The Glade 4.0

Penetration isn't so much the factor here...Radio waves easily penetrate human flesh and in fact nearly any substance. The factor is energy per quantam to disrupt molecular structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

Actually no, you have it backwards, the high the frequency the lower the penetration, just like with audio frequency, a low bass frequency in the sub 100Hz range travels thru walls very well while a high 20kHz frequency is blocked by the same wall. and the system is emitting a much lower total amount of energy than a cell phone, as I stated, about 10,000 times less, and most of the power consumed by a millimeter wave based system is because of the motor used to move the scanner and the computers used to process the image, plus even more for the computer that does auto threat detection which takes a significant amount of computational power to do.

Actually, no, there's no brainwashing because I work in the engineering department and i'm a designer and I've seen the readings being taken in person, I've been working in the x-ray security field for 15 years so I know the facts when it comes to this stuff, and I know a lot more about them and how they work than anyone here.

/derail

Smart chicks are HOT!

/rerail

I have no qualms with your expertise Sasandra. I find it quite interesting in fact. But this I have a problem with. You just don't see any problems with the government being able to search you, without being guilty or even presumed guilty, of any crime and without just cause, in the name of safety? On top of it, they're interfering with your ability to contract for a private service. They're doing this for some nebulous ideal of safety, even though plane hijackings are rare and 9-11 killed fewer people than your average month of car crashes or cancer. Heck, a much greater threat is a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon being used in a city by a terrorist group (much greater scale of damage to people and possibly property), yet we're less "prepared" for that danger than a plane hijacking. And to top it off, the plane hijacking could be better averted if we used behavior profiling, like Israel, according to many security experts.

It's interesting to me how everyone seemed to be basically fine with searches that we being peformed prior to these new scanners. Which would from time to time include a physical pat down.

But god forbid someone get a pseudo-naked picture taken of them.

Nothing substantively has changed in the search process, other than it being potentially more accurate and able to detect questionable items.

Now, that said, I think that the US is going about the whole thing the wrong way. I believe that we should go with a setup much more like the Israeli's use. I believe that it would be infinately more effective and faster.

I find blanket anonymous screenings far less intrusive than being profiled. I'd rather have my clothing and person searched than my associations, background and organizations.

Personally, no, I don't have any problem with it, anything that makes flying safer is fine by me, then again i'm used to working in a secure environment daily. Now if the started randomly driving to people's houses and telling them to come outside and be scanned then yes, that I have an issue, you but you are voluntarily going into a high security area when you fly and this is a choice and not something you are forced to do.

And personally i'm all for profiling too but people would ***** even more about that than the "privacy issues" with the scanners. IMO if you do a stupid thing like wear a big baggy clothing and a turban into an airport then you deserve to be thoroughly checked, I wear clothing that it's apparent that i'm not concealing anything under them and make sure that i'm not wearing large amounts of metal items, no under wire bra, belt, etc when I fly, the only metal items I typically have on me when I go thru security are my earrings, the clasp and charm on my chocker I normally wear and the zipper/buttons on my pants.

We (the general "we") have already been down this road several times in this thread. I'm not going to repeat any of that. However, since you've conceded that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to flying, I take you also concede that there would be nothing improper or illegal about the TSA making body-cavity searches or full-blown x-ray scans mandatory.

In light of the fact that Al Qaeda operative Ibrahim Hassan Tali al-Asir had his brother shove PETN in his ***, then blow himself up and that Al Qaeda has also attempted to use surgically implanted explosives in dogs, we can certainly say that both of these methods are plausible, real-world threats that have actually been used "in the wild". They're also the next logical step if backscatter and pat-downs really are as effective at stopping external explosives/weapons as you think. Body-cavity searches and complete penetrating x-rays would mitigate these threats and thus make flying safer. In fact, they're really the only cost-effective way we have of detecting something like that. I'm sure we could work out the same system we have for the backscatter system -- if you aren't comfortable with getting a full medical x-ray, you can just opt for the cavity search instead.

You're okay with this, right?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Slippery slope is slippery.

Especially if you use enough lube.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Don't confuse a slippery slope with proof by induction.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

No, you're quite correct about the penetration issue. Since c is a constant 3*10^8 (approximately) as wavelength decreases frequency must increase.

The shorter the wavelength the greater the penetration and therefore the greater the frequency the greater the penetration. That's why X-rays can penetrate things visible light can't and gamma rays can pierce a certain amount of lead shielding. Gamma ray scanners exist to do just that, although I don't believe they can be used safely on living organisms.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Sasandra - you are correct about audio frequencies. Low frequency does penetrate better which is why low frequency active sonar is preferred in the open ocean and higher frequencies in littoral areas.

However, I really want to know why you think lower frequencies penetrate better than high in the electromagnetic spectrum. Are you seriously telling me that radio waves penetrate far better than gamma rays?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I love watching you alleged liberals embrace the removal of personal freedom.

