Ex-Minn. governor sues over body scans, pat-downs

[CPT Tripss]

Yep. Just like each and every person at every job follows protocol to a "T".

TSA Agents are no different from any other group of people. You have good and you have bad. But your calling them names and making them sound like they are all out to get us does noting but discredit your own arguments.

When the people working at the checkpoints don't follow procedure they: increase the chances of you being harmed by a terrorist, you being harmed by radiation, you being searched with more intrusiveness that usual or you being detained and not making your plane. Nothing good comes from their errors . . . even when the protocols they are following are flawed.

 

[kaytieeldr]

But thank you for acknowledging that the screening devices sometimes do not operate as they should.

I didn't say that. I said it was overly-sensitive.

I have a metal plate and screws in my femur. Sometimes I set off the metal detector, sometimes I don't. In the past when I set it off, I immediately got a pat-down or wanding depending on the airport or the procedure in place at the moment. When I was patted down, it was with the back of the hand and I was always told what the TSO was going to do before she did it.

This time, I went back and forth through the WTMD four times, setting it off every time, before they finally gave up and called someone over for the pat-down. Apparently, it's not something they want to do if it can be avoided. I was asked if I wanted a private screening and declined. This time, the TSO used the front of her hand and was more thorough than in the past. NOT that it's anybody's business, but I'd adjusted my bra straps to be super-supportive to make any such screening easier on the person tasked with it.

I was not fondled, I was not groped, I was not invaded, nothing overly personal or offensive occurred. It was simply a condition of me flying that day. I didn't have the same experience on my return flight - the metal detectors in Las Vegas aren't as senstive as the ones in Boston.

 

[nytimez]

pretty much I do the same thing you do and that's read and google.

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/646395.html

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/16/5477568-are-airport-x-ray-scanners-harmful



the general consensus (sp) is that any radiation is able to give you cancer. My yearly mammogram has a statisical probability of giving me cancer and that to is pretty much based on an educated guess. If you travel in an airplane at all you are exposed to radiation.

All one can do is determine where their personal comfort level is.

To be perfectly blunt, you have no idea what I do -- nor would I make a claim to know what you do.

But you realize you went from 1 in 300 million to 1 in 30 million in the space of two posts?

You can compare it to the risk of lightning -- but when I hear thunder, I always take cover.

 

[eliza61]

You have a lower chance of being killed by a terrorist too.

So true and since I have no intention of letting the tiny risk of a terrorist change the way I live my life, I have no fear of the tiny risk of radiation from an airport scanner

 

[sam_gordon]

CPT... what would be your ideal? Do away with all screening? You made a point about katie's example of the WTMD "not operating as it should" (your words). So we should do away with those?

I like katie's idea... let's come up with some valid alternatives. If you (collective) think there should be no screening whatsoever, say it. If you think everyone should have to go through a strip search and no carryons should be allowed, say it. BUT, everyone gets to critique your plan. Just like anyone can critique the TSA.

 

[kaytieeldr]

You believe, or you know?

You have a lower chance of being killed by a terrorist too.

Actually, according to an MSNBC report, ASU professor Peter Rez calculated the chances of getting cancer from a Rapiscan machine are about the same as the chances an airplane will get blown up by a terrorist - about one in 30,000,000.
Source: boingboing.net/2010/11/19/odds-of-cancer-from.html

Thanks, I'd rather risk the cancer than the explosion. Cancer's curable if caught early enough.

 

[eliza61]

To be perfectly blunt, you have no idea what I do -- nor would I make a claim to know what you do.

But you realize you went from 1 in 300 million to 1 in 30 million in the space of two posts?

You can compare it to the risk of lightning -- but when I hear thunder, I always take cover.

so true. My bad.

When I hear thunder I look up and see if a storm is on the way and then I decide if I need to seek cover. I like thunderstorms and since the chance of getting hit by lightning is so low, I can keep on playing. We just had an amazing thunder snow last night here in Philly area.

But if you think the risk of radiation is too high, simply take cover & don't go fly.