Chemotherapy Patients Set Off Subway Alarms

dave writes "Recently, cities such as New York and elsewhere have been installing radiation detectors in subways as an anti-terror precaution. However, as reported in New Scientist, patients who are undergoing radiation treatment are setting off the alarms. From the article, "a 34-year-old patient who had been treated with radioactive iodine for Graves disease, a thyroid disorder, returned to their clinic three weeks later complaining he had been strip-searched twice in Manhattan subway stations.""

Comments

Al Queda's new weapon

[Masami Eiri]

Irradiated pedestrians! Seriously though, I never thought they'd get enough radiation shot into them to set off detectors, unless the threshold is way to low.

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[stilwebm]

Don't fire alarms use radiological material?

Not fire alarms, but smoke detectors. They use a small amount of Americium in smoke detectors as well as some of those nifty advanced smoke/vapor detectors you might find in data centers. Still, I see the number of cases of people carrying smoke detectors through the subways in New York as rather small.

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[dweezle]

Smoke detectors!? Bah! Use Colman propane lamp mantles. They're bitchen' beta emitters. We used to use them for training but had to stop using them...too hot.

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[tuxlove]

I guess we haven't heard any stories about timex setting off the nuke detectors...so it can't be all that bad can it?

Tritium gives off beta particles, I believe (either that or it's alpha particles). They cannot penetrate the glass or plastic face of the watch, nor the bezel. They stay within the watch, and so pose no risk. But that's somewhat irrelevant given the rarified particle count and the nature of beta particles.

As for your gunsight, the tiny dot of tritium gives off next to no radiation, but in any case the particles only travel a few inches at most. You'd have to practically touch it to the radiation detector to set it off, if even that would do it.

I have a Vaseline glass bead I use to test my Geiger counters with, and it has to be taken out of its paper sleeve and placed next to the detector tube to be measurable. Within a centimeter or two it puts off 20 times the normal background radiation, but 10 centimeters away you can barely tell the difference. It's the uranium in the green tint that exudes radioactive particles, but the quantity of radiation and the nature of beta particles make it effectively undetectible at any range. My guess is that your tritium sight is even less radioactive.

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[Hadlock]

do they emit beta radiation when in the plastic bag? or only when lit? what's in them that they emit radiation?

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Camping lantern mantles contain either thorium or yttrium for a metal that aids in lighting performance and does well in heat.

Most new mantles are yttrium and are non-radioactive, but from all accounts the older thorium mantles were superior.

Thorium emits alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. It does this regardless of whether it is heated or not.

On a sidenote, tritium can't be detected by a geiger counter even when bare because the radioactivity in it is that weak (you have to use a scintillation counter over time), and smoke detectors exclusively emit alpha radiation and can't be detected by a geiger counter beyond about 1 cm from the GM tube.

I have a geiger counter I made and it's a lot of fun to play around with. A family member recieved a thyroid test using iodine-131 and I could detect the radioactivity from over two feet away.

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[Melantha_Bacchae]

tswinzig wrote:

> Too low? I'd say the detectors are working just
> right. Yeah it sucks for these patients, but they
> can work this out.

Those patients have rights! They should not be stripped searched because they are receiving treatment for a terminal illness. They should not have to carry papers to prove to the police that they are not terrorists. And they should not be barred from using public transportation.

> I'd much rather have a few false positives than
> possibly miss a dirty bomb shielded in lead.

If a dirty bomb was properly shielded, it wouldn't give a true positive (though there are far easier nukes to shield). The police would be busy strip searching cancer patients while the terrorists walked on through. I'm actually surprised with all the pollution from nuclear testing in the fifties and sixties that any detector could work reliably without giving off tons of false positives.

Perhaps everyone should just ride the subways (fly in airplanes, etc.) in their birthday suits. But that might violate your rights, which might induce you to care.

As for the mean terrorists: if they play with nuclear fire, they are gonna get burned, big time. That's what the Red Bamboo found out in 1966, the hard way.

"Once we wake Godzilla, he'll take care of those guys."
Ichiro "Godzilla, Ebira, Mothra: Big Duel in the South Sea" (Japanese version, 1966)

As it was before, may it be again. Grant us this, Godzilla! ("Godzilla March")

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[overunderunderdone]

I'm all for setting these things so that cancer patients don't set them off but...

Those patients have rights! They should not be stripped searched because they are receiving treatment for a terminal illness.

No, they should be strip searched because they set of a radiation detector. That is an important distinction. If these "false positives" can be eliminated by adjusting the sensors then we should do so. BUT the idea that we face no threats worth occasional inconveniences to guard against is a hopelessly naive and borderline suicidal attitude.

If a dirty bomb was properly shielded, it wouldn't give a true positive

True, but radiation sensors raise the bar and afford one more place where a potential terrorist can screw up and get caught. Any security measure in any field can be overcome, that does not mean that therefore all security measures are useless.

As for the mean terrorists: if they play with nuclear fire, they are gonna get burned, big time. That's what the Red Bamboo found out in 1966, the hard way.

Well I don't know if we should be using movies starring King Kong and Mothra as the basis for our security decisions.

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[telstar]

I'm tired of people trying to say that everybody is 100% identical and that we should focus on the least common denominator when dealing with situations. Face it. People are different, and as such ... we need to have different ways of handling people that don't fit into a mold.

In this case, if the detectors are set at the level they need to be set at in order to detect a signal, then prior to receiving radiation therapy the people will need to understand that one of the burdens that comes along with their treatment is this additional hassle. The system should attempt to come up with a humane way of dealing with people that experience this problem, and I'm guessing that as these detectors become more widespread ... they will.

You say that these people shouldn't be strip-searched, forced to carry papers, or banned from public transportation. I agree with the third statement, but unless security has a way to detect what is causing the radiation, what do you suggest we use as the litmus test for these individuals? Their word? How do you propose the source of radiation be located?

I'm not suggesting that we deprive people of their rights ... but as the world changes, so must the people that live in it. If the detectors are set at the level they need to be set at to detect a dirty-bomb and make my city safe for the millions that live and travel through here every day, then the fraction of the population whose lives are inconvenienced by the additional safety measures will have to adapt, just as every other New Yorker I know has adapted to heightened security since September 11th.

Telstar - A New Yorker

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[treat]

Still, I see the number of cases of people carrying smoke detectors through the subways in New York as rather small

If you buy a smoke detector in New York, how do you expect to get it home?

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[Melantha_Bacchae]

overunderunderdone wrote:

> No, they should be strip searched because they set
> of a radiation detector. That is an important
> distinction.

Setting a detector off, especially setting a detector off that is known to go off for perfectly innocent people, is no reason to have one's rights tossed in the dumpster. If it is, well I hear that terrorists exhale carbon dioxide. I think we should detect for that too. ;)

> True, but radiation sensors raise the bar and
> afford one more place where a potential
> terrorist can screw up and get caught. Any
> security measure in any field can be overcome,
> that does not mean that therefore all security
> measures are useless.

They are worse than useless if the cops are too busy strip searching the innocent to catch the terrorist. They are also worse than useless if they are detecting the wrong thing in the wrong place. Subways are the domain of the biological and chemical (as well as the plain explosives) terrorist. Dirty bombers would prefer large open habitats of great civic value with high human populations (like ye old baseball stadium).

> Well I don't know if we should be using movies
> starring King Kong and Mothra as the basis for
> our security decisions.

I'll definitely agree about King Kong (especially Toho Kong). Mothra is another story. You see, she did a movie back in 1998 called "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks". In the original version of the movie, King Ghidora is refered to as "dai ma" or great devil. In the summer 1999 Toho Video release, the English subtitles had "King of Terror" instead. First the King of Terror raided the schools. Then he attacked the cities, starting by flying into a twin towered skyscrapper, collapsing both towers. People ran screaming from the deadly clouds of debris, one man trying to talk on his cell phone as he ran. Mothra went back into the past to kill his younger self who was trying to make the dinosaurs extinct 65 million years too early. This caused his present day self to disappear. Sometime after the presumed death of the King of Terror, he resurrected, more terrifying than before. Mothra, who had also died 130 million years in the past flying his younger self into the active caldera of an infant Mount Fuji, resurrected by exploding out of an "egg" of petrified silk. Covered in silver armor with silver edged wing "swords", Armored Mothra fought the King of Terror in the skies above Mount Fuji and killed him, this time for good.

One could dismiss this as just a movie, but Japanese kaiju eiga is a different breed, more akin to miracle plays and shamanic dances. When you dress gods worshiped by millions of people in rubber suits (or in Mothra's case, a marionette), and have them act out their mythologies and prophecies, the resultant "movies" have a disturbing tendency to come true.

You see, there is a Mothra. You can usually see her up in the sky on a clear day. Of course she is so bright all you see is a big round ball of light. ;)

People:
"Compassionate Sun, Sun Goddess, Great Mothra! Great Mothra! Mothra!"

Shobijin:
"Please open your eyes, Mothra.
Flowers are opening in the sun, Mothra.
Everyone is waiting for you to be present.
The sky turned pale as you pass by,
Your wings shining, flying, grant us this, Mothra."
Japanese language "Mothra's Song", "Ebirah, Horror of the Deep"

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[Black Copter Control]

do they emit beta radiation when in the plastic bag? or only when lit?

Chemical reactions deal with the atoms circling a nucleus. Atomic reactions deal with the nucleus itself. Radiation emission is an atomic reaction, not a chemical reaction. Unless you have tenperatures and preussures like those in a fusion reactor (trying to recreate conditions at the heart of a star) heat and pressure have almost no direct effect on nuclear reactions.

The reason why overheating a nuclear reactor is considered a bad thing is that it can melt the mechanical devices that are used to moderate the reaction. This can result in unwanted changes to the geometry of the nuclear fuel and the moderating materials.. It's this uncontrolled change in geometry that can result in either

• a critical reorientation of the fuel (nuclear explosion), or
• a mechanical [steam] explosion that releases radioactive debris into the open environment.

Re:Al Queda's new weapon

[overunderunderdone]

Setting a detector off, especially setting a detector off that is known to go off for perfectly innocent people, is no reason to have one's rights tossed in the dumpster. If it is, well I hear that terrorists exhale carbon dioxide. I think we should detect for that too. ;)... They are worse than useless if the cops are too busy strip searching the innocent to catch the terrorist

I think you are vastly overstating the number of false positives these detectors are producing. I was just at Penn Station and the security guys did not appear to be swamped by cancer patients setting off alarms. Unlike exhaling CO2 only a very, very, very few people are actively radioactive. Of course there is a much smaller number of people that are radioactive for not-so-innocent reasons. Still I think we have a much better chance of catching that one potential bad guy with the unhealthy glow that comes from smuggling a leaky suitcase nuke from Kazakstan or stealing nuclear waste from an insecure container somewhere if we are searching the few dozens glowing subway passengers rather than having to search all 7 million NY residents because you think it is wrong to even be *suspicious* of anyone until their guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. How we could ever investigate anyone to get that proof without at least starting at the stage where we are merely suspicious & willing to act on those suspicious is an interesting problem.

Dirty bombers would prefer large open habitats of great civic value with high human populations (like ye old baseball stadium).

Ah, but how do they get them there? They just might take the subway. They might even just be taking the subway just to go out for diner after a night of packing radioactive material into a bomb casing. Or to get from the port where they left their suitcase nuke to the apartment of their local contact.

New York has to assume that if some terrorist does have a radiological, or far worse, a nuclear weapon they are likely to be the target. And neither is that far fetched. A crude radiological weapon is not that hard to build, probably well within the capabilities of a well financed and organized terrorist organization. A suitcase nuke isn't even that hard if you manage to have money and the luck to find someone willing to sell one of those that are believed to be missing from the former USSR's arsenal. (It's not terribly comforting that the main reasons Matthew Bunn thinks General Lebed is wrong and there are NOT ~100 missing suitcase nukes is that Soviet paperwork is so screwed up he could *think* they are missing when they really still there) Sure they are only 1-kiloton but that would still make a pretty big crater in the center of Manhattan.

huh?

[gralem]

Chemotherapy is not radiation therapy!

Re:huh?

[PD]

That's right. If it were the same thing, every drunk that pissed on the subway wall would set the alarm off.

Re:huh?

[Idarubicin]

Chemotherapy is not radiation therapy!

In this case, it is.

Graves disease is a form of hyperthyroidism, in which the thyroid secretes excessive amounts of certain hormones. The treatment of Graves disease involves removal of part or all of the thyroid, chemical supression of hormone production, or destruction of the thyroid using radiation.

In the latter treatment, doctors take advantage of the fact that iodine is concentrated by the body in the thyroid gland. After dosing a patient with radioactive iodine-131 (in this case, 20 millicuries--a nontrivial amount) the iodine will accumulate rapidly in the thyroid. While it decays, it kills off most or all thyroid tissue without doing serious damage to the rest of the body. With a half-life of about eight days, the stuff remains detectable for quite a while.

So--what we've done is use the chemical properties of a material (I-131) to deliver radiation therapy. Presto! Chemotherapy that is also radiotherapy. Actually, I'd probably lean towards describing it as brachytherapy, just to make everyone happy.

Re:huh?

[Imabug]

radioiodine therapy is not chemotherapy, nor is it brachytherapy. chemotherapy is the use of cytotoxic chemicals (none of which are radioactive) to kill cancer cells at a faster rate than normal cells. Brachytherapy is the implantation of radioactive sources into a tumour to kill them.

Radioiodine therapy is a form of radioisotope therapy.

there is also radioimmunotherapy, which uses monoclonal antibodies usually labelled with a beta emitter to deliver targeted radiation to a specific antigen expressing tumour.

Re:huh?

[Idarubicin]

chemotherapy is the use of cytotoxic chemicals...

You're using the most popular--but also narrowest--definition of chemo. Pull out your Merriam-Webster (online at www.m-w.com) and the first definition is a literal interpretation of the term:

chemotherapy: n. The use of chemical agents in the treatment or control of disease or mental illness

Brachytherapy is the implantation of radioactive sources into a tumour to kill them.

Brachytherapy is a blanket term is radiotherapy that covers a range of techniques to place radioactive sources in close proximity to a target volume within the body. It may include the use of sealed seeds (iodine-131 sealed in a casing is often used for prostate cancer) than can be permanently implanted. It also includes high dose rate therapies where wires within catheters or needles tipped with potent radioactive sources (ie iridium-192), are inserted into the body for a few minutes at a time, again to precisely deliver radiation to a controlled volume. The other broad branch of radiotherapy is teletherapy--external beam radiotherapy--which obviously doesn't apply in this case.

Re:huh?

[Idarubicin]

I fully concur on your last point. Total body irradiation in preparation for a bone marrow transplant is definitely one of the least pleasant treatments in oncology--and that's a field with a lot of competition in that regard.

That said, not all radiation therapy has acutely painful side effects. Radiotherapy for localized skin lesions is often very quick and causes only mild discomfort.

