define _OK 1
#define _NOT_OK 2
extern int get_status_of_test();
int safety_check(void)
{
(void)get_status_of_test();
return _OK;
}
(hope they don't 'wikileaks' my ass for disclosing their secret source code)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anybody really expect that the TSA would admit that their scanners are dangerous and then remove them? No way. Not after the hundreds of millions of dollars they've spent buying them.
TSA spent millions on installing "puffer" machines and those have all been removed.
So, yes, I do really expect that TSA will end up removing the nude-o-scopes.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? They are already paid for.
"...tests finished by the end of the month..." (Score:4, Informative)
And to speed things up they've already started writing up the results.
My solution (Score:2)
We need to git rid of all scanners, x-ray machine, etc. There will be random, "aggressive", pat downs by attractive male/female "escorts"... Your choice as to which you will be groped by. There will of course be a charge for this service, cough, I mean security procedure. And there will be a menu of other extras you may request at an additional cost. This will not only solve the security and radiation exposure issues, but the TSA will become self supporting agency and within a few years run a surplus I sus
Error of organization, not equipment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the rash of medical radiation devices that have been gorking people because they were working incorrectly, I do worry about this.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/health/06radiation.html?src=mv [nytimes.com]
How about we have an agency OTHER than the TSA provide data on how much radiation in being emitted. Not hard to do -- OSHA rep visits the airport, run the test on each machine, and out. TSA never has to do math again; the radiation output is not a security question anyway.
And you avoid situations like this one, where testing gets somehow... skipped.
Source: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/umdnj_didnt_test_medical_x-ray.html [nj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely agree with you, these should be tested and regulated as medical devices. As your article link noted they should be calibrated, QC'd and logged daily, and by someone who knows how to do it (an unqualified check is actually worse than not doing anything, since the wrong setting can be a very bad thing). And you can bet with the number of them out there already a lot slipping through maintenance cracks. The deal is, you can't tell if one's bad, you just get a bunch of passengers with a rash a w
An open challenge to John Pistole (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr. Pistole:
According to federal sources cited around the web, the amount of radiation is less than 1/1000 times [developerdig.com] the dosage from 3 minutes of air travel.
If these systems are as safe as you say, being scanned 100,000 times is about the amount of radiation one would get from a 4 hour flight.
It would go a long way towards convincing everyone if, as a publicity stunt, you allowed yourself to be scanned 100,000 times over a four hour period.
The equivalent dosage would be a little less than from a four hour flight, which is a risk that you regularly take as part of your official duties.
If you do this and emerge unharmed, I'm willing to concede the point. Until then, I claim that there is no evidence [okianwarrior.com] to warrant any claims as to the safety of airport scanners.
Rajstennaj Barrabas
Nashua, NH
Re: (Score:3)
Post in haste, regret at leisure.
Looks like I typoed the calculations. It's more like 5,000 scans instead of 100,000.
But my point stands. I'd like to see someone who is so certain of the safety show us how little the risk is by taking the challenge (with the correct number of scans).
Said in my best Rhode Island Accent (Score:2)
What a buncha retahds.
There is no excuse for this. None. Trying to downplay it with a lame excuse only makes it look like they're covering something up.
I'll bet the TSA is doing exactly that.
"It all depends on what your definition of "is" is"
--
BMO
Double? (Score:2)
So if I understand this correctly, the scanners don't expose you to more than you'd normally get in a day. However, it does it in 10 seconds or less.
To put this in perspective, if I shower for 10 minutes on average, and I find a machine that can blast the water at me in 1/1000th of a second would be good? I think I'd be missing skin among other things.
How about the fact that I've now doubled the normal radiation in just 10 seconds? If I have to go out to another terminal in an airport where the terminals
Re: (Score:2)
How about the fact that I've now doubled the normal radiation in just 10 seconds? If I have to go out to another terminal in an airport where the terminals aren't connected (like many of my connections through Logan), I now get triple? If I fly back in the same day, add at least two more hits.
Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say. We've gotten used to having all these small sources of radiation (at varying wavelengths) around us on a daily basis, so we tend to lump them all together and ignore the lot. It doesn't help that the favorite argument made, when it comes to exposing people to yet another source of radiation, is usually akin to "it's less than you get from an hour out in the sun" - but, as you point out, that completely sidesteps facing the fact that radiation exposure is cumulative.
Why is it (Score:4, Interesting)
If I get sick and need a scan, my government pleads poverty and leaves me on my own. If I try to fly somewhere, suddenly they're so overstuffed with money that they demand that I take a scan.
Best of both worlds, have certified radiologists operate the airport scanners and pat-downs. They can not only get you where you're going but give you a free scan and manual breast or testicular cancer screening.
What about during the flight? (Score:3)
One thing people rarely consider is the amount of cosmic rays you get with the high altitude during a flight. A visiting physics professor coming to our university wore a geiger counter watch during the flight. After he explained to nearby passengers why it was sounding alarms, he was detained when they landed. :( The talk he was coming for was cancelled because he was held for several hours at an airport for detecting cosmic rays in this age of paranoia.
