Opting out of TSA scanners

why did you tell me to use pubmed if it's not even legit enough for you lol? yes, clearly.

still no example? no surprise.

Also not mad, that's just a ridiculously overused argument that's pretty retarded. If you think something is wrong, just turn a blind eye and ignore it. Even if you think my approach to the situation is completely off base, it just seems ridiculous to drop that line in response.


Just saying.

yeah I feel you man

this is about the effects of ingesting fluoride, you poor dumb bastard. i already told you that you're supposed to swish fluoride around in your mouth, not ingest and absorb it lol!!!

you are claiming there are many proven positive effects of ingesting fluoride without reference or even an example lol.

Nice try but, actually weak try. Bring something better next time.

You were talking about water fluoridation, and the articles you posted were also regarding water fluoridation. I never denied the fact that it was bad to ingest highly concentrated levels of fluoride. However, it still takes a shit ton to be lethal.

worried about your precious bodily fluids?

ingesting fluoride IS water fluoridation holy fuck. i asked if you agree that a person who drinks more of that water will ingest more fluoride........"The effect is negligible. Even if you ate a whole tube of fluoridated toothpaste in one sitting, you'd probably end up with nothing more than a stomach ache and maybe some vomiting."

lol what the fuck.......then i asked you why kids have died from ingesting just a single tube of toothpaste??? it does not take a shit ton to be lethal. where are you getting your information from? i hope it's not the same place that you hopelessly search for an example of "proven positive effects"...

It doesn't matter what YOUR risk is, it's the risk society perceives.

0.8 mg/L of fluoride in water is normal. It takes roughly 5-10 g of fluoride to be toxic in an adult. Enjoy drinking over 10,000L of water in one sitting!

If I hide drugs in my rectum will the scanner still detect them?

kind of relevant, I think that if anyone ever tried to hijack a plane again, the passengers would just be like "fuck this shit" and take them down. Like flight 93 (yes i know what happened).

straight out of wikipedia. BUT THAT'S NOT A LEGIT SOURCE! just fucking use their sources.

"A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre), depending on climate"

the lethal dose of fluoride is 5 to 10 grams

that means one fucking thousand liters in a short period of time coughimpossiblecough

so then you agree that a person who ingests/absorbs more of that water will also ingest more fluoride........lol

example:

person A takes 10 minute shower

person B takes 20 minute shower

=same amount of fluoride? hmmmm

please, since you know you are being affected by fluoride, get some tap and shower filters.

by the way, 0.8mg/L of this fluoride in water is not normal. 0.0mg/L of this fluoride is normal in water. this is not natural occuring fluoride, it is chemical.

He knows. He understands. He's said the doses are way to small to substantiate significant risk. Because he studies this stuff on a professional level.

What?!?!?!? So you're telling me you understand factors that constitute risk???!??!?! How did you do that without citing some dumb fuck links you just Googled!?!??!?!?

Hijackers were 3 for 4 that day man, what are you talking about? And a very significant factor contributing to Flight 93's rebellion was the fact that they heard from people on the ground the hijackers were trying to crash the plane into the White House. What's to say that without that information they also wouldn't have tried to wait it out like the other flights? These aren't theories, these are cases which proved a likely reaction from a common sample of people.

Honestly the only person who doesn't seem to be able to grasp that simple fact is you....

Alright, I'm out. Fuck this thread. You are too stupid for me to even comprehend anymore.

Sparknotes: Fluoride, just as any chemical, can be lethal in high concentrations. The concentration of fluoride in our drinking water is so small that the chances of it being lethal are exactly 0.0. The oral health benefits at this concentration are clearly demonstrated, and there are vast amounts of research studies to confirm this. Thank you and good night.

lol no, he doesn't.........

so if a person ingests way more water than average, the doses are the same lol?(let's say they take hour long baths) how is that possible?

i don't know, why are your jimmies rustled?