Prostate cancer can be treated using conventional external beam radiotherapy with all its attendant side effects. One alternative involves inserting anywhere up to about a hundred metal-encased 'seeds' of iodine-131 into the prostate to deliver radiation in situ. The patient can return home after the one inpatient procedure.

Although I appreciate the misery of what you went through, deciding whether or not something counts as radiotherapy, or chemotherapy, or both based on how bad its side effects are doesn't hold water.

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

The word "chemical" is such a broad term that most substances qualify, so stating that chemotherapy is "the use of chemical ages in the treatment or control of desease or mental illness" equates to saying "the treatment of diseases or mental illness, by the use of stuff." And that's broad enough to include taking asprin.

Re:huh?

[DunbarTheInept]

And that's broad enough to include taking asprin.

Yes, it is. *raises eyebrows in amusement; eyes twinkle* So?

So radiotherapy is not distinct from chemotherapy. as you had said. It's a subset of it, since radiotherapy also includes the use of stuff made of chemicals. Not only the injested iodine, but the plastic casings on the machinery, the silicone parts in the electronics of the machine, and so on and so forth.

Hold on while I do chemotherapy on you by putting this cast made of plaster and gauze on your broken arm.

My question is...

[dagg]

How much radiation does it take to make those things go off? Those patients must be emitting the tiniest amount of radiation. There is no way that that amount of radiation is actually hurting any nearby people. But the detectors are going off even though noone could be directly effected.

My guess is that the detectors are set to "go off" even if the tiniest amount of radiation is found. That way, any attempt by terrorists to try to hide the radiation (thick lead, etc) will be thwarted.

-- Just look at your waist

Re:My question is...

[hazzzard]

... any attempt by terrorists to try to hide the radiation (thick lead, etc) ... Well, could you also just require these patients to wear something like that (thick lead jacket and pants, plus a lead face mask and hat) so that these tiny amounts of radiation will then not be detected any more??! I am sure the paranoid US agencies would like such a solution better than making the detectors less sensitive...

Re:My question is...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The detectors are set at their most sensitive levels. Small price to pay for making the terrorists use some conventional explosives.

Maybe IHBT, but all these "evil terrorists" have used are just conventional explosives, are there even any equivalent technologies in use now that detect these?

So far it hasn't been demonstrated or even claimed that they even HAVE nuclear explosives, and I bet if they did they'd want to use amounts that would peg the meter, not be mistakable for cancer patients.

The best I've read they can do is just make a "dirty" bomb, which can be a conventional bomb that merely spreads radioactive material rather than megaton destruction, and the only way to make a dirty bomb any sort of a threat is to put in enough material to peg any standard meter.

So it sounds like another case where the people "protecting" us are simply building more roadblocks that prevent normal living.

Re:My question is...

[btellier]

Let me guess: you don't live in Manhattan. You try living in the most populated city in America, The Great Satan, the hub of international commerce, and see how safe YOU feel.

Re:My question is...

[btellier]

Ah yes, give up my apartment, my job, my girlfriend, my friends, my community. Great idea. If your town was attacked by terrorists would you move?

Re:My question is...

[mbogosian]

Let me guess: you don't live in Manhattan.

Apparently, the doctors don't live there either:

From the article: But even in the best-case scenario, a patient will have to wait while the contents of the letter are verified, say the doctors. "They may choose not to use public transportation to avoid this inconvenience," they write.

Try navigating Manhattan efficiently without public transportation.

Re:My question is...

[Keebler71]

I get it,... so we are supposed to wait until they do have a nuke and use it before we take measures to protect ourselves? Was your grandfather in charge of Pearl Harbour's defenses by chance?

Re:My question is...

[supernova87a]

I suppose that traces of radiation is all they can look for, but do we really think that terrorists will not have wiped themselves clean and measured using counters already?

I mean, it's like people think in their minds that terrorists are mixing this stuff up in their kitchens, slopping it around, and then tossing the ziplock back in the trunk, and we'll be able to detect it.

Well suprise: they are probably well-equipped and the people doing the work almost certainly have access to the same instruments, supplies that can be bought here. Don't count on being smarter than them, or being able to find them with common sense.

Re:My question is...

[nomadic]

Nonsense! Manhattan has a plethora of alternatives. There are the friendly, courteous, safety-oriented taxis. Or you could take a leisurely bike ride through the city streets, confident that every driver will be keeping an eye on you to ensure your safety. Then again, you can always bring your car into the city, and experience the relaxation of a Monday morning jaunt through the pristine thoroughfares, confident that the traffic will never overwhelm you.

Re:My question is...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I get it,... so we are supposed to wait until they do have a nuke and use it before we take measures to protect ourselves?

Did you read it? Try consider it a priority of known threats vs. theoretical threats. Or a case for balance. Or a rearrangeing of order of operations, as a gaping present day vulnerability is apparent.

Conventional bombs are a known threat, so why don't we make sure that the weapons detectors can sniff those out _first_ and _now_, and then once those systems are installed, worry about weapons that these people might, in theory, develop or aquire a few years in the future? So far, all that I have read that they have installed is rad detectors, which is useless against easily made and easily aquired conventional bombs, and the only thing they've managed to do with it is harass cancer patients, when conventional bombs could be passing through there every day.

My case is also for turning down the meter sensitivity just a tad as it sounds like the level it trips at is not that far above natural radiation.

Was your grandfather in charge of Pearl Harbour's defenses by chance?

No, but it's not relevant. The world was very different then, but that was still another interesting case of political bungling of people not having the right priorities and systematically poor foreign policies, it's not a newly developed problem.

Re:My question is...

[maxpublic]

This whole line of reasoning is a crock of horseshit, e.g., "oooh, we need to protect our subways from evil nuke-toting terrorists!"

Let's examine this, shall we? Any terrorist organization with the resources and intelligence to get something like a suitcase-sized nuclear device into the United States quite probably isn't brain-dead enough to tote the thing through a secured installation wired to detect the bomb.

Although it appears some of my more idiotic countrymen think that very thing could happen. Forget the easily-made and easily-transported conventional explosives and poisonous gases - think of those nukes!

9/11 has apparently lobotomized more than a few people.

Max

Re:My question is...

[wirelessbuzzers]

The best I've read they can do is just make a "dirty" bomb...

And if they did make a "dirty" bomb, why the fuck would they set it off in the subway? It seems that if you're going to wreak havoc in a subway, you want to take advantage of the fact that it is a closed space, which would imply a biological attack (consider how many people touch the poles in the car, or at least brush them as they walk in) or a gas attack (ala Aum cult in Tokyo). Setting off a dirty bomb in a subway would just be stupid, the tunnel collapses and then where is your radiation? Underground.

Re:My question is...

[cygnus]

Unfortunately for these detection schemes (and the rest of us), one way to make a dirty "bomb" is to take a radioisotope of Cobalt and heat it until it's gaseous. that way, you don't have to deal with the whole messy dispersion aspect of dirty bombmaking, given that you survive being around making gaseous cobalt long enough to finish the process.

note that radioisotopes of cobalt arre easier to come by than you might think... such material is used to irradiate produce to make sure it's free from germs.

Re:My question is...

[teaserX]

...any attempt by terrorists to try to hide the radiation (thick lead, etc) will be thwarted.

I don't think that's the reason for the sensetivity. I don't need a 'detector' to spot a guy dragging a couple of hundred pounds of lead around the subway. I'd speculate that the purpose is to spot a guy who has been handling radiological material or been exposed in some other way. I'd say the Feds would like to talk to anyone who's walking around hot without a valid excuse.

Re:My question is...

[nusuth]

First off the technology to detect radioactive material is much more mature than the technology to convetional explosives.

Indeed, one can say that. Conventionals don't go around emitting those easy to detect rays and particles. But you make it sound as if explosive detection technology is not mature enough, which is plain false.

Re:My question is...

[Kanasta]

Terrorists use a knife to commandeer a plane.

How is detecting radiation in the subway going to do anything?

Why is it whenever a disaster happens, the 'precautions' ppl take have nothing to do with the original incident?

Anyway, I thot the most likely type of attack on a subway would be a normal bomb (non-nuclear), or biological...

Re:My question is...

[Fat Casper]

Conventional bombs are a known threat, so why don't we make sure that the weapons detectors can sniff those out _first_ and _now_, and then once those systems are installed, worry about weapons that these people might, in theory, develop or aquire a few years in the future?

Silly person, it's not about safety. This last year has simply been a power grab by the police while wafing a safety flag in our faces. The only improvement in actual security occurred on flight 93. Taking off our shoes, having our email read and watching cancer patients get dragged off the streets is just our way of lying to ourselves and giving Ashcroft everything he wants.

Re:My question is...

[Imabug]

the detectors being used are quite likely a sodium iodide scintillator detector, which can be made exquisitely sensitive. There have been similar issues at landfills equipped with radiation detectors. There are several cases where a garbage truck has tripped off the alarms, sending people into a flurry of activity to figure out where the radioactive trash came from and sending it back to the person, usually a patient or a hospital.

These kinds of incidents are becoming a little less common with better training of the people manning the monitors. Train them to recognize which ones are medically used isotopes and can be safely ignored.

Should be able to give the same training to whoever runs the subway monitors.

Re:My question is...

[DAldredge]

If I felt unsafe as you apparently do then yes I would.

From your post
" Let me guess: you don't live in Manhattan. You try living in the most populated city in America, The Great Satan, the hub of international commerce, and see how safe YOU feel."

Re:My question is...

[5KVGhost]

This whole line of reasoning is a crock of horseshit, e.g., "oooh, we need to protect our subways from evil nuke-toting terrorists!"

Let's examine this, shall we? Any terrorist organization with the resources and intelligence to get something like a suitcase-sized nuclear device into the United States quite probably isn't brain-dead enough to tote the thing through a secured installation wired to detect the bomb.

Sure, and any terrorist interested in hijacking a plane isn't about to carry aboard a weapon or an explosive device, so we might as well just stop checking for them.

Although it appears some of my more idiotic countrymen think that very thing could happen. Forget the easily-made and easily-transported conventional explosives and poisonous gases - think of those nukes!

I very much doubt that anyone's forgotten about conventional explosives or poison gases. They have detectors for those too, you know. Some people really are capable of assessing more than one kind of threat at the same time, all without assuming that everyone else is an idiot.

9/11 has apparently lobotomized more than a few people.

Apparently so.

Re:My question is...

[quantum bit]

Maybe IHBT, but all these "evil terrorists" have used are just conventional explosives, are there even any equivalent technologies in use now that detect these?

Yes, there are. I work at a company that makes relatively small explosives designed for use deep in oil wells. Whenever one of our employees has to go somewhere via air travel, they have to take a certified letter from our legal department explaining why they have explosive residue on their clothes. The amount to set off the detectors is minute enough, that even people who work at the plant but don't come in direct contact with the explosives still have to have it.

Last month we had someone who works at our other offices (NOT the plant where the explosives are manufactured) get detained because his computer tested positive. The computer had been to the manufacturing facility for about a day, several months prior to it coming into the posession of the person who was using it at the time, and it still set off the detector.

The real irony of it is that the explosives we make are classed 1.4S, wich means that they can be (and are) shipped in the cargo hold of passenger flights...

Re:My question is...

[overunderunderdone]

Try consider it a priority of known threats vs. theoretical threats. Or a case for balance. Or a rearrangeing of order of operations, as a gaping present day vulnerability is apparent.

But there are other important considerations that should go into arranging the order of operations.
First, the extent of the threat. A conventional bomb can kill a few dozen, maybe a few hundred if the terrorist picks the right target and is really lucky. A nuke is the least likely theoretical threat but could kill MILLIONS.

Second, the ease with which you can gaurd against the threat - a gieger counter is a realatively easy and cheap way to guard against that theoretical threat. Bomb sniffing equipement or dogs are much more difficult and expensive solution to the known threat.

In this situation it doesn't strike me as irrational to implement the system that you CAN and is effective against the most extremely severe threat - even if that threat is also the least likely to occur.

Re:My question is...

[overunderunderdone]

And if they did make a "dirty" bomb, why the fuck would they set it off in the subway?

They might not, the subway is just a convenient bottleneck where you can screen people. I would imagine the guy that is assembling the dirty bomb in his apartment, the guy transporting the materials for it, the guy taking it uptown to the target or in our worst nightmare the guy who carried the suitcase nuke from Belarus are all going to set off these detectors. The cancer patient setting this thing off is getting strip searched, apologized to and sent on his way - I'd imagine a perfectly healthy Egyptian with a recent visit to Kazahstan on his passport is going to get much closer scrutiny.

Re:My question is...

[anthony_dipierro]

Can't we just detect the lead then?

Re:My question is...

[telstar]

I think you may be missing the point. Manhattan is an island. What better way to prevent a nuclear bomb from hitting Manhattan than detecting it as it comes in?

In terms of access to Manhattan, there are only four tunnels, and 11 bridges ... but there are at least 21 subway tunnels. (7 from the north, 14 from the east, and the PATH from NJ). The people protecting the city would be neglegent to only secure the bridges and tunnels of the city.

An interesting article you may want to read about the topic is here.

My uncle...

[silvaran]

...got nailed twice. He was driving around the U.S. late at night, heading back into Canada, and a patrol unit pulled him over, threw everything out of the back of his trunk, then interrogated him for a little while. He drank some kind of radioactive fluid to treat his cancer after his surgery, and it had set off an alarm in the patrol car.

Same thing happened once he got to the border. The border guard let him go, then some guy came running out of the customs building screaming at the top of his lungs. They stopped him and he had to read them the same story all over again. This drug is so powerful he can only take it once every six months.

Re:My uncle...

[BernManUNC]

Another good story:

My father is a physician, and I used to hang out in the radiology dep. while he did rounds. One of the techs told me about how they had given a patient an injection of a radioactive isotope for a radioacive imaging of his heart (I can't remember the exact name of this technique). Three weeks later, he walks into the White House on a tour, sets off the alarms, and is pulled out of the crowd and questioned by the Secret Service. This isotope had a half-life of eight hours. Now, I understand the chemomtherapy dose setting off alarms, as that has to have some punch. But eight hours for something that just has to be detected with an insturment three feet away? You do that math, that's some senstive equipment they have in the White House.

Re:My uncle...

[Imabug]

I would suspect that the patient was getting a cardiac study with Tl-201. In the body, Tl-201 has an effective half life of roughly 6-8 days. It's entirely possible for there to be sufficient Tl-201 left even after 3 weeks for it to trigger a portal monitor.

If the cardiac study was performed using Tc-99m (half life of 6 hours, effective half life in the body of about 3-5), there is no way this amount would have set off the monitors after 3 weeks. The patient must have had some other procedure in between then in this case.

Re:My uncle...

[TheSync]

A friend of mine had to drive around radioactive sources for a university in the Washington, DC area.

He said he did get pulled over once by an unmarked white truck and asked a lot of questions, but he had all the right papers.

Radiation levels

[Simon Field]

Normally thyroid cancer patients are told to stay some distance from family members when they return home. After a few days the levels are lower and such precautions aren't necessary.