Aizle:
Who said anybody was "ok" with the security measures in place before? Just because some individuals may feel like the process may have "crossed a line" does not mean we were enthused previously.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

**** off. If you're going to come in with this kind of bullshit, go post somewhere else.



Apparently I missed the national outrage on the current security measures then? I don't recall anyone posting here about how their rights were being violated by flying. Indeed Khross even mentioned many trips he's made recently (prior to these changes) and didn't mention any angst about prior requirements. I also don't recall any outrage about security measures when things got amazingly more stringent right after 9/11. But really my statement wasn't targeted at anyone here so much as the nation and it's hippocritical nature.

I've already shown a link in this thread (page 5) that showed exactly that, and a google of "air carriers terms and conditions" shows exactly the same thing, and if you didn't read it on page 5 or spend a couple of seconds looking it up, it shows you're prepared to reject it out of hand. Still, I'll link the major airlines terms and conditions. Keep ignoring it if you like.

Delta (161 M passengers), see rule 35A
http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.net/d ... ge_dom.pdf

Southwest (101 M passengers), see paragraph 6 A.3
http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/coc.pdf

American Airlines (85 M passengers) - they participate in the "TSA Secure Flight Information" program, see second link
http://www.aa.com/intl/cn/travelInformation_en/sfpd.jsp
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/se ... index.shtm

Bottom line, it's part of the terms and conditions of the commercial airlines that you have to pass through security. Your "proof" doesn't hold water. You buy a ticket, you agree to the security requirements. It's cut and dried.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss:

Again, nothing you've posted indicates that these requirements were voluntarily added by the carriers. Indeed, you've only provided more proof that the Federal Government has interjected these requirements into what was previously a transaction between two private parties. I'm not dismissing anything out of hand; you're simply making an assertion that is patently untrue. The requirements were not instated by the Airlines, they were put in place by the U.S. government and its agency the TSA.

Aizle:

Actually, I've expressed extreme displeasure at the measures in the past. And anywhere I've had to fly on an airline, I've done so because it was a requirement for my job. If I need to go somewhere on my own time, I can and do arrange other modes of travel, including using my own private light aircraft.

_________________

Fair enough, I've apparently missed them.

The solution presents itself rather obviously. Don't fly. Deny them enough income and economic force will cause both the airlines and the TSA (along likely with most of the Federal Government) to collapse as it attempts to bail out failing industries that it has walked to the grave.

In the aftermath start your own airline with like minded investors and have private security - bar anyone in government from flying without a body cavity inspection courtesy of petrified horse wang. Also include anyone who was "ok" with the idea that they could sacrifice other's freedom in the name for the theatrics of security.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The fact remains that folks voluntarily agree to pass through security when they purchase a ticket as one of the conditions for the service.

Nobody is being forced to submit to a security scan that doesn't want to be.

Even Elmo gets it.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss:

Have you even read my posts? Or, are you simply assuming you know my position other than my general dislike of intrusive government policies? Because, from where I'm standing, the only person not getting anything in this thread is you. Passing through security is, amusingly enough, not a condition of service placed on the customer by the airlines. If it were, I wouldn't give a ****. However, since all the evidence in the thread, including your own indicates that said condition of service is imposed by the Federal Government, I take issue with said condition's intrusive and constitutionally questionable nature.

The agent matters more than you think, and until you can provide conclusive proof that airport security measures were voluntarily enacted by the service provider, you've really no leg to stand on with the line of argument you've taken in this thread.

_________________

Sure it is, Khross. See the Delta provisions -
Amusingly enough, it is a condition of service. Explicitly.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss:

Except, as dictated by the law I posted earlier, it's not a condition of service added voluntarily by the airlines. Funny how your "condition" quotes verbatim the statute I cited. It seems to me you really don't understand the issue of agency in this case. Indeed, since the law I cited starts in various forms back in the 1970s, complete with revision notes, would you care to demonstrate when and where that "condition" was added to Delta's Terms of Service?

You're not proving your position by quoting Federally required conditions. As I demonstrated that a law requires such conditions, you really have no legs to stand on here except your bare assertion that the airlines are the party of agency.

_________________

Or, we could spend far less money, maximize security, minimize inconvenience to the traveller, and israelificate our airports.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Or, we could stop being pansies and require every airline traveler to carry a firearm. Rentals available at the gate.

_________________

Khross, folks enter into contract with the air carrier. At no time ever is it said that they have to go through security. Nobody is being taken, kicking and screaming. No force is being used. Folks'll either go through security or they'll be refused service, and that's a stipulation the air carrier insists on as part of the contract. There it is, black and white, can't get any clearer. All you've demonstrated is, you got a burr under your saddle and you're convinced the gov put it there.

Fly or don't fly, you have the choice.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This has got to be the silliest argument I've ever seen from you Taskiss. If the airlines were imposing the screening on us, the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration), a part of DHS, wouldn't be doing the security. It would be performed by a private screener for the airline. But instead you get to go through a metal detector, get patted down, or go through a backscatter machine before you ever enter a terminal. Hmm, not one airline has control over the entire terminal. Therefore, these measures are clearly imposed by the federal government with the airlines abiding by the government's demands in the name of safety.