Anyway, here's an article about the dosage you get during flight compared to the scanners:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politifact-radiation-of-airport-scans-less-than-the-dose-in-flight/1135857 [tampabay.com]
You've taken the idea and got it backwards (Score:3)
I'll bet the pilots are incredibly pissed about all these scans because for one thing it can reduce their legal flight time.
To make things worse these things are not just your normal transmission x-ray where you just want to see what photons make it to the sensor and the dark spots tell you w
Re: (Score:2)
To make things worse these things are not just your normal transmission x-ray where you just want to see what photons make it to the sensor and the dark spots tell you where the dense stuff is. What these scanners are doing is providing far more radiation with the aim of getting atoms to absorb and re-emit photons - effectively making you radioactive while the scanner is on.
The units discussed in the article are rems. Those are more telling than rads in that they measure the *biological reaction* rather than the flux of the bombardment. So 1 rem of cosmic rays is just as bad for you as 1 rem of a directed x-ray source.
I don't think that 3 minutes of additional flight time is worth mentioning. Planes spend a tremendous amount of time just circling airports for the traffic pattern sometimes, no one whines about radiation in that situation. I'll grant you that the pilots bein
Re: (Score:2)
OK, it may may a little more sense once you understand why there is increased exposure. It's due to very high altitude and there being a lot less air above you absorbing the incoming radiation. Thus nobody gives a shit in this context about planes circling at low altitude because in terms of radiation risk they are for all practical purposes on the ground on a h
Re: (Score:2)
This has been known for decades. The more time at altitude the LESS you should be exposed to other forms of radiation. That's why they ask you questions about flying before any medical procedure involving radiation.
I'll bet the pilots are incredibly pissed about all these scans because for one thing it can reduce their legal flight time.
In the US, medical exposures are not counted against occupational exposure.
To make things worse these things are not just your normal transmission x-ray where you just want to see what photons make it to the sensor and the dark spots tell you where the dense stuff is. What these scanners are doing is providing far more radiation with the aim of getting atoms to absorb and re-emit photons - effectively making you radioactive while the scanner is on. The idea behind that is the wavelengths of the re-emitted photons can be used to determine what elements are present, find metal and perhaps find explosives. Because that really adds up to a shitload of radiation if it's going to scan all the way through you the dose is cut back and you just end up with the skin being exposed to quite a lot and no ability to sense internally hidden explosives.
No. The x-rays being detected are those that scatter off the person being scanned. They are *not* making anybody radioactive in any way. There is no way scattered x-rays are going to tell you the elemental composition of anything. Density, but not composition.
It is also not a "shitload of radiation". If these machines were detecting transmitted radiation instead, that would actually require *more* radiation exposure and would operat
Radiation goes in a different wavelength comes out (Score:2)
Sorry, but you've got it backwards inside out and completely wrong - please look it up instead of going by "gut feeling".
Maybe start with descriptions of electron microscopes and how you can determine what elements are present in the visual field by us
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2)
But what does the amount of background radiation people experience every day have to do with this anyway... because people experience that every day, so am I wrong in thinking that any additional ionizing radiation is on -top- of the background radiation?
Isn't this an additive thing?
Magic Rock (Score:2)
How about they test to see if they actually prevent terrorism more than my magic rock?
Letter to the TSA (Score:2)
This will never be the land of the free.... (Score:2)
... until it becomes the home of the brave.
Who the hell is okay with naked pictures of little kids? If you are I can refer you to the Pope job placement.
Therac-25 (Score:5, Informative)
I make radiology stations for a living. The 3 companies that make the "backscatter" x-ray machines aren't people like "GE' or "Siemens", they're defense contractors. There's many radiologiests who won't fly commercial because of these things. All it takes is ONE screw up in configuration and maintenance and you get Therac-25... except these things are everywhere now...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 [wikipedia.org]
Translation (Score:2)
We lack a sensible exit strategy, now that we got a lot of bad press for those scanners, from privacy intrusion to child porn allegations. The best move is probably to say that they're emitting too much radiation (thanks to Japan, that's currently an issue), and so we can phase them out without losing face, we'll do it for your safety and health.
Re: (Score:2)
A TSA spokesperson stated that future radiation studies would be carried out by trained professionals.
And did that spokesperson say what the area(s) of expertise of these professionals would be?
Re: (Score:2)
Top. Men.
Re: (Score:2)
Please let it be professional supermodels. I'm flying next week!
Just kidding. I'm not flying next week. But please let it be professional supermodels anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
as we all know, the math mistakes always occur during testing and verification.
the *designs* - no - they are never subject to math errors.
its how we test them that we are 'not sure about'. yeah. that's it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
According to wired the machines have never been tested against mice.
Are you fucking crazy [sadgeezer.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno bout you , but id sure as hell like to totally make fun of those machines and the TSA boyos . :)
Is there a paint . or something that will show up on their xray / scan machines that we could write subtle messages with right on our skin to let them know how we truly feel ? Ex writing on one's butt " Scan This "
We're supposed to believe that you'd be willing to paint "Up yours, TSA!" on your ass with lead paint, yet you post to Slashdot as an Anonymous Coward?