I don't know if the levels are lower for Grave's disease, or if this person should not have been on crowded subways. But to detect the levels in a shielded device, you would probably want the sensors to be pretty sensitive. Sensitivity also helps to allow fewer detectors to be used.

Should a strip-search be necessary? I doubt it.
Just hold the detector close to the thyroid to verify the guy's story. Maybe hospitals could give out cards, and the security folks could phone the hospital for confirmation.

Or just call a cab for the poor guy.

Re:Radiation levels

[JollyGoodChase]

If the guy's not carrying anything like a briefcase, where do they think he's hiding a 'dirty' bomb? Do the authorities think it's possible to carry a bomb on your person? So they think the tech is available to make the device that small? A strip search does seem a little over the top.

Re:Radiation levels

[shepd]

>Just hold the detector close to the thyroid to verify the guy's story.

Dumb question: How long does it take to die without a thyroid? How big is a thyroid anyways... I'm willing to guess you could fit a few ounces of radioactive material there.

Remember, Taliban members would be more than willing to die if it means they could bring in some of that stuff.

Not that I think all this is a particularly good idea anyways, but hey, if that's what they're all worried about...

Re:Radiation levels

[Marijuana al-Shehi]

Remember, Taliban members would be more than willing to die

Maybe you mean al Qaeda. The Taliban was just another batch of thuggish warriors in Afghanistan. Yet somehow you fear them attacking you here, halfway around the world.

Re:Radiation levels

[Garion911]

This coming from someone who's never been through a NY winter. Thick coats winter coats man...

(Just to clarify, I'm from "upstate" (really central NY) )...

Re:Radiation levels

[DAldredge]

What! You really think they thought about this? No. They just put them in to make themselves and the public at large feel 'safer'.

NOTE: The 2 minute delay between posting sucks.

Re:Radiation levels

[Idarubicin]

If you're just interested in terror, you could carry a bottle of some powdered radioisotope. They're not really that hard to come by. Sprinkle it on the subway. Random subway cars, station benches, wherever.

Soon as the news hits that the New York subway system is contaminated with radioactive material, there will be panic, regardless of amount. And it wouldn't take a very big container of material to do it, either.

Tremendous amounts of fear; no bomb required. Remember when there was anthrax in the mail? You can scare a lot of people without any explosions.

Re:Radiation levels

[Idarubicin]

Dumb question: How long does it take to die without a thyroid?

Actually, the whole point of the iodine treatment is to destroy part or all of an overactive thyroid. Afterwards, most of these people live quite happy, quite normal lives. Some of them need to take hormones to top up what the thyroid is no longer providing, but usually their lives are not significantly shortened.

Besides, if you're prepared to do surgery to implant radioisotopes for smuggling, you'd be better off putting it in your chest cavity somewhere. Most people just don't have a lot of free space in their necks.

Re:Radiation levels

[/dev/trash]

well if he's a determined suicide bomber ( and you'd have to be suicidal to wanna even get enar a dirty bomb) he'd hide it on his body somewhere.

Re:Radiation levels

[DrXym]

Why bother to even sprinkle it yourself? Just dump some of the crap on pavements at various strategic locations leading to stations and people will carry it onto the trains for you.

Re:Radiation levels

[Faeton]

I work at a nuclear power plant, and anyone that has radiation therapy can't go into the actual plant (they just stay in the admin building). Elsewise, they would set off a lot of detectors that we have around the building.

My manager's wife once had radio-iodine treatment for her overactive thyroid, and he was curious on how much radiation she was actually getting. So he borrow a gamma meter from work (good old FAG gamma meter F4) and surveyed her neck.

He found a MASSIVE amount of radiation comming off her thyroid/neck area (this was right after treatment). At contact, it was like 4 rem/h (about 4 mSv) and working distance (30 cm) it was 100 mrem/h (0.1 mSv). A highly localized dose, but still giving off considerable amounts of radiation constantly. I get about 2-3 mrem of radiation for every 12 hour shift I work, and I'm allowed 5rem total dose per year.

The health physic guy told my manager that she probably got a lifedose of 10 rem, which is almost as much as my managers lifedose at the nuclear plant. Pretty heavy stuff.

Gamma is hard to shield (goes through everything), so a briefcase with a decent amount of radioactive stuff would be really hard to shield without the case being stupid heavy. So, you would only need to set the threshold around 10 mrem to catch anybody with anything sizable.

It happened to a friend of mine

[fava]

A friend of mine had a summer job at Triumpf a number of years ago. Triumf is a particle and nuclear physics lab. One day he took the morning off to get some medical tests done where they injected him full of tracer isotopes. We he tried to go back to work in the afternoon he set off half the radiation alarms in the place just by walking through the front door.

They gave him the rest of the day off.

I wonder...

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

Would you need to a chemo-card to prove that you really had cancer and had to have the treatment? I hope and pray folk are not harassed, as that is very last thing that they need in their lives (very personal experience talking there).

On a rather serious note, it is interesting to see that someone even had the thought that someone carrying a dirty bomb strapped to them would "pose" (and I use the word here literally, so do not flame me here) as a cancer patient. Perfect way to disguise it, very clever. And to think that security noticed it at least commendable.

Re:I wonder...

[dr_dank]

Would you need to a chemo-card to prove that you really had cancer and had to have the treatment?

Whos to say that those who are up to no good couldn't forge one of those cards to skirt security? That reminds me of that "fast-track" proposal for airline security that frequent fliers could breeze though security checkpoints. It sets up an all-too-fallable chink in the armor.

Re:I wonder...

[Cyno01]

I've always wondered about that, if someone could get a gun onto a plane with one of those i have a steel hip or whatever cards.

Re:I wonder...

[LostCluster]

This is actually one of the few arguments in favor of the all-knowing government database. Scan the finger prints, and they know if the patient's radiation levels jive with their medical records.

how about...

[garcia]

I have been searched at the airport EVERY single time I have flown.

I was just searched for explosives, stopped in the next line, questioned as to why I had prescription blood pressure medicine, and why I had a car stereo in my bag.

I don't know if it is the beard or what, but I should not be picked for the random searches over 80% of the times I board a plane.

Re:how about...

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

Keep track of your flights to searches. Now that all airport security is done by the feds, you could file a racial profile suit and win rather easily if your numbers are right.

Keep some good logs over the next year, and you would have a VERY interesting case. Oh, and make the person searching you sign the ticket page you log it on in journal and on your ticket stub.
(thu preeveeus ehnttree wus not spehl ckekd)
"NEVER bluff with super-weapons!" Dr. Evil

Re:how about...

[garcia]

I'm a white male, mid-twenties, w/a beard.

I wouldn't exactly call it racial profiling...

Re:how about...

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

Call it what you will, it is still profiling.

You have a beard, you have glasses, you fit the profile of what someone has said to look for. That fits under the the Supream Courts ruling for racial profiling.

Besides, half of the middle east can look white easily, and I can look like I am from there after twoo weeks in Florida.

Re:how about...

[Blkdeath]

I'm a white male, mid-twenties, w/a beard.

I wouldn't exactly call it racial profiling...

I believe that's known as "John Walker Syndrome".

Might want to consider a shave, or a geographic location change.

Re:how about...

[Platinum Dragon]

Could your political views be considered progressive or radical leftist? Are you an activist? There is at least anecdotal evidence that political activists who tend toward the left and libertarian side of the spectrum are on a search list aside from the 1000-person no-fly list.

Re:how about...

[Pig Hogger]

#4830920) I'm a white male, mid-twenties, w/a beard.

I wouldn't exactly call it racial profiling...

But the security guys are black, no???

Re:how about...

[tswinzig]

I dunno... you got a stereo in your bag for a plane trip. You've got a beard. Your name is garcia, so I will stereotype you as dark-skinned. This is the kind of profile I expect to be put under closer scrutiny, as it matches the profile of the terrorists.

I don't mind random searches, but their definitely should [continue?] to be focused intensity on people that fit the profile. Best of both worlds.

Re:how about...

[perfessor multigeek]

Thank you for the link.
The idea that the Transportation Safety folks now keep a list of people to subject to intense search bothers me not at all.
The idea that one can get on that list simply for being politically distasteful to the Bush Administration is appalling.
The idea that nobody is willing to admit how this list is compiled or how one disputes being on it is terrifying.
When government declares that it is no longer accountable to the people it governs, then it has lost the legitimacy of that office.
I would compare this to McCarthy but McCarthy and his cronies weren't anywhere near this effective.
Rustin

Re:how about...

[CoderDevo]

His name is garcia because he's a fan of Jerry, not because he is Hispanic. Check his slashdot User Bio: "23, student records clerk, dork, drunk, deadhead.".

Of course, being a deadhead also implies other lifestyle activities. Those activities eventually lead to having a relaxed attitude about what is normal dress and grooming. And dude, what do you have to be smoking to think it's not unusual to carry a car stereo onto a plane? Where were you going to plug it in anyways???

I say you were accurately profiled. You just know not to be 'carrying' when you go through airport security.

Stay off the hard stuff.

Re:how about...

[fenix down]

No kidding. At some point, having a full beard turned into a warning sign for just about any illegal activity under the sun. You can get away with a beard if you're over 40, so overwhelmingly UNIX-nerd looking that you couldn't possibly constitute a threat, or if you only go with a fruity little goatee. Otherwise, you're in trouble. I started shaving again a few months ago and I was amazed how trusting everybody got all of a sudden. Crazy.

Re:how about...

[jayed_99]

Do you smoke? And have a leather laptop bag?

I spent a number of years flying every week. I smoked back then. I also had an assortment of laptop bags. Whenever I was using a leather laptop bag, I would be pulled to the side. (And I mean "whenever" as "*EVERY* freaking time").

Airport security would look through my carry-ons and then swab the parts of the bag that my hands would be most likely to touch (handle, strap, zipers) and run the swab through the "detecting of bad things" machine.

I'm not sure of the relationship with smoking, but I have a medical lab-tech friend who showed me the chemical-detecting-machine that will detect nicotine off of a piece of paper rubbed across your finger 30 minutes after you smoked a cigarette.

And it only happened when I traveled with a leather laptop bag. If I had a nylon or canvas bag, I wouldn't be touched.

Beats the hell out of me, but I thought I'd share my whacky hypothesis with you in hopes that the /. crowd might confirm or deny this.

It's been driving me slowly crazy for years...why, *every* time that *I* flew with a leather laptop bag did *I* get picked for the "let us sample the surface areas of your laptop bag"?

Re:how about...

[Photon Ghoul]

Yeah, I started growing a beard a few weeks ago. My hair is also long and I'm a little darker than your average white man due to some Asian (FAR East) blood in me. Some friends and family members commented on my "Al Queda" look. Haha. So, going out and about town I did tend to notice a different vibe.

Shaved it just because I didn't like it all that much. Now I'm a good U.S. citizen again.

Re:how about...

[TerryAtWork]

It's the 'Jihad' t-shirt, dude.

Re:how about...

[Galvatron]

First of all, given the number of people flying, yes, of course some people are going to end up as statistical anomolies. Also, people have a tendancy to remember annoying events. Try actually writing down each time you get searched when boarding the plane, and see if it is actually 80%. Finally, if it bothers you, try waiting until the plane is about to close the doors before boarding. It's just as confortable to wait in the airport as on the plane, and they don't delay departures to search the last few people who board.

Re:how about...

[superyooser]

At some point, having a full beard turned into a warning sign for just about any illegal activity under the sun.

FBI's Most Wanted

• Santa Claus
• ZZ Top
• RMS
• Al Gore (now we know why he shaved it :-)

Re:how about...

[sql*kitten]

I don't know if it is the beard or what, but I should not be picked for the random searches over 80% of the times I board a plane.

I know exactly what you mean. I have a neatly-trimmed goatee beard, and hair down to my shoulders, clean and usually tied back in a pony tail, and I dress business casual. But the guidelines airport security get don't say unkempt bushy beard, mad staring eyes and wild unwashed hair, dressed in robes like the typical terrorist, they just say "beard and long hair". But the authorities care more about the illusion of security and are so desperate to avoid accusations in the liberal press of "racial profiling" that they ignore common sense.

Re:how about...

[TheSync]

On Wednesday, I was the last person in line to board a turboprop from Pittsburgh to Lexington, and they searched me. It certainly seemed like they may have delayed the departure based on my search (for a minute or so).

It appears to me now that to avoid being searched, watch who is currently being searched. They don't seem to pull out every X person, rather when they are done with one search, they pull the next person out of line.

Of course, you might look a little suspicious telling the two people behind you to go ahead just to avoid a search...

Re:how about...

[anthony_dipierro]

It's just as confortable to wait in the airport as on the plane, and they don't delay departures to search the last few people who board.

Yeah, they remind you how they told you to be at least 10 minutes early, and send you home with no refund.

Much more detailed article in the NYT

[Cerlyn]

The New York Times has a much more detailed article on this subject. Registration required, etc., etc., etc.

Of particular note is that the NYT was *not* able to verify that anyone said they carrying a note from a doctor would be useful; rather, it said the police would not accept such a letter as "sole proof" that the person was not trying to pull a fast one on them, and would still conduct a full investigation.

Re:Much more detailed article in the NYT

[Idarubicin]

Of particular note is that the NYT was *not* able to verify that anyone said they carrying a note from a doctor would be useful; rather, it said the police would not accept such a letter as "sole proof" that the person was not trying to pull a fast one on them, and would still conduct a full investigation.

If you read the linked New Scientist article in the post, or even the original JAMA letter, it states as much.

A letter like that is pretty easy to fake, and I imagine that most police officers don't have the medical physics training to assess that sort of document's veracity on the spot. The recommended letter should include (among other things) "...the physician's 24-hour telephone numbers to allow police to verify the content of the letters."

Really, if you're going to go to the trouble of stopping people who set off radiation alarms, it does make sense to check their stories before you send them on their way. Whether the detectors are at all worthwhile is still a matter worthy of debate.

Re:Only in the US.

[garcia]

It's true what you say. No one else is going to the extremes that we are.

We never did it before, we got owned, we beefed it up.

When someone wants to own Canada, you will see your liberties taken away as well.

United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[webword]

This doesn't surpise me at all. On National Public Radio today (All Things Considered) a researcher was talking about the best research tool for tracking down weapons of mass destruction: a 4" x 4" cotton swab. They run the swab over almost any surface and can detect radioactive material to the level of 1 part per billion. Geeez.
--
Trade it on Trodo!
http://trodo.com

Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[webword]

Clarification: The detection is down to the level of one billionth of a gram, not one part per billion.

--
Trade it on Trodo!
http://trodo.com

Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[Tempelherr]

Wouldn't naturally occuring radioactive elements cause problems with that a little? Or do they have the ability to sort out the different forms and identify only those that are not naturally occuring?

Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[webword]

Excellent question. I had the same thought. The NPR piece actually touched on this topic in a few ways. For example, some guy could walk around in an area that is contaminated and then walk into another area "polluting" the new area that was not previously contaminated. And, as you mention, I wonder about the natually occuring sources. Detection should not necessarily determine causation.

Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[ostiguy]

I wonder if we can draw parallels to the boom in usage of such gear as feds ramp up spending to home users with windows firewalls - people logging all kinds of data and jumping to all kinds of conclusions without having the knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff

Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[Guppy06]

"Wouldn't naturally occuring radioactive elements cause problems with that a little? Or do they have the ability to sort out the different forms and identify only those that are not naturally occuring?"

It all depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for "radioactive/radiological materials," then yes, you're going to find a lot, whether you have a weapons program or not.

On the other hand, if you find uranium-235 or plutonium in any measurable amount, that all but guarantees a nuclear weapons program. Plutonium has only recently been demonstrated to exist naturally and U-235 is a very rare isotope of a very rare element. In both cases, it's generally cheaper to make your own.

Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[Idarubicin]

...do they have the ability to sort out the different forms and identify only those that are not naturally occuring?

The short answer is, yes!

Depending on the size of the sample, you can look at its spectrum of gamma radiation. Different radioisotopes emit gammas at different frequencies when they decay, providing a distinctive fingerprint.

High resolution mass spectrometry will also do it for you. I know a chemist who has tricks for detecting femtograms (1E-15) of an element (though his mass resolution isn't very good, you could see a very tiny amount of a transuranic element like plutonium.)

Really, all you need is to be able to quickly identify areas that are worth further investigation. If you find something that seems suspicious--even if it isn't conclusive--that tells you where to bring in the analytical big guns. Actually, that usually means a lot more cotton swabs. ;)

Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[dweezle]

Right, it's a swipe. The goal is to swipe approx 100cm squared and from that and the radiation reading one can do a good approximation of contamination levels. Run a set amount of air through the "filter" and you can get a good estimate of airborn levels. Watch it decay and you can get a good idea of the isotope giving you the problem.

Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections

[dweezle]

If you're going to get serious about trace detection you go out and periodically measure the background radiation in your measurement area and/or shield your detectors. When I got internally monitored the detector was inbedded in a block if lead such that the only exposed surface was the one I snuggled up to...for a half hour. The resultant graph (minus background) showed levels and isotopes of the radiation within.

Re:My uncle... [I CALL BS!]

[PissingInTheWind]

/me set the BS flag up.

Radioactive stuff is mostly used to follow something you ingest, or an injection.

I really can't see the use of a powerful, radioactive drug taken every 6 months.

Though I might be wrong, I have serious doubt.

Radioactive iodine isotope

[cyber_rigger]

I know that some radioactive iodine isotopes are used for thyroid treatment as a marker or for destruction of cancerous thyroid tissue. Thyroid tissue absorbs iodine and certain iodine isotopes.

Homer Simpson

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains why intensive use of the subway can lead to stupidity.

Just in Homer's path....

IN the subway station?

[EvilStein]

That guy must have a hell of a time getting to work.

Maybe there's another reason he got strip searched.

And he was strip searched IN THE SUBWAY STATION? Dude, I hate to break the news, but those weren't cops that were doing the strip searching.

Re:IN the subway station?

[stwrtpj]

And he was strip searched IN THE SUBWAY STATION? Dude, I hate to break the news, but those weren't cops that were doing the strip searching.

I should point out - as one who was born and raised in NYC - that you could conceivably hold a rip-roaring orgy right in the middle of the subway platform, and its likely that no one would notice. You learn to ignore a lot of strange shit when you take the NYC subway every day.

Which is why I'm VERY glad to live in Colorado now and not have to do it anymore.

Geeze...

[eamber]

Don't purchase a new smoke detector and take it on the subway - they'll likely call in the National Guard.

It's hard to check for dirty bombs

[infolib]

A "dirty bomb" could be made out of alpha-active material. Alpha-radiation (He nuclei) will be stopped by a few pieces of paper. If the material is in a suitcase there is no radiation outside.

When the material is spread by an explosion, a fire or some other way, people will inhale it and it will stick in their lungs, giving them a huge dose of radiation.

Radioactive Cat Crap (could it be more toxic?)

[puto]

What about this guy?

http://wcbs880.com/water/watercooler_story_29809 07 52.html

I never thought cat shit could be more offensive, but add radiation and we take it to a whole new level.

From the Article "Oct 25, 2002 9:04 am US/Eastern
(AP) (WHITMAN, Mass. ) A man who ignored a veterinarian's order to flush his cat's radioactive waste down the toilet was hit with a $2,800 bill.

And Bill Jenness said he's happy to pay it.

"I don't feel I was mistreated," Jenness told The Patriot Ledger of Quincy. "It's my cat, my responsibility and I did not abide by the directions I was given."

Jenness' cat, Mitzi, an 11-year-old shorthair, was treated with an injection of radioiodine after developing hyperthyroidism, which is common in cats her age.

The treatment makes the cat radioactive for weeks, so special care is required, including limiting snuggling time, keeping the cat away from children and pregnant women and using protective gloves when flushing the cat litter.

Jenness said he decided to throw the litter in the trash after the waste hardened into abnormally large clumps.

"I was afraid of my septic system being clogged," he said.

Mitzi's mess was discovered at an incinerator in Rochester when alarms detected radioactivity. Workers traced the waste to Jenness after finding mail with his name on it nearby.

The radiation treatment by Radiocat in Waltham and cost of disposing the waste totaled about $5,000. Jenness said it was worth it because Mitzi is doing well.

Radiocat's Web site says the amount of radiation from a radioiodine shot is probably less than the amount a person receives on a long plane flight or a day at the beach.

But Thomas Burnett, a Whitman public works commissioner, said any radiation in trash is too much.

This is too funny.

Puto

Re:Radioactive Cat Crap (could it be more toxic?)

[LostCluster]

Wait a second here... radiation in the trash system is bad, radiation in the sewer system okay?

From the make-it-somebody-else's-problem dept.

Re:Radioactive Cat Crap (could it be more toxic?)

[smiff]

But Thomas Burnett, a Whitman public works commissioner, said any radiation in trash is too much.

I think the idea is, if you're building a nuclear bomb, the radioactive material will irradiate everything nearby. When you throw an irradiated item out, the government will track you down and investigate.

Strip search?

[phorm]

Isn't this a bit extreme? I mean, if they ran the "magic wand" or whatever over him, the levels would be constant enough to confirm it. I mean, if his head were giving off radiation, it would more or less confirm the story. Since lots of (irradiated?) blood passes through the brain, I would assume that it would have a high concentration?

Of course, if he had a green glowing trouser snake once they searched him, this would probably tip them off too.

Um, sorry sir. wow - can you use that thing as, like, a night-lite or something

The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

This is just more fallout (no pun intended) from the Bush/Ashcroft "War On Terrorism", which is really just a thinly veiled way to erode people's Constitutional rights. Do you think that strip searching a cancer patient is a reasonable search as defined by The Constitution? Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?

People need to open their eyes and see what kind of police state the Bush administration is creating -- before it's too late.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[Blkdeath]

This is just more fallout (no pun intended) from the Bush/Ashcroft "War On Terrorism", which is really just a thinly veiled way to erode people's Constitutional rights. Do you think that strip searching a cancer patient is a reasonable search as defined by The Constitution? Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?

Clearly this will prevent airplanes from falling out of the sky and landing on buildings.

I bet Bush could get approval to perform personal in-home inspections so long as it would prevent errant airplane collisions, cha'know?

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[/dev/trash]

Whoa now. Back the conspiracy truck up. adjust the tinfoil cap. ok, better? Let's stop searching everyone. Let's allow everyone unfettered access to where ever. The subway, your house, my house. but when the bomb goes off and we're all obliterated, well, on second thought, let's search people, in PUBLIC PLACES.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[LostCluster]

September 11 tought us that commecial airliners could be misused as weapons. When you think about it, almost anything when used improperly can be used as a weapon.

Think of high schools with a "zero tolerance" policy aganst knifes. They'll suspend a student has a kitchen knife in thier bookbag... but they'll forget that if the student puts 3 10 pound textbooks in their bag, and then throws it from the top of a staircase, that becomes a 30 pound dead weight which can cause serious injury. Bookbags don't kill people, people kill people.

Because we can't think of all the possible ways terrorists can attack, we can only secure against the ones we can think of. The attacks we show we can stop are the ones they won't attempt. There's an unlimited number of unprotected ones they can try.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

The subway, your house, my house. but when the bomb goes off and we're all obliterated, well, on second thought, let's search people, in PUBLIC PLACES.

What ever happened to probable cause? What probable is there for measuring the radiation emitted by a cancer patient?

Brave men and women did not fight and die to protect our Constitutional rights so that cowards like you could trade those rights away at the first sign of danger.

"Those who would give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[Maul]

So, the moment I step out of my house I somehow give up my right to probably cause, my right to personal property, and so forth?

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

Yes and yes.

I do not believe that the founding fathers intended for cancer patients to be without any privacy or rights.

S/he just set off a radiation alarm ! What the fuck are they supposed to do, ignore it?

What established probable cause for searching the person with a "radiation alarm" in the first place? You act like the "radiation alarm" is some kind of thing put in place by God Almighty. It's a tool used by the police to search people without probable cause.

The police can't use one unconstitutional search (the radiation detector) to justify another one (the strip search).

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[Maul]

Think of high schools with a "zero tolerance" policy aganst knifes. They'll suspend a student has a kitchen knife in thier bookbag... but they'll forget that if the student puts 3 10 pound textbooks in their bag, and then throws it from the top of a staircase, that becomes a 30 pound dead weight which can cause serious injury. Bookbags don't kill people, people kill people.

This BS has been happening for years before 9/11 as well. This is yet another injustice that has done nothing to prevent school violence, and turns innocent students into criminals.

If a high school student is caught with any sort of knife on campus (in some cases a PLASTIC knife or anything that could be mistaken for a knife, gun, or other weapon), for whatever reason, they will be expelled.

It doesn't matter if they accidentally left the knife in the bag from a hunting trip, thought a butter knife was OK, or whatever. It doesn't matter if the student has no record, is a straight A student, or whatnot.

This has extended to other sorts of things. Kids have been expelled for giving a bottle of wine to their teachers as a GIFT, bringing advil to school, being ACCUSED of hacking school comptuer systems without proof, etc.

These kids are then often shipped off to an alternative school that have purposefully been given inferior resources. There they will often will recieve an inferior education to their former peers and have little chance to get into a decent college no matter how they do at that school.

This sort of thing has been in place for over a decade now in most school districts. It didn't prevent incidents like Columbine.

Seriously, being expelled is the LAST thing a student thinks about if they intend to kill people. How is the threat of expulsion a deterrent?

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[/dev/trash]

How do you determine someone is a cancer patient? Ask them? People can lie. Ask for documentation? Well the parent was railing against that too. So we either search everyone or we search no one. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

How do you determine someone is a cancer patient?

You don't. Law enforcement has no right to know whether someone has cancer and the form of treatment that they are receiving.

So we either search everyone or we search no one.

Here's a third option that has worked for over 200 years: Only search people when there is probable cause. Don't point a geiger counter at someone unless you have reason to believe that the specific person may be illegally transporting radioactive materials.

I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I'd rather not give up our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches so that you are safe. It's not worth it.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[/dev/trash]

If you're setting of radiation monitors, yeah.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[/dev/trash]

ok.
Good luck when that dirty bomb goes off.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

Good luck when that dirty bomb goes off.

The ends does not justify the means. We would all be "safer" from terrorism if law enforcement could open anyone's mail, perform warrantless searches whenever they wanted, X-ray passengers taking any form of public transportation, take away all guns and explosives, and control and monitor all online activity. But safety is never a good reason to give up essential liberties.

Don't get me wrong. I know that it is a tragedy that several thousand people lost their lives to terrorism on 9/11. But I don't think that their legacy should be a United States in which the Constitution is thrown out the window and innocent citizens are routinely subjected to humiliating searches. The best way to fight terrorism is to go about our normal lives and not let it cower us into compromising the very principles on which our nation was founded.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[/dev/trash]

We shouldn't cower, but we also shouldn't bury our heads and say "Oh come on no one would ever tape a dirty bomb to his thigh and detonate in a crowded subway station."

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[anthony_dipierro]

Do you think that strip searching a cancer patient is a reasonable search as defined by The Constitution?

If it actually happened, probably not. But if it actually happened then the person should sue.

Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?

Yes.

People need to open their eyes and see what kind of police state the Bush administration is creating -- before it's too late.

Actually Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It was a search by the local police, not the federal government.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

I accept that such a thing could happen and it will be tragic if it does. But that does not mean that we, as Americans, should just throw the Constitution aside in order to prevent terrorism.

More than three times as many people are killed with guns every year in the U.S. than lost their lives to terrorism on 9/11. Do you think that the feds should throw away the Second Amendment and ban private gun ownership? I haven't heard Ashcroft and Bush pushing for that, despite the fact that so many more Americans are killed that way than by terrorism.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

Why do you feel that a cancer patient should have to reveal their illness and treatment to anyone other than their doctor? What right does some cop have to know that kind of personal information? Some patients elect not to even tell members of their own families.

Let's extrapolate further. What if the people performing the search and operating the detector are personally known to the cancer patient? What if the patient is a celebrity with tabloids itching to dig up personal information for public display? What if the person is travelling with his children, whom he has chosen not to tell about his illness?

Actually Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It was a search by the local police, not the federal government.

Untrue. The radiation detectors were installed under the auspices of the Homeland Security laws passed in the wake of 9/11. The detectors may even have been funded, partially or fully, with federal funds (I do not know).

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[anthony_dipierro]

Why do you feel that a cancer patient should have to reveal their illness and treatment to anyone other than their doctor?

I didn't say that. I said that radiation detectors which detect the radiation they are emitting are a reasonable search.

Untrue. The radiation detectors were installed under the auspices of the Homeland Security laws passed in the wake of 9/11.

Are you implying that these detectors would not have been installed had it not been for the Homeland Security laws? Please back up that statement.

The detectors may even have been funded, partially or fully, with federal funds (I do not know).

If you don't know, then you should stop making accusations.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

fmaxwell: Why do you feel that a cancer patient should have to reveal their illness and treatment to anyone other than their doctor?

anthony_dipierro: I didn't say that. I said that radiation detectors which detect the radiation they are emitting are a reasonable search.

From the previous messages:

fmaxwell: Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?

anthony_dipierro: Yes.

So you stated that it was proper to force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers.

Are you implying that these detectors would not have been installed had it not been for the Homeland Security laws?

Yes

Please back up that statement.

Sure. Get me access to the classified documents related to the purchase and installation of said radiation detectors and I'll be happy to prove that my beliefs are correct.

Try following your own advice. You stated that "Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this." Prove that claim.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[anthony_dipierro]

fmaxwell: Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?

anthony_dipierro: Yes.

So you stated that it was proper to force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers.

No, I implied that to use radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search. I never said anything about proper, and used the fact that a detector can't force anyone to do anything.

You stated that "Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this." Prove that claim.

