Clive Palmer has DYKWIA moment BNE airport

[medhead]

Who is Clive Palmer? Never heard of him. Seriously.

As for full body scans I will do everything possible to avoid/refuse one as well regardless of what the "experts" on AFF think.

What is wrong with a pat down? Body scan is going to make flying safer for everyone?

Well this "expert" on is only repeating the radiation safety views of experts from minor, trival organisations like the Australian radiation protection and nuclear safety agency, and the International atomic energy agency. (To name only 2) But go ahead and belittle the "experts" on AFF.

 

[drron]

My professional opinion is Clive Palmer is a goose.Well maybe not so professional but it does look like he has been force fed.
I think that going into politics will become the biggest regret of Clive's life.A lot more light is now directed at him and his financial dealings.

 

[clifford]

Ah yes, but it is Queensland.

 

[JohnK]

Well this "expert" on is only repeating the radiation safety views of experts from minor, trival organisations like the Australian radiation protection and nuclear safety agency, and the International atomic energy agency. (To name only 2) But go ahead and belittle the "experts" on AFF.

I do not think that matters.

I am against full body scanners and the potential "misuse" of them.

I should be able to request a "pat down" without being treated like a criminal.

 

[medhead]

My professional opinion is Clive Palmer is a goose.Well maybe not so professional but it does look like he has been force fed.
I think that going into politics will become the biggest regret of Clive's life.A lot more light is now directed at him and his financial dealings.

Really? I was considering my options the other night and was thinking Palmer would get my vote. Either him or katter.

I do not think that matters.

I am against full body scanners and the potential "misuse" of them.

I should be able to request a "pat down" without being treated like a criminal.

And again, yet again. Your objection is not radiation safety related. So I have no idea why you feel the need to attack those who present the message that these things are not a safety issue.

 

[JohnK]

And again, yet again. Your objection is not radiation safety related. So I have no idea why you feel the need to attack those who present the message that these things are not a safety issue.

I did not attack. Not in the slightest.

Some people think that just because we do not have to worry about radiation safety then we have no reason to object to body scanners.

To me it looks like this thread is about someone choosing not to use the body scanners and everyone jumping down his throat.

 

[medhead]

I did not attack. Not in the slightest.

Some people think that just because we do not have to worry about radiation safety then we have no reason to object to body scanners.

To me it looks like this thread is about someone choosing not to use the body scanners and everyone jumping down his throat.

Well you're attacking in this post on the basis of your presumption. Just like Palmer you're confusing 2 different issues. Palmer objected to the scan because of radiation safety concerns. I clearly stated that is a false reason. In saying that I have said absolutely nothing about any other reason for objecting to the scans. In fact I've said the opposite, if you care to read the posts here.

However, you choose to make a statement starting with 'regardless of the "experts"' you're going to avoid the scans for [non radiation safer reasons]. It seems pretty clear that you are dismissing the the expert knowledge related to one aspect of these scanners. And now you're falsely claiming that I think there is no reason to object to these scanners just because I say radiation is not a reason. Well go ahead and quote were I've said that.

And to get back to the point: Palmer objected because of radiation. Not potential misuse or whatever else you wish to bring into this.

 

[HarryB]

I just re-read the article ... He reckons he can win 100 seats! People are looking at me wondering why I can't stop laughing.

If Clive Palmer mentioned reasons other than radiation I would have no issue with him refusing because the radiation concern, in my opinion, has as much basis as any story about the Loch Ness Monster.

I agree with your points JohnK, but not the now professionally diagnosed goose the thread is about. I think he has lost the plot in the last couple of years.

 

[JohnK]

I agree with your points JohnK, but not the now professionally diagnosed goose the thread is about. I think he has lost the plot in the last couple of years.

That could well be the case. I do not know Clive Palmer and from memory have never heard of him.

It does not really concern me what radiation experts are saying. If someone refuses a body scan (and they refused for the wrong reasons or are ill informed) they should still have the right to refuse and request a pat down instead without being ridiculed.

I did not think this was another debate about the safety of full body scans or not.

 

[medhead]

That could well be the case. I do not know Clive Palmer and from memory have never heard of him.

It does not really concern me what radiation experts are saying. If someone refuses a body scan (and they refused for the wrong reasons or are ill informed) they should still have the right to refuse and request a pat down instead without being ridiculed.

I did not think this was another debate about the safety of full body scans or not.

Why refuse something for the wrong reason out of ignorance when there are plenty of valid reasons to refuse?

