For what reasons could you be requested to go through the full body scanners?

[kaytieeldr]

First it was said not to "paint the entire TSA in a negative manner" now we are being told that it's ok to cast aspersions on people (in general) who do not want the scans but you cannot cast aspersion on ONE person who wants the scan.

Actually, what you can't do is call someone "nutty" because they (we ) are willing to go through the scanners, willing to trust experts on radiology, willing to - where appropriate - allow our children/grandchildren to be scanned, or all/any of us/them patted down if necessary. Despite that, a post that would normally be deleted is being allowed to stay as a one-off example of what's ordinarily not allowed.

At least, that's my inference as an experience DISer. I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to be a moderator; I just read the rules.

Then the people who slant and cast aspersion on the posts of those who don't like the scan are taken in stride while the "gang" here that like the scans complains about every post from the other side.

Like the scans? I'm not sure where you got that. Willing to tolerate the past, current, and probably any future security measures in order to fly, instead of spending three and a half days on a train to travel across the country? You betcha!!!!

 

[goofy4tink]

It is quite clear on this thread that if you share the OPINION (not fact) of the mods you may say what you want, if you don't then you can't.

First it was said not to "paint the entire TSA in a negative manner" now we are being told that it's ok to cast aspersions on people (in general) who do not want the scans but you cannot cast aspersion on ONE person who wants the scan.

Then the people who slant and cast aspersion on the posts of those who don't like the scan are taken in stride while the "gang" here that like the scans complains about every post from the other side.

Very tacky. Very clear what kind of America people who are willing to to take the scans in stride are striving for. For everyone who doesn't like the scans, I welcome you to go to flywithdignity.org and join others in the protest.

Seriously???? I am just as entitled to my opinion as you are. My being a moderator has nothing to do with my thoughts. I do NOT expect everyone to agree with me. Believe me, if that were the case, this thread would be about 7/8 shorter than it is now. I only ask that people are polite and mannerful and not call others names.
I have never said that I 'like' the scans. I believe I have said I have no issue with them and that up until my experience changes, I have no issue with the pat downs I have had. That is MY experience. My experience is just as valid as someone else's..whether some choose to believe it or not.

Sorry if I lumped my 'editorial' comments in with my opinions. That won't happen again and I do apologize. But, on the same note, it has been proven, by various organizations, that the scanners are not a threat to anyone. You can find answers that will support whatever belief you want. I found some that support what I hope to be true.

I do realize that many things have been allowed based on studies showing that they have no bad side effects. And that later on, years down the road, those results have been proven wrong. I get it, I really do. And I can only hope that we won't be sitting here, 20 years down the road, saying 'I told you so'. For myself, I am not concerned with the scanners. Others may have different opinions..obviously they do. And I have no problem with that. It's only when people get rude that things start heading downhill.

This thread, and others like it, are close to serving no purpose. Which means, they are close to being shut down.

 

[DianeV]

I respect Dr. Oz and he said until they know for sure about the radation (his words) he wont even do that and will endure the pat down or whatever they want to call it.

I really do wonder about the radiation. We put a heavy thing (sorry not sure what it would be called) on when getting xrays and this is supposed to be similar to an xray?

Why isnt anyone concerned at all about that when we really have no idea if it is safe? Just their word?

I guess as far as the TSA employees. My deceased step dad worked as one for a short time and he didnt get paid well and got very little training. I just cant see how they can be trusting these individuals to do this work and the patdowns especially. I guess maybe it should be law enforcement doing it or they need some kind of training so everyone is on the same page? I just dont know what to think. Maybe publish something showing exactly what they are allowed and not allowed to do so people know what to expect and know if someone is going 'too far'

I do know that there are some really mean and rude people on here who just because someone is cautious dont deserve to be made fun of or whatever. I also believe that some people have points about just giving into the govt. no matter what they want to do or say and its your body

 

[olwyngdh]

I really do wonder about the radiation. We put a heavy thing (sorry not sure what it would be called) on when getting xrays and this is supposed to be similar to an xray?

If these machines can cause sterility (one of the reasons that we wear the lead aprons when getting x-rays) I will volunteer to be scanned---repeatedly! (there is 17 yrs between my girls, I do *not* need to get pregnant again!)

Why isnt anyone concerned at all about that when we really have no idea if it is safe? Just their word?