I'm not the one making the accusations.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

No, I implied that to use radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search. I never said anything about proper, and used the fact that a detector can't force anyone to do anything.

You implied nothing. You stated it outright. And if a search is reasonable, then it is proper. The use of a radiation detector can, effectively, force a cancer patient to admit their illness because, if they do not, they could face being locked up as suspected terrorists. Don't play semantics games.

I'm not the one making the accusations.

Yes you are. You accused the local authorities of being solely responsible.

Quit acting so superior. I made an unsubstantiated claim and so did you. At least mine was based on a logical train of thought in which I considered the money being spent at the federal level on "homeland security" and the high cost of evaluating, purchasing, installing, and using the equipment.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

I'm sure if they passed the strip search they'd be free to go.

Why are you "sure" of that? What evidence do you have to back up that statement -- or was that another unsubstantiated claim? You don't think that the authorities would demand to know where the subject of the search came in contact with nuclear materials? I find that hard to believe.

You made an unsubstantiated claim and I defended against it.

You "defended against it" with an unsubstantiated claim of your own (that there was no federal involvement). But apparently your unsubstantiated claims are to be assumed to be true unless disproven.

But here's some evidence to support my claim that the Bush administration was involved:

The Department[of Homeland Security]--in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, state and local governments, and the private sector--would develop additional inspection procedures and detection systems throughout our national transportation structure to detect the movement of nuclear materials within the United States. It will also initiate and sustain research and development efforts aimed at new and better passive and active detection systems.

From THE NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR HOMELAND SECURITY: OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY which can be found on the White House's own web pages.

You will note that the document bears the Seal of the President of the United States.

So there it is in black and white. The Feds spelled out their intentions in July of this year. There was the green light from Washington for the installation of radiation detectors within our transportation system.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[Ziviyr]

Do you think the person doing the strip search knows that they have cancer? Is there anyway to tell?

A good tipoff is when the person says they have cancer and took radiation treatment for it. Unless the person who tripped the detector is immediately gagged while being dragged off to be violated.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[anthony_dipierro]

The tone comes from the top, dipshit. Do you think these little tinpots would be doing what they do if they didn't know they'd have backing from on high?

Take some anti-psychotic medications and get back to me. There's no "backing from on high" to engage in unconstitutional searches. Maybe to have radiation detectors in the first place, but anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

Maybe to have radiation detectors in the first place, but anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea.

I am easily your intellectual equal and I do not believe that the radiation detectors are a "good idea." They are an erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable and unwarranted searches by law enforcement. I do not believe in ceding Constitutional rights every time the Bush Administration cries "terrorist!"

I would appreciate it if you would debate not engage in pre-emptive ad-hominem attacks against anyone who does not share your opinions. Claiming that "anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea" implies that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid. That's no way to debate.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

If indeed you are my intellectual equal then I can only conclude that you have some serious irrational fears.

First I didn't have "half a brain" and now I am "irrational." Is that an improvement?

So my concerns about a continued erosion of our Constitutional rights are "irrational" but your concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb are not? Why is that?

I'm not sure I would classify the use of a radiation detector as a search, let alone an unreasonable one.

I would. The Supreme Court, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that it ruled the way that it did because the device [an infrared imaging system] is not in general use by the public, so Kyllo had an expectation of privacy, and because the imaging provided by the camera revealed details about Kyllo's home "that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."

"To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment," the majority opinion said.

I contend that, a cancer patient has reasonable expectations of privacy regarding their medical condition and treatmen regimen when they go out in public. Radiation detectors are not in general use by the public and reveal information that would otherwise have been unknowable (to police). Thus, the use of said detectors is an unreasonable search.

Would you likewise claim that a police officer who uses his eyesight to look at someone is violating the civil rights of that person?

I said Constitutional rights, not civil rights. But in answer to your question, if the officer happens to see something with his unaided eyes in a public place, then, no, I would not.

Are you implying that I do?

I believe that sometimes you do, as in this case.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[anthony_dipierro]

So my concerns about a continued erosion of our Constitutional rights are "irrational" but your concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb are not? Why is that?

I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.

The Supreme Court, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that it ruled the way that it did because the device [an infrared imaging system] is not in general use by the public, so Kyllo had an expectation of privacy, and because the imaging provided by the camera revealed details about Kyllo's home "that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."

This is a much different situation. For one thing, there is a much lower expectation of privacy. But even if it a search, which I admit it arguably is, it's a reasonable one.

I contend that, a cancer patient has reasonable expectations of privacy regarding their medical condition and treatmen regimen when they go out in public.

This detector does not detect tratement regimens, and certainly not medical conditions.

Radiation detectors are not in general use by the public and reveal information that would otherwise have been unknowable (to police). Thus, the use of said detectors is an unreasonable search.

No, you have not considered the governmental interest, so you have not shown whether or not the search is reasonable. For instance metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are reasonable, roadblocks to check for sobriety and even to search for drugs are reasonable, drug testing of students in extracurricular activities are reasonable, etc.

Me: Would you likewise claim that a police officer who uses his eyesight to look at someone is violating the civil rights of that person?

I said Constitutional rights, not civil rights.

Yes, and when a law enforcement official makes a search in violation of the 4th Amendment, they violate the person's civil rights.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.

Then why would you feel that radiation detectors pointed at innocent citizens were reasonable?

This is a much different situation. For one thing, there is a much lower expectation of privacy.

You think that someone has a lower expectation of privacy about the internal medical treatments they are receiving than does someone growing pot plants (Kyllo) in his home? Not in my book.

This detector does not detect tratement regimens, and certainly not medical conditions.

You are arguing semantics. Its use indirectly forces the patient to tell police officers why the detector went off. If no explanation is given, the person might be detained for hours, days, weeks, or even months as a suspected terrorist. I don't think that the police will let the person go unless he/she explains where they came in contact with nuclear materials.

No, you have not considered the governmental interest, so you have not shown whether or not the search is reasonable. For instance metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are reasonable, roadblocks to check for sobriety and even to search for drugs are reasonable, drug testing of students in extracurricular activities are reasonable, etc.

Metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are clearly visible and there are even signs pointing out their use. People can choose to avoid them (by avoiding airline travel). The radiation detectors, as I understand from reading the articles, are neither visible nor is their use advertised.

I disagree that the other examples are reasonable searches. I side with the ACLU on those and some are still being fought through the court system.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[anthony_dipierro]

Me: I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.

Then why would you feel that radiation detectors pointed at innocent citizens were reasonable?

Because they can detect a dirty bomb, nuke, or other health dangers with a minimal of intrusion. I don't feel that using a radiation detector on my neighbor should be a tort, so I likewise don't believe that govenment use of one should be considered a search.

You think that someone has a lower expectation of privacy about the internal medical treatments they are receiving than does someone growing pot plants (Kyllo) in his home?

Radiation detectors don't determine internal medical treatments.

You are arguing semantics. Its use indirectly forces the patient to tell police officers why the detector went off. If no explanation is given, the person might be detained for hours, days, weeks, or even months as a suspected terrorist. I don't think that the police will let the person go unless he/she explains where they came in contact with nuclear materials.

Now you're the one being hypothetical. I never said that police have the right to detain people as a suspected terrorist simply for having radiation coming off them. If you think that's reasonable, then I guess you understand why it's reasonable to search for it in the first place. I'm not about to argue about slippery slopes. The statement I made was that using the radiation detector was reasonable. I even admitted that the strip search may have been unreasonable (depends if there was other evidence that the article didn't mention). If you thought I was making any more broad of a statement, then you were mistaken.

Metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are clearly visible and there are even signs pointing out their use. People can choose to avoid them (by avoiding airline travel). The radiation detectors, as I understand from reading the articles, are neither visible nor is their use advertised.

Where did the articles say that there were no signs pointing out the use of radiation detectors? Not that it's relevant, as I think we'll both agree.

People can choose to avoid these radiation detectors by avoiding the subways, which once again I think we both agree is irrelevant.

I disagree that the other examples are reasonable searches.

Then don't bother bringing up Supreme Court rulings, because the Supreme Court has ruled that they are (except for the drug roadblock one, that's unreasonable in a 6-3 decision).

I side with the ACLU on those and some are still being fought through the court system.

Nope, they were all decided. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, and Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls. But I side with the ACLU on those cases as well, and I probably side with the ACLU on this question, of whether or not radiation detectors are reasonable.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

Because they can detect a dirty bomb, nuke, or other health dangers with a minimal of intrusion.

I was not aware that a nuke could be constructed such that it was so small that it could be hidden on a person.

But "intrusion" isn't the issue. The issue is the invasion of privacy. That it does not inconvenience most people is immaterial.

I don't feel that using a radiation detector on my neighbor should be a tort, so I likewise don't believe that govenment use of one should be considered a search.

It's not a tort for you to use a parabolic microphone hear what your neighbors are saying, but it would be for law enforcement to do so without probable cause. There are different standards between law enforcement and private citizens regarding surveillance. For Example, the Fourth Ammendment does not guarantee that I will not point an infrared camera at your house.

I never said that police have the right to detain people as a suspected terrorist simply for having radiation coming off them.

Whether you said it or not, they do have that right. They can simply state that the person had come in contact with controlled nuclear materials and that he/she provided no explanation for same. Thus, the detention.

Nope, they were all decided.

That does not mean that they cannot be challenged on other grounds or when similar, but not identical programs, are instituted. For example, there is the Texas case of Tannahill v. Lockney where an entire student body is being targeted for drug testing.

But I side with the ACLU on those cases as well, and I probably side with the ACLU on this question, of whether or not radiation detectors are reasonable.

It is my sincere hope that a more liberal House and Senate some day pass laws to undo the damage wrought by the recent conservative Supreme Court decisions.

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

fmaxwell: I was not aware that a nuke could be constructed such that it was so small that it could be hidden on a person.

anthony_dipierro: Your loss.

Let me be more blunt since the subtlety was lost on you: No terrorist will be able to construct a nuke of that size.

If that's true (and I'm not sure if it is), then I disagree with it. What ruling was this, anyway?

I have spent about 1/2 hour trying to find a ruling or law either way (regarding use of parabolic microphones for eavesdropping) and have been unsuccessful. It appears that, if your neighbors are standing on the sidewalk, it's probably legal to listen to, but not record, the conversation.

So it's reasonable to lock someone up for coming into contact with a controlled nuclear materials, but it's not reasonable to have a radiation detector detect that in the first place, with a minimum of invasion of privacy?

The Fourth Amendment's "reasonable" clause refers to searches and siezures, not incarcerations. Besides, if some guy sets the detectors off, the police are going to want to know why. Let's be realistic here: The police are looking for terrorists who have been involved in creating radioactive weapons. It's like someone wandering into the the subway covered in blood. He may be a butcher or a surgeon, but the police are likely to detain him if he refuses to provide an explanation for his condition.

In any case, the court has "never held that potential, as opposed to actual, invasions of privacy constitute searches for purposes of the Fourth Amendment" (US v. Karo). So the question is what is the actual in vasion of privacy of the detector, not what is the potential invasion.

If the police stood idly by while the detectors went off, there would be minimal invasion of privacy. If that has been the entire thrust of your argument, than we are basically in agreement.

Obviously, that's not what is happening. When a detector goes off, the person setting it off is pulled aside, stripped nude, searched, and questioned. That's an invasion of privacy. As the Court rule in UNITED STATES v. KARO: "It is the exploitation of technological advances that implicates the Fourth Amendment, not their mere existence."

Re:The Bush/Ashcroft War On Constitutional Rights

[fmaxwell]

Are you 100% sure of this?

I'm not 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I'm pretty damned sure that a terrorist is not going to be able to create nuke small enough to hide on a person.

Incarceration is a seizure. Should I cite the Supreme Court ruling which stated that?

No. I'll take your word for it.

My argument is that the use of the detector is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The strip search may be, depending on what other evidence was collected.

Because the detector cannot differentiate between someone carrying a smoke detector and someone undergoing radiation therapy, I'd agree.

But if the detector is being used to gather "evidence", then it is a search. And I certainly don't think that an unwarranted search made without probable cause (using the detector) should be used as the excuse to detain and further search an individual.

You're taking that out of context. The point is that the police aren't violating the constitution by mere possession of the device (in this case the radiation detector), but by its use in searching people with it. In this case, I disagree.

That was my understanding of the ruling and I was not taking it out of context. That summarizes it nicely.

ID Designation

[Traicovn]

They may choose not to use public transportation to avoid this inconvenience...
I'm sorry. Getting aroud NYC and many big cities without public transit is expensive, and complicated. Also, I would think that perhaps one might be irritated if they can't use the PUBLIC transit system their tax dollars pay for.
What will most likely happen in the end is that you will have a letter designation or something on a drivers license or on your state issued id/passport (everyone who flies knows that you have to have id). Yes, this could be defrauded, but anything can...

Re:ID Designation

[Maul]

And I'm sure that Al Qaeda operatives will have absolutely no problem getting ahold of such an ID card.

Re:ID Designation

[sql*kitten]

I'm sorry. Getting aroud NYC and many big cities without public transit is expensive, and complicated. Also, I would think that perhaps one might be irritated if they can't use the PUBLIC transit system their tax dollars pay for.

A terrorist on a one-way trip to Mecca or the Garden of Allah or wherever isn't going to be worried about a little inconvenience. These are people who live in caves without running water or electricity for years at a time, remember. All these measures do is annoy ordinary citizens to the point that they ignore any warning theey are given, which itself will only make a real terrorist act more effective.

Re:ID Designation

[sql*kitten]

And they are people that live like that all their lives, and not because they choose it, remember?

They do choose it, tho'. Osama bin Laden himself is a multi-millionaire heir to a dynastic fortune, and his lieutenant (whose name escapes me at the moment) is a qualified paediatrician from a wealthy Egyptian family. That is why they are so dangerous - they don't think the same way we do. The authorities have based their security measures on stopping people who think like Westerners, and that's why they aren't effective.

Re:chemotherapy != radiation

[politovski]

radiation and chemo work in different methods. radiation cleaves the strands of dna, making the cell unable to replicate. chemo works by many ways (alkylation of dna to inhibition of synthesis of the nucleiotides), but overall inhibits/kills dividing cells. same effect, different means.

Radiation != Chemo

[FakePlasticDubya]

When I submitted this story:

2002-12-06 18:34:29 Radiation Treatment Patients Set Off Subway Alarms (articles,tech) (accepted)

The editors changed it, to Chemotherapy... which is obviously not the same... Oh well.

Re:Radiation != Chemo

[TummyX]

Obvious proof that the editors deliberately introduce errors into articles to provoke trolling and mindless bashing.

Re:Wake Up! Coward

[puto]

Well posting as an AC and trolling as well. Ho hum.

1. Cops do whip black ass, and white ass, hispanic ass, all kindsa ass. Course next to Latin America and Russia, I would prefer a US ass whuppin than one of those. Have seen South American and Russian cops tear it up. And people don't sue there.

