Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TSA Moving X-ray Body Scanners To Smaller Airports

Posted by Soulskill on from the shuffle-it-around-so-it-looks-like-we're-doing-something dept.

OverTheGeicoE writes "If you're concerned about possible health effects from TSA's X-ray body scanners, you might be pleased to learn that TSA is making changes. TSA is removing X-ray body scanners from major airports including Los Angeles International, Boston's Logan, Chicago's O'Hare, and New York City's JFK. Then again, these changes might not please you at all, because they are not mothballing the offending devices. No, they are instead moving them to smaller airports like the one in Mesa, AZ. Is this progress, or is TSA just moving potentially dangerous scanners from 'Blue' areas to 'Red' ones right before a presidential election?"

11 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. And... by Revotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...politics has what to do with this, now? Just felt like throwing out blind accusations that the TSA is trying to give Republicans cancer?

    1. Re:And... by Applekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Possible implication: Only "blue" people are actually concerned about X-ray radiation harm, so they're moving the X-ray devices to areas less likely to care.

      Or, rather, areas less likely to contain people with a voice. There's a reason why so many unethical human experiments were conducted in the South.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
  2. Is this the latest Fox and Friends conspiracy? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obamanation is moving TSA scanners to affect the election? Haven't seen the morning show recently to get my monthly dose of crazy.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  3. I think... by Antipater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that OverTheGeicoE's tinfoil hat reflected a few too many x-rays into his brain.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  4. Hits and my prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Haven't seen the morning show recently to get my monthly dose of crazy.

    In a couple of hours, you will see that this "article" will have hundreds of comments. Most of those comments will be two bit opinions; comments with "libtard", "bible thumping moron" and such; and plenty of poo flinging (purposeful reference to monkeys). Ad revenue for this "article" will be wonderful.

    Fox News has shown that "crazy" sells. Getting people emotional, irrational and giving them an avenue for their two bit-opinions makes money. Allowing people to spout off and abuse the "other side" also sells very well.

    P.T. Barnum would be envious.

    1. Re:Hits and my prediction by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Modern election politics has shown that "crazy" sells.

      FTFY.

      While FOX is well known for their... interesting and creative interpretations, they by no means have monopoly on irrational, bullshit fluff pieces.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  5. Political Slurs by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obamination! Now that's a good one. Here I thought that the kind of trolls who made up slurs were just incapable of doing anything clever with the man's name: Obummer, Odumba are clearly failures.

    I did think "Mittens" was kinda cute.

    But overall, if you aren't pandering to senseless frothing morons, you may want to refrain from turning a person's name into some sort of slur. Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  6. OverTheGeicoE is full of shit and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    there was absolutely no reason for that last sentence to be included with the lead in. Fuck you, you inflammatory asshole.

  7. Re:What? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To the best of my recollection there has been no US president in history, regardless of affiliation, that has prosecuted past administrations for their actions. It's been traditionally viewed as a political landmine both with the citizenry and fellow politicians alike.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  8. Who's the criminal by SnarfQuest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it interesting that the TSA has caught more thieves (within their own ranks) than terrorists.

    It seems like you hear about "airport personnel" (i.e. TSA employees) who would use their searches to locate and remove valuables from passenger luggage.

    However, I have yet to hear about a single terrorist caught by the TSA.

    It looks to me like the TSA is committing more criminal activity than they are preventing.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  9. Re:What? by gorzek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I despised Bush. Obama is smarter but carries on most of the same policies, especially when it comes to foreign policy and economic intervention. About the only place where he really differs is on social issues and the role of government aid programs.

    All this has done is make his opposition even more insane. So, now I get to choose between a guy who is mostly like Bush and a guy who seems to have no beliefs of his own, but is beholden to a base made up of lunatics. Awesome choice there.

    I voted for Obama, again, because I could not in good conscience vote to further empower the deranged hysterics of the Republican Party.

    --
    Check out my world simulator thingy.