Yes, we do understand that. In fact that's so basic to me that I am physically incapable of understanding why you are bringing it up over and over and over. Your understanding of the factors which constitute anything more than negligible risk are nonexistent.

this is a huge problem with north american mentality. if something is not lethal than it is negligible? lol it does not have to be lethal to produce effects, clearly.  

yeaaaahhhhhh, the amount of that chemical is not enough to flat out kill me therefore it has no effects. 

lol we just have a difference of opinion. you believe that something like a chemical needs to be lethal to produce effects. i believe that anything can produce effects without causing death.

No. Seriously, no. You can't grasp this because you don't have any education on the subject. I'm trying to discuss science, engineering, and research with someone who has no experience in any of that so it's just Greek to you.

That's true but this is more a case of the government just saying this is what we're doing fuck you. There weren't a ton of people begging for these things. Also when did these even come out? Like mid 2010? It wasn't like it was right after sept 11th.

Myself? The constitution, general liberty is completely about myself. Exactly. "dim witted principals"? Are you fucking kidding me. The constitution get's fucked by legislation time and time again, and this is what you've got? Wow...

You keep talking about how worried society is. A bunch of that is by the media driven hype that keeps people scared but that's not even a great point. The security measures in place were not made because people needed something extra, the government said this is what we have and this is what you're going to take, take it like I give it.


Yes, give up your liberty for security.

What matters is liberty in the long run, each little piece that's chipped away isn't coming back. Look at all the freedoms we've lost in the name of terrorism. I'm not even remotely scared of the terrorists but even if I was, why doesn't the, "if we do this the terrorists win" argument apply here? Bad things that have happened because of terrorists in the us, very small number. Yet we've willingly given up all kinds of liberties at the threat of some scary brown middle eastern dude as long as the news and government said it was for the best.

"Your hurt feelings? "

You keep making this personal, it's not about me. IF you're from America(maybe you aren't) don't you care the least bit about the foundation of this country and what made it great?

" Why the fuck do you think anyone should take you seriously?"

You turned an argument about liberty into a you against my need for special personal privileges and crying about it, why would I take you seriously.


"Stop putting words in people's mouths and telling people to fuck off. A 5 year could grasp this shit."

Where am I putting words in your mouth? Maybe I did maybe I didn't but at least quote me in your melt.

"So much so that they would rather succumb to sitting around for 20 more minutes and wait to have someone touch their genitals instead. Airlines have a vested interest in satisfying their customers and keeping the public safe in the best way they see fit. That's their bottom line! That's how they make money and stay in business. I'd venture to say that getting the plane from A to B is the simplest thing they deal with. People are much harder to predict and manage. Satisfying customers involves providing security in an environment that many people are already FAR more nervous than the typical Taylor Swift concert, getting passengers to their gates in a reasonable amount of time, and otherwise making their experience as calming and enjoyable as possible."

That's what you said. Implying that the airlines saw the demand from people for better security and and brought in these machines to provide that security for the people that use them. If that's not what you meant than WTF did you mean? I'm not putting words in your mouth. That's what you're saying as far as I can tell.

It has nothing to do with passengers getting more nervous about flying and a need for the airline to step up security and everything to do with the government saying, this is what we're going to do, if you don't like it too bad(gotta love post 9/11 'Murica)

My point about the concerts and other venues was that there are a fuck ton of possibilities to kill a bunch of people there. If it's in the efforts of safety, why not put them everywhere. Why not put cameras everywhere. I mean it's for safety? We gotta be safe right?

I was just making that argument, you could disagree but I feel it was a relevant point to the argument at hand.

"and then wait for you telling me you're flipping me off in a manner a 6 year old wouldn't consider witty"

Why would I need to be witty with you? And I wasn't actually flipping you off. Just said I was sending you that vibe for the lols.

"But honestly what did I expect when I saw another thread from you? "

Doesn't really matter because you haven't been doing a very good job. Still want to know where I'm putting words in your mouth. One of your biggest points was completely off.

"Or more idiocy from the token NS bullshit factory?"

Lol, coming from you.

Posts things that have nothing to do with anything, or are straight up untrue, "You're putting words in my mouth but I won't quote you and tell you where, I'll just call you a 6 year old"

^ There I put some words in your mouth. Didn't even say anything mean. I'm feeling nice today.