The studies I have read is that the backscatter is non-penetrating, so soes not present the dangers that a standsrd x-ray presents. I don't know enough to know if it presents dangers, beyond what we get just by going out in the sun, for skin cancers. The amnt of radiation the machines produce is supposed to be minuscule in relation to how much we will get just by being on the plane. I would have to google again to get the numbers, I didn't bookmark the pages.

I guess as far as the TSA employees. My deceased step dad worked as one for a short time and he didnt get paid well and got very little training. I just cant see how they can be trusting these individuals to do this work and the patdowns especially. I guess maybe it should be law enforcement doing it or they need some kind of training so everyone is on the same page? I just dont know what to think. Maybe publish something showing exactly what they are allowed and not allowed to do so people know what to expect and know if someone is going 'too far'

I agree with prefering law enforcement or at least more and better training, the problem is the funds to pay for it. Paying for it would require budget adjustments, taking funding away from other programs, or an increase in taxes. I doubt the public, with the number of candidates in the last election who ran on a basis of lowering taxes, is going to be willing to pay for the additional training. I like the idea of private rather than government agents doing the work even more. For the private sector, it is *always* about the bottom line--it if costs, they aren't going to do it.

Do I like the idea of the increased scanning and pat-downs? No, not particularly, but I don't dislike them enough to really care if they are using them. They aren't going to change my travel plans. I would rather the machines and the pat downs than seeing the military and the machine guns we all saw after 9-11. Our military has enough to do.

I do know that there are some really mean and rude people on here who just because someone is cautious dont deserve to be made fun of or whatever. I also believe that some people have points about just giving into the govt. no matter what they want to do or say and its your body

This is a very hot topic, and people are taking things very personally, and escalating what they perceive as a personal attack into personal attacks on others--sad, but human nature. We are all entitled to opinions, and to the expression of those opinions, but we have to work hard at trying to keep it above the level that we occasionally sink to I know I have had to read, walk away, re-read and then answer a few times. And I still had to go back and edit once because I got a little too political in my answer. It is hard when the topic is this divisive. Overall though, I think most people have been doing a good job at trying to discuss the facts and figure out ways to deal with these new regulations on a personal basis.

 

[bwilcox]

I'm going to skip past all the drama and just post my opinion. The danger of X-rays doesn't concern me too much as I am an infrequent flier. What does concern me is the total disregard for privacy and the 4th Amendment. If past terror threats have brought us to a place where we give up our basic American freedom to privacy, then the terrorists don't NEED to bomb any more planes-they have already won.

 

[DianeV]

Ya know, you make a really good point. Alot of what the terrorists want is to scare us or make us have to change how we go about our daily life. Just by doing things like this they 'are' getting what they want. Luckily no one dies but they are attacking us for sure

I'm going to skip past all the drama and just post my opinion. The danger of X-rays doesn't concern me too much as I am an infrequent flier. What does concern me is the total disregard for privacy and the 4th Amendment. If past terror threats have brought us to a place where we give up our basic American freedom to privacy, then the terrorists don't NEED to bomb any more planes-they have already won.

 

[eliza61]

I'm going to skip past all the drama and just post my opinion. The danger of X-rays doesn't concern me too much as I am an infrequent flier. What does concern me is the total disregard for privacy and the 4th Amendment. If past terror threats have brought us to a place where we give up our basic American freedom to privacy, then the terrorists don't NEED to bomb any more planes-they have already won.

I swear I never understand this correlation? what basic american freedoms are we giving up? you want your privacy cool, don't go to a public place. that seems so simple to me. really.
Changing our daily life is a normal part of living? do you do the same things pre computers now that we have computers. No.
People in the 50's used to leave there doors open and cars unlocked, people used to have their social securit numbers plastered on checks. Do we do those things now? No.
The world has changed, to act like and conduct yourself like your in an Ozzie and Harriet 50's sitcom to me is IMO, unrealistic at best.

 

[olwyngdh]

Ya know, you make a really good point. Alot of what the terrorists want is to scare us or make us have to change how we go about our daily life. Just by doing things like this they 'are' getting what they want. Luckily no one dies but they are attacking us for sure

Agreed. But then, they have been getting that since 9-11. I don't know that we can turn it around at this point, even if we could/can overturn the Patriot Act (which is what opened us up for all this intrusion). I would like to be able to say (*&%*&^E# to them, rebuild and re-open the Twin Towers as a memorial to the Twin Towers (see, can't stop us, buildings are like doritos, we'll just build more!), drop the airport security to pre-9-11 standards, just go back to life as normal used to be. But I know that isn't going to happen. Fear is the new norm, and I don't know how to change that.