Hey you know what? I am a Jewish Hispanic. And I look like I should be selling rugs in a bazaar. I look more Arabic than most Arabs. I get searched in airports. Big deal, 5 minutes extra. Makes me feel kinda safe. I have been searched five times this year and the people in the airport were nothing but nice and apologetic to me.

We had a load of hurt come down on our country and we are watching our backs. Nothing wrong with that, and I am happy we are doing it. And you can use the arguement that the methods they are using are not effective. Well please suggest something. Should we do nothing?

I hold citizen ship in the UK,US, and Colombia. Pretty varied huh? Guess I am lucky, gotta pretty good world view IMHO.

The US does some harsh shit sometimes, but we do a lotta good stuff too. Stop trolling, stop being an AC.

I gotta tell you somehing as well. These days more BLACK people have asked me if I was an arab. Trying be a computer geek who is in radioshack buying wire when a big black man says"lookit at ol bin lades kid getting his shit for a bomb, damn, you aint gonna blow me up, just where in the hell or you from"

Man, got me all pissed on a friday night.

Re:What about Cell Phones?

[jridley]

um, what about cell phones? What does that have to do with this? Last I checked, cell phones do not give off ionizing radiation.

Re:watches?

[js7a]

police with tritium on thier guns

Why would police have tritium on their guns?

Re:My uncle... [I CALL BS!]

[abhinavnath]

Radio-iodine is used to treat thyroid cancer. Not saying this is definitely not BS, but it could be legit. HTH

No, it won't.

[Guppy06]

"My guess is that the detectors are set to "go off" even if the tiniest amount of radiation is found. That way, any attempt by terrorists to try to hide the radiation (thick lead, etc) will be thwarted."

If anything, all those false positives will make it easier to sneak in a nuclear or radiological device. When the alarms are going off every day you tend not to be as attentive as you would be otherwise, and the personnel involved won't exactly give a thorough search.

How did 12/7/41 and 9/11/01 happen? Too much information gathering, not enough information interpretation. And from the looks of this, we're setting ourselves up for more of the same.

Re:No, it won't.

[mbogosian]

How did 12/7/41 and 9/11/01 happen? Too much information gathering, not enough information interpretation. And from the looks of this, we're setting ourselves up for more of the same.

And we all know that these could have been prevented if we had just stripsearched radioactive subway-goers.

Re:No, it won't.

[Guppy06]

"In the case of 12/7/41, there is evidence that the government knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and did nothing to stop it because it would involve the USA in the war."

What would have been the point in doing nothing with the information? All that could have been done with it was to improve Pearl Harbor's defenses in preparation for the attack, thus involving the US in a war. The attack would have happened regardless. And even if it didn't, there was always the issue of the actual war declaration coming in from Tokyo to deal with (the one that was supposed to be delivered to Washington minutes before attack but got delayed on the Pacific telegraph lines).

Or are you talking about the war in Europe? Hitler himself solved that problem by also declaring war on the US.

Hell, the new radar facilities on Oahu would have made a big difference in what happened during the attack if the operators knew how to interpret the information, which brings me back to my main point...

At any rate, if you're going to troll with statements like that, make sure they stand up to Occam's Razor.

Re:No, it won't.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You're assuming they don't treat each radioactive case with the utmost care. It sounds like they are. I'm sorry, when someone comes through and sets off radioactive alarms, I just doubt the subway workers are going to get all ho-hum about it. "Aww, you look like a cancer patient, go ahead."

It's human nature - if there are anough false positives, an alarm will be disregarded, radiation or no.

Re:No, it won't.

[mbogosian]

And we all know that these could have been prevented if we had just stripsearched radioactive subway-goers.

Okay, to whomever modded me down on this...it's supposed to be sarcastic (sorry I forgot my <sarcasm/> tags, but take a look at the context)....

Re:No, it won't.

[axlrosen]

How did 12/7/41 and 9/11/01 happen? Too much information gathering, not enough information interpretation.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know about Pearl Harbor, but certainly for 9/11 it might be that there was simply not enough information present to know that an attack was going to happen, especially as compared to the loads of other, unrelated information that the authorities get every day. Who knows, maybe the FBI/CIA routinely get information even more suspicious-looking than they got prior to 9/11, which turns out to be nothing. Even with all the post-hoc analysis in the world, it's not clear that someone should have known before the fact that something was going to happen.

Re:My uncle... [I CALL BS!]

[dillon_rinker]

I call no BS. My sister-in-law had thyroid cancer. She was treated with radioactive iodine. Her children were not allowed to be in the same room with her and her husband was warned to limit his exposure.

There is an upper limit on the amount of radiation you can be exposed to "safely" within a year. I think it's entirely reasonable to suppose that some radiation treatments for cancer would result in a dose of radiation close to half the yearly "safe" amount.

U.S. environmental inspections

[js7a]

I thought the largest source of naturally occuring radiation was from the burning of coal, or maybe they scrub that. Someone please sound the alarm if they aren't scrubbing coal dust these days -- setting off radiation security sensors might be the only way to get the fossil fuel industry to continue scrubbing under a potential Bush II ii administration.

Re:Only in the US.

[shaitand]

Leave the poor canadians alone! Just because they aren't important enough and there aren't enough perks to purchase to make them worth owning is no reason to rub it in or make fun of them!

The White House, too

[MacAndrew]

I think it was the NYT that reported recently a guy who was entering the White House after a medical procedure and heart a faint electronic noise go off. He was instantly surrounded by the Secret Service which, given their limited sense of humor, is a pretty frightening thing. (I am proud that years ago I got one of them to smile. :)

I don't think he was strip-searched (he didn't work there but was a VIP of some sort).

Re:i have some doubts

[js7a]

A geiger counter and accompanying control hardware can be as small as a digital camera these days.

If they are still scrubbing coal dust in the vicinity then there should be no excessive sources of ionizing radiation other than the tiny source of alpha particles often found in fire alarms.

holy shit

[tswinzig]

It apparantly is no longer enough for them to MISS typos in their own writings, they have to introduce them into other peoples'!

Re: Radioactive iodine isotope

[Desert Raven]

Yes, you are correct. However, that is not chemotherapy, it is radiation therapy.

It's kind of like calling a capacitor a resistor. Yes, they're both small electronic parts, and they both go on circuit boards. But they are radically different items, and are not interchangeable.

Judging by a post by the article submitter, it was the slashdot editors who decided to switch one word for the other. Apparently "chemotherapy" is a more l33t word.

yes, strip them too

[Karma Sucks]

Cellphone users should *definitely* be strip-searched. God are they annoying.

Re:What about Cell Phones?

[js7a]

what's the deal with corn-nuts?

If I bring Wint-O-Green Lifesavers and a hammer, will I be strip searched?

Oh great.

[Jafafa Hots]

Tiny amounts of radiation in catshit in a landfill is too much, even though its probably full of smoke so detectors. So.... FLUSH it, so it ends up in the septic tank, runs out through the leach bed into the ditch, down to the creek and into Lake Ontario.

Fucking brilliant.

Re:Oh great.

[mindstrm]

Basically, yeah. If you flush it, it gets diluted... remember, concentration is everything.

If it goes into an incinerator, you end upw ith a relatively high concentration of radioactive dust & gas. If it goes in a landfill, it stays concentrated.
If it goes in water, it breaks down and spreads out into harmless concentrations.

Re:My uncle... [I CALL BS!]

[silvaran]

There's a report on it in the New England Journal of Medicine (1998). It's not a capsule of plutonium or anything, it's a radioactive iodine. I didn't believe it myself until I saw the kind of treatment he was undergoing.

Re:watches?

[tocqueville]

police with tritium on thier guns

Why would police have tritium on their guns?

Night sights have Tritium in them. It's how they glow in the dark.

for the real terrorists

[shird]

So eventually these guys will realise that radioation patients set off the alarms, so the real terrorists will know what to say when they really are carrying radioactive material.

Depends on what they are using

[The Tyro]

IANARO (Radiation Oncologist), but have some knowledge of this subject.

Usually Iodine-131 is given as ablation therapy for hyperthyroidism... the thyroid gland takes up the radioactive iodine (just like it takes up regular iodine) and literally burns itself out. The damage is localized because I-131 is a beta emitter. You can get the gland surgically removed as an alternative, but most people go for the pill... it's just easier. There may be specific indications for surgical removal (discrete mass, need pathology input, etc), but I could not name them.

There are other radioactive treatments for cancers... radioactive "seed" implants in prostate cancer for instance. I have never seen anyone walking around in public with them, but scanning someone being treated in that fashion might be interesting (to say the least). If airline security goons are making new mothers drink their own breastmilk (yes, I said "goons," there's no other name for someone who would do something that stupid) I can see some overzealous security folks doing a body cavity search to find the source of that "rectal radiation." I shudder at the thought of the lawsuit amount after something like that.

People undergoing chemotherapy will not set off any radiation alarms. However, from a theoretical standpoint, I can see the possibility of them setting off chemical warfare agent detectors. Please note the detectors would have to be outrageously sensitive (I don't know if it's even possible to make them that sensitive)... almost all of the chemotheraputic agents in common use are metabolic poisons of one type or another, including drugs like the nitrogen mustards (related to mustard gas). I could see someone getting some chemo solution spilled on their sleeve, and setting of somebody's chemical warfare sniffer. Someone with a little more chemical warfare experience want to comment?

Re:My uncle... [I CALL BS!]

[Cruciform]

The Canadian Atomic Energy Control board lists it's exposure schedule here.

I remember reading something years ago about 600 Rems a year being the safe limit for an individual but this shows it to be considerably lower.

I wonder how much radiation those little radium watch dials gave off :)

Just Wait for the Radon Fallout

[NeuroManson]

As I recall, nuclear power plants have often gone on alert for false positives resulting from radon exposure in the home.

While the odds are slim, considering the entire length Adirondack and Appalachian mountains range from Georgia to Canada, porions of which contain significant uranium ore veins, there's going to be a considerable amount of radon gas emitted by these veins as they go through the natural process of decay. What does this mean? Inevitably, there will be false positives as well. More people will be detained, more public outcry.

On a momentary tangent, I have difficulty putting too much weight in New Scientist's journalistic integrity. For example, why haven't pacemakers set off the alarms? While they may be shielded to a certain degree for safety, I doubt that they're 100% shielded against detection.

And what of nuclear power plant employees, or students of radiological sciences in college, or radiotherapy doctors in hospitals? All of these pick up marginally higher levels of radiation in their fields, why aren't they setting off alarms either?

To ensure against repeats of that article, the police need to (at least) inform the public of the minimum level of radiation that the sensors will trip on, so that at least innocent people won't be grabbed by police, just because they were picking up an old Radium book they won in an auction online.

Discrimination against physicists?

[atomicdragon]

Its a good thing I don't live in NYC, being a physicist I've gained a helathy glow over the years.

I might not actually glow as my friends claim, but after noticing some variations in background radiations once, I took some measurements. I found out that my right hand is more radioactive than the left and hence changed the background radiation depending on which hand I held the detector in. Could someone from NYC tell me where the detectors are, so if I ever use the subways I know which side to walk on?

Re:Discrimination against physicists?

[robbo]

Do you wear a watch on your right hand? Does it glow in the dark? My physics teacher in HS had an old wrist watch that made the geiger counter go nuts because the glow-in-the-dark face was made of a radioactive material. I suspect that they don't use that material to make wrist watches any more, but you never know.

Duel!

[webword]

Let them settle things with a duel!

The dose makes the poison

[toxic666]

Depends upon the type of radiation source and the detector in use. Alpha, beta and gamma radiation are different animals and emitted by radioisotopes in different amounts.

Alpha particles are helium nucleii without electrons; beta particles are electrons; gamma radiation is electromagnetic radiation similar to X-Rays. Alpha and beta radiation are mostly stopped by inches to feet of air; gamma is more or less unaffected. Harmful doses are more complicated to assess, but basically, alpha and beta emitters are typically harmful when they get into your body and emit particles right next to cells, where they cause ionizing damage. Inserting alpha and beta emitters within a tumor is, essentially, what one form of radiotherapy does; put deadly ionizing radiation into a tumor to kill it. Radium has been an effective treatment for breast cancer (one of the first reasonably successful ones) since the 1920's.

Gamma radiation, although it passes through many feet of air and well into tissue, is not as damaging because it is not ionizing. However, high exposures have significant impacts. Gamma will pass through metals more or less unaffected.

The detectors are likely designed to pick up gamma radiation characteristic of enriched fissionable materials, because gamma passes through several feet of air. However, certain types of radiotheraputic isotopes (e.g. radium) also emit a heck of a lot of gamma.

Thus, the dilema of false positives for radiotherapy patients. If you want to pick up enriched radioisotopes, you will pick up gamma from legitimate theraputic uses. We should provide radiotherapy patients with a hospital-issued ID so they do not have to suffer through security checks. It would not be much more difficult than issuing a driver's license.

Re:The dose makes the poison

[The Tyro]

You are more right than you know.

Even though some of the chemotheraputic agents we use these days are related to chemical warfare agents, it's the dose that makes or breaks you.

Virtually all chemo agents have one thing in common... they are some kind of metabolic poison. They are nucleoside analogues, directly denature DNA or proteins... whatever. Because of this, they are quite useful in cancer treatments, primarily because cancer cells divide at an abnormally fast rate, and are very metabolically active... ergo, these drugs will affect such cells to a great extent than normal tissues. Keep in mind, however, that some of your normal tissues are also rapidly dividing: bone marrow, hair follicles, intestinal lining. Ever wonder why cancer patients lose their hair and need blood transfusions? That's why, in a nutshell.

Don't let anyone tell you that chemo is bad/evil... that's bullshit. Unpleasant? Yes. Evil/bad/drug-company-conspiracy? No. Because of chemo, we have very high cure rates on some kinds of cancer... testicular cancer is a good example; very treatable with chemotherapy. But, like anything else, it doesn't work on every cancer, or every person... that's the other edge of the biological diversity sword.

Also, there are some chemo drugs that have a lifetime maximum dose... you get amount X and NO MORE... ever.

The dose really does make the poison, and that's not theory... that's real world.

Re:The dose makes the poison

[razablade]

We should provide radiotherapy patients with a hospital-issued ID so they do not have to suffer through security checks. It would not be much more difficult than issuing a driver's license.

Likewise, it would not be much more difficult for terrorists with bombs to create a fake hospital-issued ID.

Re:The dose makes the poison

[axlrosen]

I don't know anything about this stuff, but could a person hide this dangerous radioactive material on or in their body?

If the person who sets off this detector is carrying a really heavy briefcase, then just run each one through the machine separately and you've caught him, special ID or no.

Re:The dose makes the poison

[JimBobJoe]

We should provide radiotherapy patients with a hospital-issued ID so they do not have to suffer through security checks. It would not be much more difficult than issuing a driver's license.

It's funny that you should bring this up. I was just at the state legislature on Wednesday watching the discussion on the concealed weapon system, and I gave testimony saying that the permit should not be a photogrph based permit, and should instead be non-photo based, because it would be very likely that the photo based permit would be counterfeited for reasons other than carrying a concealed weapon, and would add a new front in ID theft.

