Dick Bombs

[tongodeon]

A while ago Anwar al-Awlaki made some guy put a bomb on his dick. al-Awlaki is also connected to guys like the Fort Hood shooter and the recent toner bomb, and it looks like he's not going to stop any time soon

Comments

[redstapler]

I think the concerns of people who are survivors of sexual assault are pretty valid.

I think it's also worth noting that there seems to be a likelihood of the guards doing the "dick checks" being of the opposite sex of the check-ee. That's not cool, for some, having to choose between PTSD and exposure to radiation (understanding the amount of radiation we're exposed to on the day-to-day), is offensive.

[tongodeon]

I think the concerns of people who are survivors of sexual assault are pretty valid.

Or the concerns of people who are afraid of snakes toward the cables that connect the machines to wall power. Or the concerns of plane crash survivors toward flying on the actual planes. Or the concerns of bomb survivors toward flying on planes with dick bombs on them.

I recognize that people are afraid of stuff, but a lot of people are afraid of a lot of stuff. If there's a sensible way out of this problem I don't think we're going to find it by saying that one person's fears are more important than other people's fears.

having to choose between PTSD and exposure to radiation (understanding the amount of radiation we're exposed to on the day-to-day), is offensive

That's the false dilemma I was talking about. It's really a choice between PTSD, exposure to radiation, exposure to dick-bombs on planes, and not flying. And unfortunately that seems to be the choice regardless what policies the TSA enacts, unless you've got an idea that I haven't heard

[redstapler]

Or the concerns of people who are afraid of snakes toward the cables that connect the machines to wall power. Or the concerns of plane crash survivors toward flying on the actual planes. Or the concerns of bomb survivors toward flying on planes with dick bombs on them.Except for the part where, statistically, there are a whole hell of a lot more survivors of sexual assault than there are any of those other groups combined. I'd even go so far as to say your argument could be a straw man. You're very good about showing your work and citing sources, so I'm not keen to accuse you of that in the majority of your posts. (Or, honestly, pretty much any post of yours I've read before

[tongodeon]

there are a whole hell of a lot more survivors of sexual assault than there are any of those other groups combined.You're missing the point. People who are afraid of snakes might be concerned by cables that look like snakes, but it's unlikely that they actually *are* snakes. It's far more likely that ordinary cables are performing an essential function. If a snake gets into an airport that's fine, it's not the end of the world. The odds of a real airport snake biting a person in line is actually quite low. We should check cables to see if they're snakes, but we shouldn't ban cables because someone might get freaked out

[flwyd]

That's not how mental trauma works. You might know that someone's not going to rape you, but just having a stranger touch you in sensitive places may trigger painful memories and could even lead to debilitating or aggressive reactions.

[redstapler]

I guess at heart, we're having two different discussions.

My point is that for some number of people, having the "show you naked scan" is untenable, either because of the perceived radiation threat, or a desire to not be seen naked.

Then there's another number of people (and there's probably a bit of crossover in that venn diagram) for whom the more invasive search is enough of a potential unpleasantness (ranging from "I'm uncomfortable with this" to full full-on panic attack), that it's also untenable.

And then you have a probably statistically high enough percentage of the population who at one point were paying airline customers who now no longer will be.

You're coming at it from an unemotional place, but this is not an unemotional issue.

[flwyd]

And then you have a probably statistically high enough percentage of the population who at one point were paying airline customers who now no longer will be.

I keep hoping that ridiculous rules, uncomfortable cramming, and customer disservice in the typical air travel experience will rejuvenate the long-nascent American passenger rail system. Unfortunately, the factor of ten time differential is rather hard to overcome.

[redstapler]

Even if someone is "more interested in getting a handful" it gets boring after the first twenty handfuls.

Additionally, I used to work for an adult website, and it's true, there comes a point where naked people cease to be titillating.

[flwyd]

What's more, the TSA folks spend the day getting a handful of everyday Americans. Once you've gotten twenty handfulls of grandmothers and couch potatoes, you're probably looking forward to the experience as much as the subject. Folks in porn at least tend to be above-average in attractiveness.*

* For certain definitions of attractive.

[rocza]

if you have a security line full of people of mixed genders, and you have more male TSA agents than female, eventually, you're going to end up with male agents checking female passengers, and someone's going to be more interested in getting a handful than checking for a dick or vag bomb.

Maybe, but probably not. It's still a spot check, and so far, they've not seemed to have any issue having the right gender available for a pat down. The longest wait I've ever seen was post-Xmas travel out of PDX, where they had to ask a man to wait for under 5 minutes, as they were slightly understaffed with men that day.

[tongodeon]

If there was no radiation issue with the scanners, I'd do that in a heartbeat.

I started writing a response and it went long, so I turned into another post.

[redstapler]

Fair enough, I concede that one.

I apologize for letting my "oh shit, that could give me cancer!" reflex from clouding the facts.

[newsbean]

Just to be clear, there is still plenty of debate about the subject in the scientific community. Here's a letter (PDF) from scientists at UCSF with more. Summary: Because the radiation is concentrated in the skin, there is reason to worry about the dosage.

[tongodeon]

I'm familiar with that concern; it was referenced in my first post. A bunch of people are mailing me about it, so I'm doing a detailed write-up for an upcoming third post.

[newsbean]

The scientists at UCSF are joined by scientists at John's Hopkins: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Naked+scanners+airports+dangerous+scientists/3819955/story.html

Sorry, I read your post. I understand your argument. But I go with the medical researchers at the two top medical research facilities in the US. I'm not the government's guinea pig.

[tongodeon]

Sorry, I read your post. I understand your argument. But I go with the medical researchers at the two top medical research facilities in the US.

I've read their arguments, and I think I understand them, except for the part where it's a problem. What neither of them are doing is contextualizing the received dose relative to any other risk. They'll say that perhaps the risk is 10 or 100 times worse than we thought, but if we thought it was equivalent to 6 minutes of background radiation at 30,000 feet then what's the risk now? 1 hour? 10 hours? Yawn.

Basically this sounds like global warming all over again. You've got a consensus of scientists on one side and a handful of guys on the other side with claims that don't really seem to add up even if you believe them. I don't believe the global warming truthers and I don't find the backscatter truthers much more credible.