Sydney in her slicker, just finishing up a ‘private moment’ ;)
TAMs, please visit the podcasts page or your iTunes feed to access this exclusive media. If you are not a subscriber yet, please do consider joining. For just about the cost of one tall nonfat latte a month ($5) you too can get the podcasts, the show archive, this special 3rd Hour each day and the weekly “Palin Report” among other perks. Click here for more information and to become a Tammy Army Member. I do appreciate the support :)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tammy Bruce, Palin Twibe. Palin Twibe said: via @heytammybruce Today’s 3rd Hour of Tammy Radio Has Posted http://dlvr.it/915RW #palin [...]
why, miss sydney, your leash is so… girly…
Tammy, Sydney is sooo darned cute. :)
I concur what a sweet leash and cute Sydney!
FWIW, I wouldn’t worry about radiation danger from the “naked machines”. See this FoxNews article on the issue. It notes that the naked machine radiation is a thousandth that of a chest X-ray. This works because the chest X-ray must actually penetrate your body and pass through, whereas the “backscatter” X-ray doesn’t go through you, so it doesn’t require the same intensity.
I’m not saying the naked machines are okay. They’re not. These naked machines are part of the pattern of a greater assault against individual liberty. We’re being trained to yield more and more to the State. I’m just saying the radiation danger isn’t the argument we want to rely upon, because it’s not a winning argument.
scientists and doctors are questioning whether or not after operating all day the machines can fail and actually give off larger , harmful doses of x-rays. regular x-ray machines are known to malfunction and overexpose patients. x-rays are dangerous . they can cause damage to tissue. machines break. and those with immune suppressing illnesses like AIDS are less tolerant of any exposure to such things anyway- as are children and older persons. it’s worth noting when they test these things they never test them on children, old people or sick people. and do you think they test the effect of these things on unborn fetuses? i know of no pregnant woman who wants to get near any x-ray machine even if Paaaaat thinks it’s safe.
and the machines and software are being run by, well, union hacks with no medical training. when you go to the doctor, does the guy who cleans the office or sits at the security desk as a rent-a-cop, doughnut firmly planted in pie hole, give you your x-ray exam? if he did, who would tolerate it?
as this type x-ray beam doesn’t penetrate the body, there is also concern that it therefore becomes concentrated and absorbed into your tissues. it appears backscatter x-rays weren’t thoroughly researched by our Dear Leader’s Storm Troopers for Travel Happiness.
“The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer
molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).
Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies
(28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying
tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume
of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic
ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this
comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays
have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately
understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport
scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two
orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist”
“Moreover, there are a number of ‘red flags’ related to the hardware itself. Because this
device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch
in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the
device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin. Who will
oversee problems with overall dose after repair or software problems? The TSA is
already complaining about resolution limitations; who will keep the manufacturers
and/or TSA from just raising the dose, an easy way to improve signal-to-noise and get
higher resolution? Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we
know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin
area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?” http://tinyurl.com/22tocvh
but the giving season is near and it is an exciting opportunity to buy new festive panties. i think Paaattttt might like a pair of these in her stocking. she’s working so hard. she deserves a little thoughtful gift for Festivus:
http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/mens-brief-radiation-blocker.html
She is so darn cute!
You receive more exposure to radiation by being on the plane at cruising altitude than you will by going through the scanners. Maynard is correct.
BTW…will Sydney wear those cute little doggie booties too?
http://southgeek.blogspot.com/
the radiation in the cosmos is not the same as the radiation from a man made particle beam of x ray radiation and is no basis for comparison to ‘prove’ the types of naked machines are safe. it’s misleading and bad science .
but our government seems to be in love with bad science like global warming so…
“However, radiation from cosmic rays is diffuse, likened to ambient light exposure. In contrast, by analogy a 2 millisecond burst of focused light from a laser can burn the eye, unlike the equivalent amount of diffuse light. A concern therefore exists because X-ray screeners use focused radiation, the effects of which are unknown particularly for pregnant women, rather than diffuse radiation of the sort travelers are naturally exposed to in an airplane.” http://tinyurl.com/2byxed
“There has been considerable debate within the medical community regarding the risk of low-level radiation exposure from CT. The reason for this debate arises from an incomplete knowledge of the complex link between ionizing radiation and future negative outcomes in humans.
By comparison, stochastic effects are believed to have no radiation dose threshold, and therefore are associated with the low radiation doses delivered during chest CT. Mechanistically, stochastic effects are believed to be mediated by chemical damage to the DNA molecule and clinically manifest as an increased risk of cancer and genetic defects. Stochastic effects occur randomly and the risk of their occurrence depends on the type of ionizing radiation administered, the tissue receiving the radiation, and the age of the subject. It is believed that dose fractionation, a substantial modifier of detrimental effect for deterministic radiation doses, does not substantially modify the stochastic risk . Stochastic risks are believed to be cumulative, with increasing risk seen over successive exposures.” http://tinyurl.com/2av8gfh
Awesome slicker. Reminds me of that Billy Crystal movie from a while back:
“Sydney Slickers”
:)
The problem with the new scanners is that although the total body exposure is low (much less than what you will get in an X-ray), the target dose to the skin is very high, and in turn, this has the potential of cause mutations and damage to skin tissue (and blood circulating through the skin), which may lead to cancer. This has been raised by scientists at UC Berkeley, who have sent this letter of concern to John Holdren, Obama’s science czar. Since the data on the testing of these machines has not been released, I’m still very concerned.
This is a good picture describing the situation. As the rays hit the skin, the actual exposure is high. Since the penetration of the rays decreases as it gets deeper into the body, the total body exposure will be lower. We don’t know how high that first hit of radiation is and its inherent risks, and therein lies the problem.
I love the expression on Syd’s face. It’s like she’s saying, “Okay, REALLY, Mom…?!”
:)
I think her expression says: “You have to sleep sometime….” She does not look happy. But she is awfully cute!
She’s adorable!
Where are her boots, Tammy ? :-o