Though this isn't so much the same reason, making up new reasons for photo ID's is a very bad idea...I've always said myself that photograph based drivers' licenses haven't solved the problems that they themselves caused when they appeared on the scene. More photo ID's cards are not a solution to anything except how to create spiffier forms of identity fraud.

Issuing driver's licenses are incidentally a pain in the ass, especially in New York, which no longer accepts a birth certificate as proof of identity (see the NY DMV website for more info. It's kinna interesting.) Funny, New York never made the photograph mandatory on their licenses--no point, since many of the states residents will never have had licenses in the first place, so the photo ID advantages were lost. (The NY DMV commmissioner has had, since 1994, the ability to issue licenses with photos at his discretion, but is not required to.)

And naturally, I am extremely bothered by the idea that someone has to be given a photo ID card because something about them is different. That's the whole situation here...type A citizens don't need photo ID card, type B citizens who radiate gamma level radiation, for reasons that aren't entirely our business, need photo ID card explaining that. That can't be good precedence.

While I hate making the comparison, the Nazi's did have a fucking photo ID card for just about everything...I think they had some sorta odd philosophy that the more photo ID cards a person had, the more difficult they were to fake an identity. Fortunately, underground counterfeiters sent many people to freedom by faking all those documents that the Nazi's made. Frankly, all it achieved was a lot of inconvenience for everyone.

Barium Enema

[Ranger]

"No officer, I'm not carrying a dirty bomb. I just had a Barium enema. Would you like to check my ass with your radiation detector?"

Hold on there turbo

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm guessing you probably don't know a lot about the radation treatment of the thyroid so allow me to explain:

They give you radioactive iodine (I believe it's I-131, but I could be wrong) in a non-tribial dose. This will then accumulate in your thyroid. Now It has a pretty short half life, around 8 days, so it doesn't stay in you in a significant quantity for all that long. Also, since it accumulates in the thyroid, damage to teh rest of the body is limited.

However, notice that I said non-trivial dose. It's enough that you are warned to limit contact with family members for a week, and enough that you can tell if someone has had it done just by pointing a Giger counter at them.

Along the same lines, my grandma has two metal hips, and is gaurenteed to set off any metal decetor. Well she isn't stupid about it, if she knows she's going through one, she notifies the people that she has metal hips, and they can take the appropriate setps to verify her story.

Re:Hold on there turbo

[fmaxwell]

enough that you can tell if someone has had it done just by pointing a Giger counter at them.

What right does law enforcement have to point a geiger counter at anyone without probable cause? Trying to ride the subway is not probable cause for a search by law enforcement using a Geiger counter, strip search, body cavity search, or other means.

Well she isn't stupid about it, if she knows she's going through one, she notifies the people that she has metal hips, and they can take the appropriate setps to verify her story.

It's none of their business, or the business of those in line near her, what surgery she has had done. You act like the ubiquity of metal detectors justifies their use. It does not.

People have a right to privacy. A cancer patient has a right to keep their illness private and not discuss it with some dick (slang for "detective") working for the New York subway system. Medical patients, whether fitted with prosthesis or undergoing radiation treatments, should not have to present their "papers" in order to use public facilities.

Re:Hold on there turbo

[fmaxwell]

The new homeland security thing that was just put into effect.

A law does not trump the Constitution. That's why the courts often rule that laws are unconstitutional.

Re:Wake Up! Coward

[Kunta Kinte]

I gotta tell you somehing as well. These days more BLACK people have asked me if I was an arab. Trying be a computer geek who is in radioshack buying wire when a big black man says"lookit at ol bin lades kid...

So why does the ethnicity of the racist asshole who made this comment matter? Racists exist in all races. Why does this suprise you?

Similar to the issues raised in the disscusion on the spammer who was complaining about too much spam, some people have no empathy. They can't understand that their actions are wrong even if they've gone or are going through the same thing.

Re:chemotherapy != radiation

[coryboehne]

The really unfortunate part is that with either method we still cannot target just the cancer and it's really a "Kill the patient or kill the cancer" game where the only the strongest between the two will win.

This is getting ridiculous!

[Newer Guy]

Al Quaida got EXACTLY what they wanted on 9/11/2001! Granted, a few thousand died that day..and a couple of buildings went down...but since then lives have been made miserable for MILLIONS...which is exactly what they wanted to to to us! Our freedoms have been curtailed at the airport..like they'll ever try that again..If they did, they'd be thrown out the window by an entire pissed off airplane. The old ideas of hijacking were to comply with the hijackers' demands...but not any more!! Now we have cancer patients being strip searched whose only crime is taking the subway. We have TV cameras looking at us everywhere, connected up to facial reckognization systems. We have more freedoms curtailed since World War II and unlike the ones then, these loss of freedoms are permanent. Yes, the terrorists got exactly what they wanted..a shift in the United States' citizens' right to freedom. The irony is that the REAL terrorists are Bush and Ashcroft and Congress who've perverted this awful event for their own political ends.

100% and counting...

[gnovos]

I should play the lottery, considering how often I get picked for "random" searches... 100% so far.

Glad to see we're safe

[stinky wizzleteats]

From chemotherapy patients cleverly recruited by Al Qaida to handle nuclear bombs. Many thanks to the crack transit police, who bravely ignored the fact that these people were actual cancer patients and stip searched them anyway.

Maybe a few street gangs painting obscene graffiti with radium paint will put some perspective on all this crap.

I got this at an aiport

[therealmoose]

Some security guard at Ft. Lauderdale, FL checked my laptop with this, he just waved this swab all over the laptop and put it in a machine. He flipped some switches and said, and I quote, "If this turns red, start running."

That got me nice and relaxed I must say....

The alternative...

[tswinzig]

...is to discover the "dirty anal bomb" when its too late. Do you want that on your conscience?

McD

[Tablizer]

McDonald's installed one also, but they had to take it down because their Secret Sauce kept setting it off.

Re:Offtopic about radioactivity Re:My question is.

[lommer]

"The reason is that after the atmospheric atomic tests any steel made since will pick-up contamination during production."

What!? Seriously!? Can you back that up with evidence?

I have a sinking feeling that i just got duped into looking like an idiot...

Re:carrying things

[ryochiji]

>You just know not to be 'carrying' when you go through airport security.

Personally, that's a little bit more of my freedom that I prefer not to give away. I was once made to go through extra screening, and the guy told me that it was because I was carrying too many electronics and batteries in my bag. I don't like the fact that I can't carry on a Swiss Army knife like I used to, but I'll deal with that. But if they waste my time for carrying too many electronic gear, that's going too far.

Remember: when they start taking away freedom, they don't take it away all at once, they chip away at it. Next thing you know, they've chipped away so much of it that there's nothing you can do.

Just stay out of the subway

[lommer]

Honestly, all this will do is cause an unholy incovenience to cancer patients such that it gets into the media, at which point any self respecting terrorist who can do a bit of research will figure out that he should just avoid the subways.

Duh.

Re:Just stay out of the subway

[wheany]

Okay, this one's easy:

a) Terrorists are evil
b) Nucular radiation is evil

Therefore terrorists emit nucular radiation.

QED

Re:Just stay out of the subway

[whereiswaldo]

What a flawed argument. Terrorist hears alarm, terrorist detonates bomb. Mission accomplished regardless of whether he makes his official target or not.

Re:watches?

[sallen]

I wonder if it's a little too sensitive when it's nailing radiation therapy patients, though. That seems excessive.

I'm not sure I'd agree. If one goes on the assumption that someone transporting it FOR other than legit reasons, then I'd guess they would be trying to shield it and a very small leakage would be something to look for.

It's just a rough situation for all involved. I do sympathize with the guy getting strip searched multiple times, but it's understandable. The law enforcement folks have to have a rough balancing act, knowing on one hand they may have someone wanting to destroy everything and reacting to that, while on the other, being 'considerate' enough (ie, not pounced on by 30 gun drawn agents or stripped in the middle of Penn station or in 20 deg. weather outside a tunnel), if that's the word, to realize most they are going to stop are just people with some already less than pleasant circumstances in the case of iodine or radiation seed implants. Doesn't make it easy for the police.

While it'd be nice if it hadn't necessarily been made public, I am actually more comfortable. Taking those bridges and tunnels, I see the PA trucks there, ever present, but have wondered if these guys don't eventually start letting their guard down just from the aspect of a boring patrol and the repetitive 'non-event' routine. I'd hoped and kept thinking they've got something that's either scanning plates, faces, etc, and the radiation detection is all the better. Some may think it's overboard (and I'm a BIG one on preserving the individual rights), but it's non-intrusive and hell, my ezpass clocks me going through every time anyway so it's no big deal. In fact, I might not be in quite the rush getting through the tunnel. (I'm not paranoid, I've just thought ever since '93 that there isn't much in a tunnel for sightseeing purposes so going 'slow' isn't a high priority!)

Re:My uncle... [doing the math]

[wirelessbuzzers]

You do that math, that's some senstive equipment they have in the White House.

It can't be that sensitive. Suppose they put about 20 millimoles in him (that's a lot, especially just for imaging). About 10^22 atoms (Avogadro, remember him?). After 3*7*3=63 halflives there about 2^63 /=/ 10^19 times fewer, about say a thousand (this is rounded to the nearest power of 10). If he's near the detector for about say 1 minute, that's about a 500th of a halflife so we can expect, what, one of the atoms to decay? Even if the gamma hits the detector (probably another 10,000 to 1 against), it's below the noise threshold, and they certainly can't pick him out of the crowd. Maybe if it were two weeks, or there were a less common isotope with a longer half-life mixed in, I could believe it.

Just ask Dr. Banner

[extra88]

Gamma radiation, although it passes through many feet of air and well into tissue, is not as damaging because it is not ionizing. However, high exposures have significant impacts.

Sure, it can make you green and stupid but also strong.

READ THIS STORY

[corebreech]

Yeah, this one.

Cowards!

[The_THOMAS]

To paraphrase the GREAT Ben Franklin:

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Get your heads out the sand people! If you don't care enough about your freedom to put a stop to this kind of thing then go ahead and email your data to the Information Awareness Office!

American! Knows what that means! And PROUD!

Shouldn't that be Thomas Jeferson?

[DABANSHEE]

nt

Re:Shouldn't that be Thomas Jeferson?

[fmaxwell]

No.

racial profiling?

[pwarf]

I agree - it's profiling. I read what you said:
"You have a beard, you have glasses, you fit the profile of what someone has said to look for. That fits under the the Supream Courts ruling for racial [emphasis added] profiling."

How do glasses and a beard fit under the Supreme Court rulings on racial profiling?

Profiling itself has not been deemed illegal. Police/federal screeners are free to use any "reasonable" cause in determining who to search. Specific protections are provided against racial profiling in Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. I know of no protections against searches motivated by suspicion of glasses or beards.

I think gender and age profiling in airport security are needed. I fit the general description of whom they should be worried about: male in his early twenties. It will be an inconvenience to me, but it is the most prudent course of action. Otherwise, to achieve the same degree of safety, much more money will have to be spent searching women and the elderly for the sake of appearances.

The profiling in the airports is fundamentally different from the racial profiling in traffic stops.
First, it focuses on a group that has not been the focus of a pattern of discrimination: young males (pretty much regardless of race: Guys my age are much more prone to do stupid things).
Second, the inconvenience is much less.
Third, it is not the result of irrational prejudice, but of a rational allocation of limited resources.

If I can be charged higher insurance rates simply because of my age and gender, why can't it take me five more minutes to get through airport security? Both are inconvenient to me personally, but are rational.

"And yes, if I am getting the "treatment" 80% of the time I fly, I would sue. It takes time out of my day, it makes me want to fly less, it affects my mindset. It makes me grumpy, and that is not a good thing."
Would it really make you feel better if everyone else had to go through the 'treatment' just as often? What, misery loves company?

"After all, if you did not want to sue, the KKK would still be loving the site of the "coloreds" walking out to an outhouse rather then getting the same treatment that every person has a right for."
First, note that the suits brought in the civil rights movement were for much more serious matters than making you grumpy.
Second, what is your argument, that lawsuits hastened the introduction of indoor plumbing for blacks? Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. I assume you are talking about the court cases that established that separate facilities for different races were inherently unequal. Procurring access to decent education falls under what I consider a need to sue. Saving 15 minutes at the airport at the expense of less effective security is what I consider not justifying a lawsuit. It simply should not be that big of a deal.

"Which are you?"
-The one smart enough to not enter the casino.

Why were they strip searched anyway?

[fmaxwell]

The person was being strip-searched because they set off a radiation detector. There was no probable cause to use the radiation detector on them in the first place. Law enforcement can't use the results of one unconstitutional search to justify another one.

Re:Why were they strip searched anyway?

[fmaxwell]

The homeland security bill gives them the right to protect againt possible terrorism. The radiation detector is there as a result of the homeland security to make sure the terrorists dont do it again. Setting off that detector IS a cause for a constitutional search under the bill

Did they even have classes other than physical education and auto shop at your high school?

No law can give police the "right" to conduct searches without probable cause. That would require the repeal of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

A strip-search cannot be justifed by the results of pointing a radiation detector at someone without probable cause.

In summary, you are attempting to justify an unconstitutional strip search based on evidence gathered through and unconstitutional search with radiation detectors that was authorized by an unconstitutional law.

Yes, there is something wrong...

[fmaxwell]

We had a load of hurt come down on our country and we are watching our backs. Nothing wrong with that, and I am happy we are doing it.

Yes, there is something wrong with that when it involves unreasonable searches:

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

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.

That you do not mind giving up your Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches is irrelevent -- but sad.

How about Phosphorus-32?

[RKBA]

I don't have any chemical warfare experience, but a few years ago I did undergo two separate procedures that are known as a "radioactive synovectomy" for my right knee. I've posted the details on a forum for people like me with Psoriatic Arthritis at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PsoriaticArthritis/m essage/23440 but basically the doctor injects a small amount of a radioactive isotope of phosphorus (P32) into the synovial cavity of my knee to destroy the diseased synovial tissue lining the joint. The injection is much, much easier than a surgical synovectomy which can take weeks to recover from I've heard, and is much more expensive as well.

My rheumatologist had told me that the beta radiation wouldn't penetrate the tissue of my knee and that none would be detectable externally, but just to double check I pulled out my Geiger counter after I got home (*everyone* has their own Geiger counter, right? ;-), and if I held it near my knee it pinned the needle on the most sensitive scale. I was emitting about 2 milli-Rems per hour of radiation, which decreased rapidly the further away the meter was (inverse square law). I panicked and called the doctor on his cell phone. He assured me he had injected the correct amount, etc., and acted as though he thought I must be crazy or something, so on my next visit to his office I brought my Geiger counter along to prove to him that the radiation was indeed detectable externally. He was still incredulous, and thought I must have a defective meter or something. During my next procedure (which had to be done in the radiology lab of the hospital), as soon as the P32 was injected I asked one of the lab technicians to verify my readings, which he did. My Geiger counter had been right on the money, and even after being assured of the accuracy of the readings, my doctor STILL looked skeptical!