And this isn't an opinion, I'm using fact and reason unlike yourself. That's not a "belief" you have there, that's considered common sense. I can understand that a rock can cause a bruise but not kill me, but the risk of having one thrown at me is something I've calculated to be quite low. Therefore, I don't abstain from being around rocks altogether or suggest others do so.

Also for the record since you probably won't read that, I actually quoted you when I was talking about different things you said from different posts. Not "putting words in your mouth".

I'm down to argue about nothing sometimes but seriously, you didn't really even bring up a valid point.

here's what you don't understand. people like you and ar6 have chosen to accept those "inherent risks"  just for a miniscule benefit but there are other people who choose not to adhere to that forcible tyranny. engineering has nothing to do with your personal health, that is your fabrication. that engineer has nothing to do with my body. i don't care what you choose to do with your body, but don't force shit on me. no ignorance my ass.

Click page 3. Arguement about flouride? What the fuck newschoolers?

MY VIEW ON TSA: Would you rather have your junk fondled, be scanned, or have the POTENTIAL for someone dangerous to be on ANY flight? I think its pretty self explanatory.....

Didn't they allegedly only have box cutters or swiss army knives? at least on one of the planes.

Plenty of scarier things out there but that's beside the point. You used to go through a metal detector. Could they just get ones that work? Metal knife, metal detector = metal detector goes off?

Also cockpit doors that stay shut. If they can't get in the cockpit whats the point of fucking shit up on a plane? Just kill some people and wait for it to land so you can get arrested?

Also there are plenty of areas where you're at more risk with almost no security. Hell if you're at the movie theater or food court in a mall you're probably going to get shot. I mean how often do planes have extreme violence vs the rest of the world all around us. Is see them as pretty safe.

do you deny the following facts?

dental fluorosis is caused by over-exposure to fluoride.

fluoride has never received fda approval.

the fda states fluoride is a prescription drug.

That environmental engineer who tests, develops, cleans, distributes, and approves everything and anything to do with your water and takes advice from health professionals have everything to do with what you put in your body if you voluntarily consume public water. If you don't want it and choose not to drink it based on your convictions or conclusions, that is your right to do so. I highly doubt a Canadian government has visited your home and forced fluoride and water down your throat so how can they "force that shit on (you)"? I have been to and studied these magic factories where water is made and distributed. I know what happens there.

Metal detectors deter the use of metal weaponry obviously, I agree. But unfortunately anybody that is willing to take down a plane (for whatever reason I dont know why) would know this and formulate a plan without using metal. Remeber the christmas day terrorist attempt where the dude lit some package on fire tied to his leg? Im assuming wherever he came from(dont remember), the security was either really lax or was just using metal detectors.

Yes, any place is unsafe. School shootings happen semi-often, and the colorado movie shooting adds to that, but from what I see, flying is much more sensitive due to the fact that most plane crashes are all or nothing.

But didn't the ones on sept 11 have metal knives? I guess security different now than back then but still. Seems a simple working metal detector is to blame more than needing a crazy search.


I hear you though you can def engineer around shit. I feel like with the xrays of carry on shit and luggage plus metal detectors they pretty much could get most of it.


I hear ya. I just feel like you could blow up a train, they aren't that hard to derail and could probably kill a decent amount of people. If a plane goes down it really is an all or nothing thing, either everyone's fucked or it lands safely somehow. But I think we overlook a lot and protect all of hazards onto flying while disregarding so many other everyday.

Yea if you would rather have them touch your balls.

unfortunately it is the public who decides. and thank god my city had a smart doctor fight to have that dogshit rejected.

Agreed, its because when an airplane goes down for any reason a MAJOR MAJOR investigation ensues it. I think the emphasis on airport security is because of the extra attention that an attempted attack gets. Ive never been on a travel train before but I definitely could see the security being much less strict. Fortunately there is enough trust in the general public for there to not be security checkpoints in malls, theatres, etc. there are always freaks of nature as sad as it is that upset this balance.

The fact that you notice those things...

