TYT: X-Ray Van Sees Through Homes

[ihavenobias]

Run time: 05:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2YW7-4Gbw   Posted on YouTube: October 02, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 1509   Posted on DU: October 02, 2010 By DU Member: ihavenobias Views on DU: 1351

 
Summary: You can http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0929/Feds-radiating-Americans-Mobile-X-ray-vans-hit-US-streets|read more here>.

PS---Check out (and subscribe, it's free) our new channel, http://www.youtube.com/thetopvlog|The Top Vlog>. There are other great vloggers from Huffington Post, NPR, Daily Kos, Firedoglake, Think Progress, Brave New Films, Daily Show Co-Creator Lizz Winstead and more!

[rrneck]

1. The privatized, monitized, fetishized MIC thunders ahead apace. nt

[Xipe Totec]

2. Don't worry, sometimes it's hard to see private parts...

Maybe that's because oh, I don't know, because they're absorbing that X-ray radiation?

How would you like your eggs cooked?

[Rozlee]

3. Not the ones in my ovaries, I hope.

:scared:

[Confusious]

4. Because it is soft tissue and passes right through. nt

[Xipe Totec]

6. If you say so

I'd just as soon not have my huevos fried sunny side up with x-rays, thankyouverymuch.

[Confusious]

7. It gets fried everyday from cosmic rays.

I suggest not going outside, a cave preferably.

[Xipe Totec]

8. It's additive risk

We can't do anything about cosmic rays, but we definitely can do something about fucking vans irradiating people with x-rays.

You have a problem with that?

[Confusious]

9. Very minor. More of a risk driving.

Treating it as if " I'm going to die if any radiation hits me!"

That, I have a problem with.

You would have to stand in front of it for years for a problem to develop.

As for the personal liberties part, Illegal search. It's bullshit to allow this.

[Xipe Totec]

11. Again, it's additive

There are avoidable risks, and unavoidable risks.

Minor though that may be, there is a fundamental problem with somebody exposing you to radiation without consent.

No matter how small the risk, you do not have the right to subject people to scientific experiments without their consent.

[Confusious]

14. It's not an experiment.

An experiment takes an unknown and makes it a known.

The effects of Xrays are very well known.

The effects are also not additive. Your body can take a certain amount of radiation. Genetic damage and cell damage can be repaired by your body.

If you get too much at once, though, it goes beyond what the body can repair. Walking into the core of a nuclear reactor unprotected, for example.

As far as being exposed without your consent, you have a point there.

[liberation]

16. "Genetic damage and cell damage can be repaired by your body."

I hope you are implying damage which is minimal and naturally occurring.

Even if X-ray radiation was totally harmless, which it isn't, it doesn't matter since this is a gross transgression against privacy rights/concerns.

[Confusious]

17. An amount above what you get on a yearly basis from cosmic rays

and other natural sources of radioactivity.

As for totally harmless, what is? Every thing has a certain amount beyond which it's detrimental.

"gross transgression against privacy rights/concerns"

Already said that, in different words.

[gtar100]

10. I don't think the use of x-rays will convince the powers that be.

Health of US citizens is the least of their concerns. What it is, is a direct invasion of privacy. Could even be argued to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment:

Amendment IV (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I would say it's an unreasonable search. And to use it without warrant, an additional violation.

[Xipe Totec]

12. I'm not arguing that because it is prima facia obvious

IV amendment violation, check. No argument.

Exposing people to x-ray radiation without consent. That's experimenting on human subjects without consent. That's crimes against humanity.

On top of IV Amendment violations.

[Xipe Totec]

13. dupe nt

[20score]

5. This is unbelievable! Everyone should be infuriated.

[kdtroxel]

15. Is this a new form of public weapon, a targeted cancer van?

I have a few questions:

1) How long do they sit in front of a residence to spy with x-rays?

2) How long does the exposure to x-rays increase the rate of cancer to the recipients?

3) Do they target people of known dissidence or racial groups?

4) Does the community cancer rate increase in areas these vans are used in?

5) Does big Pharmacia have an investment or interest in promoting this type of surveillance?

6) How can a government restrained by constitutional rules pertaining to rights and privacy, justifies this type of invasive espionage upon citizens without due process?

7) Should I paint my house with lead paint, just to have some privacy from a government gone mad?

[Confusious]

18. Christ

2) How long does the exposure to x-rays increase the rate of cancer to the recipients?

If you stood if front of it for a couple of years, day in day out, a lot.

Just because you get a little more radiation doesn't mean you get cancer.

You get more in a year from cosmic rays.

[20score]

19. How many rems do these machines give off?

Seriously?

[Confusious]

21. Sorry, homework.

The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.05 μSv (or 0.005 mrems) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.09 μSv (0.009 mrems). At the high altitudes typical of commercial flights, naturally occurring cosmic radiation is considerably higher than at ground level. The radiation dose for a six hour flight is 20 μSv (2 mrems) - 200 to 400 times larger than a backscatter scan. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure".<12>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

[HelenWheels]

20. People seem to be fine with share it all with airport screeners

why not with perverted cops?