"Naked" X-Ray Scans At The Airport.. Your Thoughts?

[Mickey's Minion]

It is only in a few airports, so it's not like it is everywhere.

They are actually in 19 airports with more being ordered.

They are also installed in some federal courthouses and prisons.

 

[zulaya]

I haven't read through the 22 pages that are currently in this thread so if I'm repeating what someone said, apologies.

I'm completely against this being mandatory for several reasons.

1. You do realize you are being subjected to X-rays, meaning radiation, right? I'm not volunteering for that.

2. Some people who have had radiation treatments for cancer do reach a threshold where they can't have any more radiation. Has it been explored how these scanners affect those people?

3. Pregnant women aren't going to want their unborn children X-rayed and exposed to radiation. Should they be forced to just to fly?

4. I'm not for blanket security measures to make me "feel safe". I think that the government in general and the TSA in particular have had knee-jerk reactions and have made choices that they think are politically safe, not necessarily safe for everyone flying.

There's a fine line between public safety and personal rights. This scanner, should it be required, would cross the line for me.

If it's a voluntary process, that's fine.

I'd rather have my freedom and my choice to take my chances getting on a plane that may not have scanned every person's body cavity than be part of a dictatorial process that can't guarantee me anything anyway.

I see this as a push into our freedoms as Americans. And I'll gladly take risks to keep my freedom rather than accept what's told to me like a sheep with no brain.

 

[bicker]

Flying is typically voluntary.

Measures like this weigh many concerns and considerations. There is no need for all of concerns and considerations be satisfactorily addressed to every critic's satisfaction. Rather, the balanced application of the public good, based on a conceptual compromise of values and risk preferences, is all that is reasonable to expect the system to concern itself with.

One citizen's "freedom" to drive an issue one way does not trump another citizen's "freedom" to drive an issue the other way. When reasonable people disagree, as in this case, about what is more important, that aforementioned balance is struck.

 

[locolala]

Zulaya, I've seen countries where personal liberties and rights are being taken away. The US is NOWHERE near that. If they make the scans mandatory, then people who don't want or can't have the radiation need to make other travel arrangements. I'm betting though, that they will say it's mandatory to either have the scan or be manually patted down. However the amount of radiation used during this scan is equal to 15 minutes of exposure to natural background radiation such as the sun's rays. One scan emits less than 10 microrem, the unit used to measure radiation. Comparably, an hour on an airplane at a high altitude exposes a passenger to 300 microrem, and the average person is exposed to 1,000 microrem of radiation over the course of a normal day.

So if the person is really worried about radiation, they should just live in a radiation proof bubble for the rest of their lives.

 

[sbell111]

... In the meantime, I refuse to give up any more rights to the TSA than I am required to.

Please explain what rights were taken away from you when you were scanned.

I haven't read through the 22 pages that are currently in this thread so if I'm repeating what someone said, apologies.

I'm completely against this being mandatory for several reasons.

1. You do realize you are being subjected to X-rays, meaning radiation, right? I'm not volunteering for that.

2. Some people who have had radiation treatments for cancer do reach a threshold where they can't have any more radiation. Has it been explored how these scanners affect those people?

3. Pregnant women aren't going to want their unborn children X-rayed and exposed to radiation. Should they be forced to just to fly?

To your first three points:

The amount of x-rays that you are being subjected to is between 0.005 and 0.009 millirems. This amount is so far below 'negligible' that it isn't funny. Its along the lines of the amount of cosmic radiation that you might have to endure by traveling by airplane for a couple of minutes.

4. I'm not for blanket security measures to make me "feel safe". I think that the government in general and the TSA in particular have had knee-jerk reactions and have made choices that they think are politically safe, not necessarily safe for everyone flying.

How about a machine that could actually catch some bad guys? That's this machine. It isn't some do nothing gizmo, after all.

There's a fine line between public safety and personal rights. This scanner, should it be required, would cross the line for me.

Please list the 'personal rights' that this machine violates.

If it's a voluntary process, that's fine.

Even if the machine is placed in ever airport on the planet and every traveler is required to be scanned, it is still voluntary.