P32 has a half-life of about two weeks, so after 6 to 8 weeks it's virtually undetectable.

-- Ron

Re:How about Phosphorus-32?

[The Tyro]

Very interesting... I was unaware of the use of radioactive Phos for joints. I would have loved to have seen the look on your rheumatologist's face when you whipped out the geiger counter... He's probably still talking about you.

Most likely your rheumatologist was parroting what he was taught (I doubt he has any serious expertise in radioactive/particle physics, unless he's double-boarded in nuclear medicine AND rheumatology).

It might be very telling to know how that agent was initially tested (probably on animals, then humans), and for what kind of arthritis it's used.

The radiation you are picking up externally may have something to do with the size of your knee. In my experience, people with arthritis are often larger, particularly those with early arthritis, since osteoarthritis is a wear-and-tear phenomenon. Think of it this way: if you try to carry a grand piano in the back of a Pinto, the shocks are going to scream after a while... same with joints. Large, obese people get lots of back/joint problems that would otherwise not be as severe, if not for the extra weight. A larger knee might soak up more of that radiation... I'm just wondering if they tested it on large people.

I don't know if that's your situation or not... just playing devil's advocate.

Re:How about Phosphorus-32?

[Imabug]

The external radiation that's being detected are bremsstrahlung x-rays being produced as the P-32 beta particles collide and lose energy.

How to smuggle U235 /P238 in the subway

[aepervius]

Easy. Just don't eat for a week or so as to get a terrible face, don't sleep either. Then shave completly your head. Your face will be gaunt and you *will* looks like a cancer patient. Then wait that a few false alarm happen in the media, go in the subway.

When the alarm sound have some faked paper about a cancer treatment by radiation. When the guy come to you jsut show the paper. Chance are that in a year or so after so much false alarm they let you thru after seeing you (now really bad looking and not looking like a terrorist).

Think the scenario is far etched ? Think again. Human can also be pavlov trained to ignore false alarm if they come too often. That is why setting a detection level in an alarm is a science in itself.

Re:How to smuggle U235 /P238 in the subway

[dorzak]

Simple, while it is incomplete, Subways, are a "target" for terrorism. This was demonstrated in Japan a few years back with a gas attack. Remember, terrorists are looking for psychological impact. Setting off a bomb in an enclosed space, with limited escape routes, and lots of places, especially if it is part of the city's infrastructure seems like would be a target.

Re:Wake Up! Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah. Just because it's AC doesn't mean it's a troll. In fact, I wasn't trolling.

The other day, I was talking to my Barber whose friend is Arabic. He gets searched at every airport he goes to, and he finds it offensive. He's born and bred USian, but because of the way he looks he gets treated like a second class citizen. 18 months ago, he didn't have that problem. And it seems to be getting worse for people.

Maybe my point about US activities overseas was off-topic, and wasn't what people wanted to hear - fine, but the Post was modded +1 Insightful for a while - but I still believe that if US citizens don't fight the constant erosion of your rights you will end up in a Police State that claims to be a Democracy (or rather, a Republic. Sounds familiar? P.R.C. anyone?).

So why do I care, when I'm obviously not a US citizen? Because like it or not the US affects the rest of us, and the better your country is the better for the rest of us.

Easy to accomplish without entering.

[Inoshiro]

"Soon as the news hits that the New York subway system is contaminated with radioactive material, there will be panic, regardless of amount."

Now, maybe they've changed things, but the last time I was in New York, the Subways were open. IE: you could freely pour particulate matter into air vents and other areas that honeycomb the streets under Manhattan. It's nice in winter to get the warm breeze of a passing Subway train, but it also means it's very easy to contaminate. There's no reason a terrorist would go through the gateway, when there are so many other entry methods they can use.

Reactionist, rather than rational, security measures are not secure.

Re:Breastmilk?

[The Tyro]

yep... it's almost an urban legend, though there have evidently been two such instances... Here's a link

Snopes.com

Jared on chemo?

[Old Wolf]

The alarms detect more than 6 grams of fat?

more info

[mlc]

The original letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is online.

Chemo? Gamma not ionizing?

[mindstrm]

That's interesting.. but what does chemotherapy have to do with radiation treatment?

And for the grandparent post... if you really think gamma radiation is not ionizing, and want to go telling the world that, go hang out with some gamma emitters for a while first, THEN come tell us how it passes harmlessly through things.

Alpha & Beta radiation, outside the body, cause radiation damage primarily in the skin. The higher the energy, the further they penetrate, of course. Gamma radiation, however, will pass right through you, causing damage to your internal organs along the way.

What is ionizing radiation?

Gamma radiation is VERY ionizing. Why do you think it causes cancer? Why do you think it casues radiation poisoning in high doses? What do you think radiation poisoning is?

Re:Chemo? Gamma not ionizing?

[mindstrm]

Well, technically, it doesn't.
It caused one person to turn green when he gets angry. This is the result of an extremely unlikely genetic mutatiion. The radiation he was exposed to, just by chance, happened to ionize just the right dna molecules in just the right place to bring on this new behavior.
The real question is what will happen if/when he has kids.... I suspect, giving that orgasm is similar to anger in males, that he probably crushes his girlfriends to death, and having an actual child would take some kind of artificial process.
Then, of course, the question arises.. what happens when the newborn baby gets pissed off becuase he's hungry?

Nuclear Medicine Therapy

[radon222]

Sorry folks , but this isnt Chemotherapy or Bracytherapy ... brachytherapy is irradiation with sealed sources which are inside the body . Best name for this is Nuclear Medicine Therapy. ... by the way , I am a Radiation Therapist and a Nuclear Medicine Technologist

It's worth it.

[Moderation abuser]

I mean, a few people who're dying of cancer anyway getting strip searched on a weekly basis is a small price to pay for the safety of the majority...

Right?

My laptop story.

[mindstrm]

I was on my way to the Carribean from Vancouver, and had a stop in Miami. I had 2 laptops in my bag.

So.. the bag goes through the xray machine, and the lady asks me to take out my laptop and turn it on.

Interesting, I thought, she only thinks I have one.

So I pull out the old vaio and fire it up, as soon as the startup screen comes on, she says thank you. I put it back, and start walking.
Somewhat nervously...as I'm convinced some guy with a gun is going to bash me in the back of the head any second for trying to sneak a second laptop in... but nope. Nobody noticed.

Of course, only a moron would think that turning it on actually PROVES anything.

I recall another US airport where I skipped the laptop check all together.. they were asking everyone to open up bags and turn on laptops and whatnot, and they just skipped me altogether.

Fear me, the invisible traveler.

Re:My laptop story.

[TheSync]

This week I took four flights without once having them ask me to turn on my computer.

OK, it was a Fujitsu Stylistic 1200 tablet. Maybe they only search machines with keyboards...

BTW, Bluegrass Airport in Lexington, KY, is completely covered with free 802.11 wireless Internet access. Sweet!

Story is possible -- possible explanations

[Guppy]

"It can't be that sensitive. Suppose they put about 20 millimoles in him (that's a lot, especially just for imaging). About 10^22 atoms (Avogadro, remember him?). After 3*7*3=63 halflives there about 2^63 /=/ 10^19 times fewer, about say a thousand (this is rounded to the nearest power of 10). If he's near the detector for about say 1 minute, that's about a 500th of a halflife so we can expect, what, one of the atoms to decay?"

Could be a lot more than that. While the desired isotope used for medical purposes had a half-life of eight hours, I can think of two possibilities that would explain the detection. If the half life is 8 hours, it had to be generated just before use (with a reactor, accelerator, or by chemical purification of an intermediate decay product from an isotope of a different element). Could there be some side reactions/impurities that generated small amounts of other isotopes with longer half lives?

Another is that the decay path doesn't stop after one step -- nuclei resulting from the initial decay could also be radioactive.

Answers to general questions...

[garcia]

no.

All round trip. All booked well in advance. Beard is neatly trimmed, hair is short and combed, prescription medicine is in my name, car stereo should have been questioned at the security entrance after going through the X-ray (not at the gate), I wear clean clothes, and nothing to suggest that I am a member of any small minority faction...

These trips were from SMALL airports to SMALL airports. Connecting flights were at large airports but generally at the large airports is where the 20% of skipping came in.

Toledo -> Pittsburgh -> Scranton
Minneapolis -> Philadelphia -> Scranton
Dayton -> Charolette -> Savannah

Re:Answers to general questions...

[anthony_dipierro]

The odds of that are about 1 in 1000. But since there's many more than 1000 slashdot posters, it doesn't surprise me at all.

Fear not, foul mouth.

[twitter]

Tiny amounts of radiation in catshit in a landfill is too much, even though its probably full of smoke so detectors. So.... FLUSH it, so it ends up in the septic tank, runs out through the leach bed into the ditch, down to the creek and into Lake Ontario.

Well, not exactly. By the time it gets out of the septic tank it won't be there. The iodine isotope used decays away quickly and is then stable, that's why it gives an effective short term dose and is useful.

At the landfill, you want the detectors set low so that you can stop the line before said Americium Smoke detector and other stuff goes into the pile or worse, and incenerator. It's nice to sort your waste and deal with things the way they should be dealt with. A big heaping hunk of cat poop that took a one night ride to the dump might be hotter than you imagine.
Fucking brilliant.

Oh my eyes and screen, such blinding language is burning the phosphor off my CRT. Make it stop!

Re:For those who care

[SuiteSisterMary]

Heaven help you if your doctor happens to have an accent that sounds even a little bit arabic or middle-eastern.

What good is a note from a random person going to do?

Base rate fallacy

[hey!]

This is an example of an error in numerical reasoning called the base rate fallacy.

The base rate fallacy is trying to interpret the results of a test without considering how common the thing being tested for is in the population being sampled.

For example, suppose there is a medical test for a disease that has a five percent false positive rate. I then grab somebody off the street and administer the test, and he turns out positive. How certain are we that he has the disease? 95%? No, we cannot say without knowing the probability that any individual pulled off the street has the disease.

Suppose one person in a thosuand has the disease. There are two ways we can get positive results from the test. On the one hand he may actually have the disease (p = 0.001). If we sample 1000 people, one person will test positive for this reason. On the other hand he may not have the disease (p = .999). If we test 1000 people, 5% of the 999 (about 50 people) will be false positives.

So, of the 51 positives we'd expect to get, only one person legitimately has the disease. Instead of there being a 95% probability of the disease, there is actually only a 2% probability that a positive test indicates anything at all when applied to a random population. In order to apply the test usefully, I need some independen reason to suspect the person has the disease.

Even a slight reason for suspicion can alter the interpretation dramatically. For example, suppose I'm about 10% certain a person has the disease. If I tested 1000 people who met this criteria, 100 would test positive because they had the disease, 50. So if I'm 10% certain, then a positive test should make me 66% certain. If I'm 50% certain. then a positive test should make me about 90% certain.

A lot of public security measures suffer from the base rate problem. For example random drug testing doesn't tell you with much certainty that a person is doing drugs -- you really ought to test only peple you have independent reason to believe are using drugs. The only time widespread screening makes sense is if the base rate of the thing being tested is very high relative to the false positive probability.

This cancer patient situation is essentially similar. If we have reason to suspect that somebody is a terrorist, if he sets of radioactivity alarms it is very suspicious. If we have no such reason, then whether or not it is suspicious depends on the base rate of nuclear terrorism in the community.

Now it so happens that the false positive rate for this test is rather small: very few people are walking around radioactive for innocent reasons. ON the other hand, the rate of atomic terrorism in the general population is even smaller by several orders of magnitude.

This means that this particular alarm essentially tells us nothing about the people who set it off. It is probably not significantly better than a policy of randomly strip searching people.

However, this is not the only way to look at the problem. Suppose we knew for a fact that there was going to be a suicide dirty bomber somewhere in the city. Screening people in the subway might effectively prevent it from happening in the subway, either by deterring the bomber, or by catching hime, at the price of also catching hundreds of innocent people.

I think the take home message of this is that we should not use such systems on a routine basis; in cases where we have good reason to do so, we should remember that while if there is a terrorist he'll be culled out by the system, any particular individual culled by the system is not significantly more likely to be guilty than any randomly selected person.

Red Bamboo?

[mekkab]

IS he related to the Great Gazoo?

God!I love the flintstones...

Quit whining

[dan_lamb]

Stop whining. I have two prosthetic legs and a silver star to go along with them - not exactly my idea of a fair trade (but the medal is rather pretty blah, blah blah). I set off metal detectors from ten feet away (okay... maybe five feet). I travel for business at least one week out of every month. I'm white, 6'3", 190lbs, with a military haircut and I get searched EVERY time I fly, even if I wear shorts so everyone can see my titanium "Lt Dan magic legs". I have never complained about it. I never will.

People need to realize that freedom isn't free. If all it is costing you is a few minutes of your time while a security guard or soldier looks in your bag, I say "DEAL WITH IT."

nothing new

[CowbertPrime]

Non-licensed posession of higher than trace amounts of radioactive substances is illegal and subject to criminal penalties under the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission). Radiation detectors are set to detect levels above the background. Actually even non-detectable (via geiger counter technology) radioisotopes is illegal with out a license. I work in a 'hot' lab, whose sole radioisotope is low amounts of tritium. Although tritiated compounds are extremely weak beta emitters (detectable only in a scintillation counter), and although we do not need to wear radiation badges or even lab coats, we have special marked off areas for use, and the lab is inspected monthly. We must keep track of every micro-curie of radiation we use. We are restricted by our license to extremely small amounts of material. To access the material we have to unlock the lab, unlock the cold room, unlock a wall case, and unlock the storage box. There are 4 keys 4 on separate keychains. We take radiation regs more seriously than chemical safety or animal welfare because in addition to losing our license to buy, store, and use tritium, we can go to jail if any of it walks away from the lab. (Note: we don't use pure tritium. The tritium is incorporated into thymidine, a nucleotide involved in DNA synthesis. It is impossible to regenerate pure tritium from this material - in case you are wondering if it could be used in a weapon).

Whereas residual radioactivity from cancer treatment, nuclear medicine, or radiological procedures may be released from a patient after they are released from the hospital, one never knows if he or she is actually carrying a radioisotope, since all we have to go on is a geiger counter.

Re:Secret Weapon

[Ziviyr]

Be funny watching them form an atomic pile. :-)

Hehe fucked up logic

[Havokmon]

We should provide radiotherapy patients with a hospital-issued ID so they do not have to suffer through security checks. It would not be much more difficult than issuing a driver's license.

Umm yeah. So these detectors exist because it's assumed that terrorists would use a dirty bomb UNDERGROUND, and wouldn't shield it properly.

Conversely, your solution assumes that terrorists can't get fake hospital ID's or driver's licenses.

IMHO, these things are about as good as a dead-bolt lock. Only the true morons would be stopped by it.