 

[disney-super-mom]

I have an alternative solution to the current backscatter technology: millimeter wave. It's less invasive (the image received is far less detailed, allowing agents to see if there's a threat without seeing the details of a passenger's naked body) and there is no threat from radiation. Passengers get to keep their modesty and airline workers can rest assured that they're not going to put their health at risk simply by going to work, and everyone's allegedly safer. So why not use millimeter wave instead? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Well, because Rapiscan, the backscatter people, lobbied Congress hard and heavy and bought their way in, that's why.

Actually, about half of the body scanners used right now in airport screenings are indeed millimeter wave scanners, and they expose a person to much less radiation than even a cell phone emits. In addition, the images are not as detailed as those shown using a backscatter x-ray scanner.

So, if you are chosen to have a body scan, and it's one of the machines where the scanner rotates around the person, then that is a millimeter wave scanner....safer (less radiation than a cell phone) and lets a person keep their dignity a little more.

If it's a machine where you stand in front of a flat wall scanner, which then takes a picture of your front and back, that is a backscatter x-ray machine which exposes a person to more radiation and shows a more detailed image.

Here's a link about the different types of scanners here to show you in detail the different kind of scanners. Just click the link, then click the boxes with a 1, 2, or 3 to the lower left of the image to see the different images.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36058522/ns/travel

So now that I know this, I feel a little better about it. If I or someone in my family was asked to go through a rotating millimeter wave scannner, I would have no problem with it knowing what I now know. However, I would probably opt for a pat down instead of going through one of the backscatter x-ray scanners. Mainly because, well, when the government says that it's "perfectly safe".....it naturally makes me leery.

 

[olwyngdh]

So now that I know this, I feel a little better about it. If I or someone in my family was asked to go through a rotating millimeter wave scannner, I would have no problem with it knowing what I now know. However, I would probably opt for a pat down instead of going through one of the backscatter x-ray scanners. Mainly because, well, when the government says that it's "perfectly safe".....it naturally makes me leery.

Thanks for the link--that is just the type of info I have been looking for. Since the radiation is equivalent to an extra two minutes on the airplane there doesn't seem to be any reason to worry about it, even for a child. I do think the millimeter wave scanners sound more science-fictiony fun though

 

[disney-super-mom]

I do think the millimeter wave scanners sound more science-fictiony fun though

They look more science-fictiony fun too. My kids would probably think it was cool to go into one and have the bars rotate around them.


A little more simple information to put out there for people when comparing the two types of scanners.

Rotating millimeter wave scanners use radio waves to produce an image. (which is why they are safer than even using a cell phone)

Backscatter scanners use x-rays to produce an image.
(supposedly not strong x-rays, but nonetheless, could be a cumulative worry for some who fly a lot or undergo x-rays quite often for medical reasons.)

 

[Minnie Lor]

What does concern me is the total disregard for privacy and the 4th Amendment. If past terror threats have brought us to a place where we give up our basic American freedom to privacy, then the terrorists don't NEED to bomb any more planes-they have already won.

Agree with this 100%.

Actually, about half of the body scanners used right now in airport screenings are indeed millimeter wave scanners, and they expose a person to much less radiation than even a cell phone emits. In addition, the images are not as detailed as those shown using a backscatter x-ray scanner.

So, if you are chosen to have a body scan, and it's one of the machines where the scanner rotates around the person, then that is a millimeter wave scanner....safer (less radiation than a cell phone) and lets a person keep their dignity a little more.

If it's a machine where you stand in front of a flat wall scanner, which then takes a picture of your front and back, that is a backscatter x-ray machine which exposes a person to more radiation and shows a more detailed image.

Here's a link about the different types of scanners here to show you in detail the different kind of scanners. Just click the link, then click the boxes with a 1, 2, or 3 to the lower left of the image to see the different images.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36058522/ns/travel

So now that I know this, I feel a little better about it. If I or someone in my family was asked to go through a rotating millimeter wave scannner, I would have no problem with it knowing what I now know. However, I would probably opt for a pat down instead of going through one of the backscatter x-ray scanners. Mainly because, well, when the government says that it's "perfectly safe".....it naturally makes me leery.

Excellent info! Thanks!

 

[sam_gordon]

What does concern me is the total disregard for privacy and the 4th Amendment.

Here's what I don't get though. If someone argues "privacy/4th Amendment", why don't the WTMD/baggage X-rays violate the same rights?