I notice patterns, that's why I like video games. I'm paranoid because I notice the same massage repeating over and over again?

I didn't say anything about dislike security cameras in what you quoted. I did make a "why not put the scanners everywhere, and put scanners everywhere" type comment to another person in the thread at some point though.

"You seem pretty damn paranoid."

It's a simple observation bro, you should try it sometime.

shut the fuck up

1st. = "This is 'Murica if you don't like something you can gittttt out!" attitude. Classy.

2nd. = it's incredibly important but it's outdated and we should curb stomp it. We've lost a ton of freedoms in this country, most in recent years.

3rd. = The security in place is not the airlines private security. Implying that by not supporting the current measures I'm against all security everywhere at all times. Security could be run fine, probably better without them.

That's not what I'm saying, but many many peoples fear is because of this image of a middle eastern terrorist trying to blow them up. That's completely legit. That's something people are fucking terrified of. That's who we wanted to kill after 9/11 that's who people are scared to get on a plane with today, it's just how it is. I know they do.

Why don't xrays and metal detectors work for this? If the metal detectors aren't detecting metal maybe we should get better ones?

4. Sounds good. And not really but it's the principle. Yes everything is harmless. You simply just went with a don't like it, don't do it stand point, which doesn't really work with fixing problems regardless of if you even feel there is a problem.(which clearly you don't)

5. The size and power of the government IS important. If you don't agree than that's fine but don't act like it's so insanely ridiculous that it matters to somebody. Changing my behavior simply avoids the problem and does nothing. That's riding a bike instead of refusing to move to the back of the bus. (NOT trying to say that these are the same but trying to explain the idea in a way that's very simple to grasp)
I don't have a problem going through a metal detector. Fuck it the last flight I didn't even go through one, not even a bad search.(Kept telling me it was going to be a huge wait and was going to be horrible, I was like sure. There were were plenty of tsa workers standing around doing nothing, barely anyone going through security, like 3 or 4 in line at a time. And I only waited about 3 min.

"No one ever brought cost into the argument either so im not sure why you are bringing that up, unless you're trying to say money plays a bigger role in your decisions than your values."

Had to quote this. Are you trying to imply that my values aren't real and I'm too cheap to hold true to them? That's what it sounds like? Lol, nice point bro. Because my values actually mean something to me. ( I know touching moment yeah yeah) For real, values don't mean shit to many people these days. People will say one thing then easily flip when it seems to suit them.

6.

"Here you go again with your misguided assumptions."

You kind of implied that just a tad. Just saying.

Well from your posts you didn't seem to care too much about things, but then you said it was "incredibly important" then right after basically went the other way. So honestly whatever on that point.

"In regards to the constitution, already mentioned that earlier but its outdated as fuck. The principles are there, and they are as important as ever, policies are still made and changed because of them- but clinging to ridiculous ideas in the constitution just for the sake of them being in the constitution is insane. We need to change with our world, not cling to the past with everything we've got."



I understand, but we've pretty much just said YOLO and cast them aside just like that. Our government doesn't even seem to care about the principles.

Honestly thought you may think they're outdated, and maybe they are, I still thin we'd be a hell of a lot better off if we stuck with those values instead of the route our government has gone.

We'd have much more personal liberty, a USD that was actually worth something, a foreign policy that was much cheaper to maintain, far less government waste, less taxes, general smaller government with less involvement in every facet of our lives.

Governments will strive to gain more power, that's how they work, and they don't like to give back control. You and I probably completely disagree one the level we stand at and if it's in a good spot or not and that's fine.

I just didn't like the "then don't fly." as if any problem you see should simply be avoided. That's all, well a bunch of other shit we don't agree on but that was the start.

I love that there are 2 simultaneous, and completely different arguments going on in this thread.


A lot of it comes down to money. Airplanes cost money. Bring one down or damage one, and it costs a lot of money. It also damages the airlines image...which costs more money. The airline would rather give your junk a tug for 1 second than risk losing an airplane and crew.


I'm also a fan of attempts to link a document from the 1700s to modern air travel.

Yes and it's total lols. Thought about trying to add a 3rd one but couldn't think of a good topic.

