Odd question about International PlayFollow

I just payed 2300 dollars for a plane ticket... for ME.
If those radiation machines saved THEM money, that saved ME money. I wouldn't want to see another 1-5% tacked on to my ticket for the more expensive 'safe' machine.

How does an artificial sweetener increase chances of getting diabetes and gaining weight? I thought the sweeteners were there to prevent those two things?

Anyway, aspartame gives brain cancer, glucitol gives diarrhea and regular sugar gives diabetes. Honestly, no one's a winner in this game.

I can't live my life in fear of every little thing. Keep away from my sugar, caffeine, hamburgers, and beer.

Yep, we instill too much fear into ourselves. Would I like if it were like the old days where you just walk through the airport, go to your gate, and board? Sure as hell would! Hell, remove the metal detector and let me just ZIP through.
Fear of radiation, fear of being 'fat,' fear of being singled out, fear of a god....
As we add more and more fears to our daily lives, how does this make our lives any better?
Eat real sugar, give a rat's *** about any radiation you come across, and ENJOY.

Point is, whether or not there's an additional .02% chance of 'dying' from a radiation source, people need to JUST NOT WORRY ABOUT IT.
ANYONE who:
Smokes tobacco
Drinks alcohol
Consumes artificial sweeteners

Waives their right, IMO, to complain about being exposed to something that gives them a fraction of a percent of a chance to die.

Edit: I could add the obvious stuff, like does hard drugs, bungee jumps, skydives, etc.

Edited, Jun 12th 2011 12:17pm by jaysgsl

I didn't mean to imply you were not involved. I was replying to other posts by those who weren't from America.



Please give me a list of significant bombing attempts in the United States prior to 9/11. Because beside the occasional local nut job there have been no significant attempts. There was the first WTC bombing, but any other attempts were few and far between. Since 9/11 there have been a whole slew of attempts.



I don't disagree with you on this. I am not a fan of the methods of the TSA in any way shape or form. All I'm saying is I understand their paranoia. Understanding the reasons for it and agreeing with it are two very different things. I agree they have gone way too far. We should be taking a look at Israel's airport security. Their methods have been successful for a long time and go nowhere near as extreme as ours have.



That logic doesn't really seem accurate. Just because a single airport is theoretically a lower risk target doesn't mean the overall risk of an attack is lower. We're evaluating threats from a baseline of pre-9/11. The fact of the matter is we are far more at risk of a terrorist attack than two decades ago.

In the end, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Both of us are looking at this from different perspectives. I do agree with some of your points. I agree that the TSA has gone way too far, but I also believe that increased security is needed. Just not necessarily in the form it is today.

'

It's only significant because it succeeded. If the terrorists had been detained at airport security before they boarded the plane, then no one would be any wiser. Sure, the government might have released some sort of statement, but it wouldn't be remembered in any great detail. The extent of it would be "Man, remember when we stopped those guys trying to hijack planes".

Right, and the industry that runs the airports decided they wanted those scanners. They were given a choice. Small and large business are as much people as you and I.
When you go to an airport, you are visiting their property, and using their client's equipment. I think it's fair to follow their rules.
If a person goes into your house, and sits down to chill and play some video games, who are they to ***** that you have a radioactive Redringbox360 rather than a safe, easy to consume Wii?

Actually, most airlines absolutely hate these scanners, because they've seen a drop in business since they were implemented. People who are already sketchy on flying are livid about the invasion of privacy, and it's more than enough to keep a decent percent of fliers away.

And airline employees are pissed because of the increased radiation risk (which potentially is a dangerous level for them--the studies checking this have yet to be concluded). As a result of a lawsuit, it was just recently decided that pilots and stewardesses weren't required to go through the same security checks as normal fliers.

TSA isn't a part of the airline industry, it's a gov't agency. They make the rules and the airlines have to accept what they demand.

For one thing, those film badges are radioactive (You need radiation to detect radiation, that's why Army Compass /testers are radioactive).
Also, you get 'radiation' from flying in many different ways, including just 'passing through' the radiation' as you fly. We ALWAYS move through radioactive particles, the faster you go, the more dangerous they are.

But, again, we are talking about specific types of radiation. It's not all the same energy level. Yes, two minutes of flying is theoretically an equal amount of radiation. But you get it in a single, higher-energy, concentrated burst from the scanners. That's one of the objections that already exists to them, and some agencies already feel that it's a problem (though that's contested between organizations).

I have a solution for the anxiety.....
Now, if they told me that my plants answering their cell phones was giving THEM enough radiation to be sterile, I may worry.

Forget the radiation and sterilizing, I'd be plain worried if plants were answering cell phones. The rest is just icing on the cake.