I'd rather have my freedom and my choice to take my chances getting on a plane that may not have scanned every person's body cavity than be part of a dictatorial process that can't guarantee me anything anyway.

I'd rather that the guy across the aisle from me got scanned. He probably feels the same way.

I see this as a push into our freedoms as Americans. And I'll gladly take risks to keep my freedom rather than accept what's told to me like a sheep with no brain.

Again, please explain what freedoms are being pushed upon.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I haven't read through the 22 pages that are currently in this thread so if I'm repeating what someone said, apologies.

I'm completely against this being mandatory for several reasons.

1. You do realize you are being subjected to X-rays, meaning radiation, right? I'm not volunteering for that.

The scanners used to DO NOT use X-rays or any for of radiation, rather they use high frequency pulses, similar to radio waves.

2. Some people who have had radiation treatments for cancer do reach a threshold where they can't have any more radiation. Has it been explored how these scanners affect those people?

Refer to the discrediting of your first statement. There would be no ill effects to someone who had radiation treatment.

3. Pregnant women aren't going to want their unborn children X-rayed and exposed to radiation. Should they be forced to just to fly?

Refer to the discrediting of your first statement. There would be no ill effects to someone who had radiation treatment.

4. I'm not for blanket security measures to make me "feel safe". I think that the government in general and the TSA in particular have had knee-jerk reactions and have made choices that they think are politically safe, not necessarily safe for everyone flying.

In some ways it is a knee jerk reaction, but lets not forget these machines have been in use well before the December 25th incident. Also, the order for the machines was standing prior to the incident, just the time table has been pushed up.

There's a fine line between public safety and personal rights. This scanner, should it be required, would cross the line for me.

If it's a voluntary process, that's fine.

The TSA is the governing body for airline security and they have full authority to implement policies and procedures including forcing people to adhere to their guidelines if the individual chooses to fly.

Airline travel is considered a priviledge, not all the disimilar to the priviledge granted by the government to drive. Failure to adhere to the rules and regulations of the priviledge provided can prevent one from flying.

 

[Anjelica]

If it helps to ensure a safe flight for my family and I - then definetly go for it.

Outside of the harmful materials getting on board these days I really think the crux of the issue is why in the world these people are even allowed to board an airplane. They really, really need to do better jobs at scrutinizing "risky" flyers (i.e. profiling, banning fliers from questionable countries, etc.)

 

[PrincessKsMom]

I haven't read through the 22 pages that are currently in this thread so if I'm repeating what someone said, apologies.

I'm completely against this being mandatory for several reasons.

1. You do realize you are being subjected to X-rays, meaning radiation, right? I'm not volunteering for that.

2. Some people who have had radiation treatments for cancer do reach a threshold where they can't have any more radiation. Has it been explored how these scanners affect those people? As for the radiation exposure, I'm not really sure what level it is. I also thought (and I might be wrong) aren't you exposed to higher levels of radiation when flying anyway, due to being closer to the sun? (Anyway, I thought I had once heard some such nonsense.)

3. Pregnant women aren't going to want their unborn children X-rayed and exposed to radiation. Should they be forced to just to fly? I'm sure in this instance pregnant passengers would be patted down.

4. I'm not for blanket security measures to make me "feel safe". I think that the government in general and the TSA in particular have had knee-jerk reactions and have made choices that they think are politically safe, not necessarily safe for everyone flying. I don't really see how scanning isn't safe for everyone, unless you're referring to the radiation. I thought the point of the scanner was to make it safer for the flying public.

There's a fine line between public safety and personal rights. This scanner, should it be required, would cross the line for me.

If it's a voluntary process, that's fine. And how many bomb wielding terrorists do you think would volunteer for this process?

I'd rather have my freedom and my choice to take my chances getting on a plane that may not have scanned every person's body cavity than be part of a dictatorial process that can't guarantee me anything anyway. As I previously stated, why should I get blown out of the sky because you choose to take chances. As with all things in life, nothing is guaranteed, but I bet you still wear your seatbelt every time you get in your car. Enforcing the law of a seatbelt could also be seen as a dictatorial process. After all, who the heck is the government to tell me I must wear a seatbelt?