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

Here's what I don't get though. If someone argues "privacy/4th Amendment", why don't the WTMD/baggage X-rays violate the same rights?

Because they don't take a picture of you naked and they don't touch your privates.

 

[disney-super-mom]

Here's what I don't get though. If someone argues "privacy/4th Amendment", why don't the WTMD/baggage X-rays violate the same rights?

Well, the 4th Amendment says this:

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Most people don't consider the scanning of their bags when traveling to be "unreasonable" (and it certainly isn't....shall we say, as personal as a body search).

However, being *forced* to undergo either a rather revealing body scan or enhanced pat down is considered "unreasonable" by many without having probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Today, anyone can be chosen, for no particular reason. It's just random.

Personally, if someone wanted to bring down a plane, there is still about a 67% chance they will be successful in getting by without having to undergo a body scan or pat down, so I really don't feel all that much safer flying. The odds are still in a terrorist's favor for now.

But I at least feel better about the safety of the millimeter body scanners.

 

[pxlbarrel]

Not trying to get into the debate (and have read about half this thread). I have a question:

Is the body scanner/enhanced pat down happening only in U.S. airports or are they happening in other countries too? I went through the body scanner last May on my way to Vegas (from a Canadian airport). Is the enhanced pat down being enforced internationally?

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

Every airport is going to be using them, I don't think you can avoid it.

I went through one in Richmond in August and wasn't crazy about it but I think this whole thing is being overblown. As far as radiation, I heard on GMA this morning it's about 1/30 of a chest x-ray.

Wow! That is so so low! I'm an xray tech. That's like a puff of sunshine.

Do people realize the earth itself gives off radiation (radon) and simply flying at altitude also exposes you to radiation?

To me, if that dose is correct, it's a non-issue for me and my family. I might feel differently if I had to pass through several times per day.

I'll ask our physicist next time I see him. He flies his kids to WDW too.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Here's what I don't get though. If someone argues "privacy/4th Amendment", why don't the WTMD/baggage X-rays violate the same rights?

Because they don't take a picture of you naked and they don't touch your privates.

Yeah, what Grace said. And for me, there is a balancing act between my privacy and my need for security. Some government activities fit OK with me and others don't.

 

[pampam]

Actually, about half of the body scanners used right now in airport screenings are indeed millimeter wave scanners, and they expose a person to much less radiation than even a cell phone emits. In addition, the images are not as detailed as those shown using a backscatter x-ray scanner.

So, if you are chosen to have a body scan, and it's one of the machines where the scanner rotates around the person, then that is a millimeter wave scanner....safer (less radiation than a cell phone) and lets a person keep their dignity a little more.

If it's a machine where you stand in front of a flat wall scanner, which then takes a picture of your front and back, that is a backscatter x-ray machine which exposes a person to more radiation and shows a more detailed image.

Here's a link about the different types of scanners here to show you in detail the different kind of scanners. Just click the link, then click the boxes with a 1, 2, or 3 to the lower left of the image to see the different images.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36058522/ns/travel

So now that I know this, I feel a little better about it. If I or someone in my family was asked to go through a rotating millimeter wave scannner, I would have no problem with it knowing what I now know. However, I would probably opt for a pat down instead of going through one of the backscatter x-ray scanners. Mainly because, well, when the government says that it's "perfectly safe".....it naturally makes me leery.

Is this really true, or just a rumour? Yes, I understand they are safer, but I'm not as sure about 1/2 the scanners being millimeter wave scanners.

 

[sam_gordon]

Because they don't take a picture of you naked and they don't touch your privates.

Yeah, what Grace said. And for me, there is a balancing act between my privacy and my need for security. Some government activities fit OK with me and others don't.

You know, those two answers basically say "because I say so." Not a good way to present an argument.

This answer on the other hand is a very good one.

Well, the 4th Amendment says this:

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Most people don't consider the scanning of their bags when traveling to be "unreasonable" (and it certainly isn't....shall we say, as personal as a body search).

However, being *forced* to undergo either a rather revealing body scan or enhanced pat down is considered "unreasonable" by many without having probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Today, anyone can be chosen, for no particular reason. It's just random.

I agree with you. The key is the word "unreasonable". However, whether the new searches are unreasonable depends on who you ask. The majority of travelers seem to think the new searches ARE reasonable. So until the minority can get a court to their view point, the claims of "violation of 4th Amendment" I think are moot.