The security measures are the governments doing on the airlines.

It's not about modern travel it's about principles and personal liberty. Even if you feel it should be tweaked for the modern day, I feel it'd be hard to argue that pretty much everything the government has sent our way is good for us and we should suck it up.

Ans george washington flew man, he did

water fluoridation has been solid considering that has literally nothing at all to do with the threat title, and yet started just a few posts in.

They may be put in place, but do you think the airlines are in favor of eliminating them and just letting everyone on their planes? If airlines ran security, it would most likely be even more strict and nonsensical. But thats how it was before, and they messed up so they lost it.

It's more the idea of being able to freely travel the country. You're still as free to walk from maine to california as you were 200 years ago. In no way are you limited. It's your convenience that is being restricted.


And airport security is most definitely effective. You want proof, look up the wiki about aircraft hijackings. Back in the 70s it seemed like it was happening weekly.

In Dutchland people didn't like being looked at like this:



So the software now transforms you into this scary emotionless puppet and highlights any objects with yellow markings.

It really was strange, can't say I saw that one coming.

Not at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if the airlines didn't want to change them at all. Also wasn't saying they should get rid of all security measures, there can be a balance. Idk, if it was too ridiculous people would demand changes. No matter what you put in place, bad things will still happen in life. Also working metal detectors seem like they would be enough to stop people from getting through with knives and box cutters.

Well as long as you stay more than 100 miles from the borders. Also the patriot act and other legislation has made it more of a grey area. You're probably alright, but if something happened you can't really assume that everything will get cleared up since you were doing nothing wrong.

I know. Back then they didn't have shit in place now. You don't need what we have now though, and that's not saying we need to go back to having nothing. Arguing that what we have has better results than having almost nothing does nothing here, I wasn't arguing that. Also for hijackings, just lock the fucking door. If you can have decent cockpit door that seals for the flight if necessary, people can't really hijack much. So at most, if you can sneak a bomb past security, successfully blow up the plane, kill 2 or 300 people, and hope to maybe lad it on something else(all you can do is hope) At that rate why not just take out a train, or a bus or something. I mean hell go for a couple buses. You could take out the same amount of people with no effort at all really I mean you'd have to make the bomb kill them as you don't have 30k feet to drop but still.

Just saying, if we xray bags, go through metal detectors, and lock the cockpit door(don't even care that's just for the point), are we really as a massively greater risk since we don't have the sweet body scans? I just don't see it.

Stumbled on this trying to figure out where the fluoride argument started.

Not a joke. If you have working metal detectors, there's not really that much shit you can get through. Hell you could probably break off your tray table and make a prison style shank out of it on a long flight.

You act like there are sOOOOOO many terrorists roaming the streets in America. Like 1 in every 5 people is a terrorist just waiting to strike. You'd almost think there was the way the media hypes everything up.

So yes when the 100k+ terrorists go through security they will all get onto planes because they can opt out and get a pat down instead of going through that bullshit scanner.

Really it's such a risky thing to fly. Like any time your on a plane you have a 15% chance of randomly getting shanked by a terrorist. The threat is HUGE.

You have a better chance of dying from food poisoning, the flue, car crash, or a ton of other things. You probably don't worry about that when you go to taco bell, when you go outside without your coat, or when you drive fast down the road. Just saying.

Everything just got over hyped. The media blasts it and we all freak out and crawl into our shells.

Remember all the things we were all going to die from? Not surprised I don't know anyone that died from anthrax, mad cow disease, etc.

We're all going to die eventually. The truth is you do far more risky things than flying on a daily basis, why don't you worry about the terrorists then?

the paranoia in this thread is unreal. tsa is there for a damn good reason, the only thing i find ridiculous is when a service member is selected for a patdown.

As for the metal detector thing, you could get a ceramic knife through.

Also I completely agree with basically all your posts here, people do make way too big of a deal about things, especially when the media gets involved and hypes it up. Look at all the people that were freaking out about swine flu. It really wasn't a big deal at all and people were brainwashed into thinking that it was the black plague.