I'm not sure how you could think this wasn't about safety if you read the OP and the linked story. He rejected the scan because if the risk of the radiation. That's it. Not because he would be seen nude, not because the scanners are no more effective that other technology, not because of misuse. Safety was the only reason given and it is an invalid reason. So yes anyone objecting for an invalid reason deserves to be pilloried. Especially when they have to money to educate themselves.

 

[JohnK]

Why refuse something for the wrong reason out of ignorance when there are plenty of valid reasons to refuse?

If someone believes something is not safe then it is not up to us to try and educate them and at the same time ridicule them.

I am not convinced they are safe. I do not like how people are also able to "misuse" the body scanners. I can choose any reason I like not to like the body scanners. Tell me I am wrong but don't tell me they are safe because 2 "experts" said so.

We are not going to be safer with them so I do not understand the fuss.

 

[medhead]

If someone believes something is not safe then it is not up to us to try and educate them and at the same time ridicule them.

I am not convinced they are safe. I do not like how people are also able to "misuse" the body scanners. I can choose any reason I like not to like the body scanners. Tell me I am wrong but don't tell me they are safe because 2 "experts" said so.

We are not going to be safer with them so I do not understand the fuss.

I'm not trying to educate Palmer, he has the money to do that for himself. I'm just outright calling him a goose on this matter.

The fact remains there is no proven effect from this radiation and there will never be a proven effect from it. Do you think wifi is safe, or all pervasive mobile phone signals? Do you avoid those? Do you avoid driving in a car? Cars are proven to kill. Yet you still get in a car, don't you?

 

[JohnK]

The fact remains there is no proven effect from this radiation and there will never be a proven effect from it. Do you think wifi is safe, or all pervasive mobile phone signals? Do you avoid those? Do you avoid driving in a car? Cars are proven to kill. Yet you still get in a car, don't you?

I get your point medhead! Life kills and is very dangerous....

 

[medhead]

I get your point medhead! Life kills and is very dangerous....

Yep, birth gives a 100% chance of dying.

Guess I just like to keep risk in perspective.

 

[straitman]

Well this "expert" on is only repeating the radiation safety views of experts from minor, trival organisations like the Australian radiation protection and nuclear safety agency, and the International atomic energy agency. (To name only 2) But go ahead and belittle the "experts" on AFF.

That's not belittling the experts it's called having an opinion of your own :!:

The fact remains there is no proven effect from this radiation and there will never be a proven effect from it. Do you think wifi is safe, or all pervasive mobile phone signals? Do you avoid those? Do you avoid driving in a car? Cars are proven to kill. Yet you still get in a car, don't you?

Irrelevant IMHO.

 

[medhead]

That's not belittling the experts it's called having an opinion of your own :!:

Irrelevant IMHO.

The opinion is belittling the expert's knowledge, which is based on fact. ie in their opinion it's dangerous and therefore the expert is full of cough.

Not irrelevant, it's addressing the basis of the opinion. An opinion that is apparently much more valuable than actually studying the real effects.

 

[drron]

Really? I was considering my options the other night and was thinking Palmer would get my vote. Either him or katter.



And again, yet again. Your objection is not radiation safety related. So I have no idea why you feel the need to attack those who present the message that these things are not a safety issue.

I think Katter is much more impressive.Got to talk to him and his son one time I was working in Mt.Isa.He gets good support from Unionists there.

And I am in full agreement with you on radiation.As I have said previously I sometimes pretend to be a Nuclear Physician.

 

[drewbles]

I just re-read the article ... He reckons he can win 100 seats! People are looking at me wondering why I can't stop laughing.

If Clive Palmer mentioned reasons other than radiation I would have no issue with him refusing because the radiation concern, in my opinion, has as much basis as any story about the Loch Ness Monster.

I agree with your points JohnK, but not the now professionally diagnosed goose the thread is about. I think he has lost the plot in the last couple of years.

If he wins one seat, ill eat my hat.

If he wins 10, i'll leave the country. The man seriously scares me.

 

[Hvr]

If he wins one seat, ill eat my hat.

If he wins 10, i'll leave the country. The man seriously scares me.

You know if he wins 10 seats then we'll probably have a hung parliament. Who do you think he would support to form government?

 

[Skyring]

If he wins one seat, ill eat my hat.

If he wins 10, i'll leave the country. The man seriously scares me.

Your hat's pretty safe. He has zero chance of any Reps seats and maybe a long shot at a Queensland Senate seat if the preference flows for the last seat align.

Unlikely but can't be ruled out. It's always a bit of a coughshoot there.