I see this as a push into our freedoms as Americans. And I'll gladly take risks to keep my freedom rather than accept what's told to me like a sheep with no brain.

Again, just because you chose to take a risk doesn't mean that risk should be imposed upon me. If you don't want to take the risk, drive.

 

[Anjelica]

The TSA is the governing body for airline security and they have full authority to implement policies and procedures including forcing people to adhere to their guidelines if the individual chooses to fly.

Airline travel is considered a priviledge, not all the disimilar to the priviledge granted by the government to drive. Failure to adhere to the rules and regulations of the priviledge provided can prevent one from flying.

- flying is not a "right".

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

I like to say that I think this is one of the better threads I've seen in a while. Very entertaining.

 

[shrubber]

The free market capitalist in me has to ask this question.
It seems that folks are all up in ire about being forced to be scanned.

Let's say instead of the TSA being in charge it was left to the individual airlines.

Airline A has mandatory full body scans, bomb sniffing dogs, trained security personnel, x ray machines , and limits on liquids ect.

Airline B pretty has a minimal security check, but a 30% savings on your ticket cost.


With whom do you fly?

 

[Mickey's Minion]

I haven't read through the 22 pages that are currently in this thread so if I'm repeating what someone said, apologies.

I'm completely against this being mandatory for several reasons.

1. You do realize you are being subjected to X-rays, meaning radiation, right? I'm not volunteering for that.

2. Some people who have had radiation treatments for cancer do reach a threshold where they can't have any more radiation. Has it been explored how these scanners affect those people?

3. Pregnant women aren't going to want their unborn children X-rayed and exposed to radiation. Should they be forced to just to fly?

4. I'm not for blanket security measures to make me "feel safe". I think that the government in general and the TSA in particular have had knee-jerk reactions and have made choices that they think are politically safe, not necessarily safe for everyone flying.

There's a fine line between public safety and personal rights. This scanner, should it be required, would cross the line for me.

If it's a voluntary process, that's fine.

I'd rather have my freedom and my choice to take my chances getting on a plane that may not have scanned every person's body cavity than be part of a dictatorial process that can't guarantee me anything anyway.

I see this as a push into our freedoms as Americans. And I'll gladly take risks to keep my freedom rather than accept what's told to me like a sheep with no brain.

If you are at some radiation threshold where you can't get a scan (?) , then it really doesn't matter because you couldn't get on the airplane either. Consequently, you wouldn't be flying, so you wouldn't be at the airport, so you wouldn't be going through security and you wouldn't be subjected to the scan.

From the TSA website:

• For comparison, the energy projected by millimeter wave technology is 10,000 times less than a cell phone transmission.
• We, and all objects around us, generate millimeter wave energy - and we are exposed to it every single day.
• Backscatter technology uses low level X-ray and a single scan is the equivalent of two minutes of flying on an airplane.

 

[Planogirl]

There are videos on the 'Net now that show far more detail than what's been posted here. I can't post them because they are THAT detailed.

If these things are accurate that is very troubling to me. I dislike the idea of anyone particularly children being seen by strangers especially since these machines wouldn't have stopped the latest bomber. What about when things are hidden in body cavities? These machines definitely won't catch that.

A better way is to use dogs IMO.

 

[bicker]

The free market capitalist in me has to ask this question.
It seems that folks are all up in ire about being forced to be scanned.

Let's say instead of the TSA being in charge it was left to the individual airlines.

Airline A has mandatory full body scans, bomb sniffing dogs, trained security personnel, x ray machines , and limits on liquids ect.

Airline B pretty has a minimal security check, but a 30% savings on your ticket cost.

With whom do you fly?

Oh you are wicked! Had to poke that consumer greed button, eh?

Fair enough: 30% is a lot of money. I think you've chosen a good percentage, not because it adequately reflects the costs associated with security (it almost surely doesn't, but regardless, it shouldn't -- the fare should reflect what we perceive as value), but because I think with that 30% number you've really come close to what price I put on my own personal safety. Still, I think you could have gone to 35%, so I'd choose Airline A.

 

[FireDancer]

The free market capitalist in me has to ask this question.
It seems that folks are all up in ire about being forced to be scanned.

Let's say instead of the TSA being in charge it was left to the individual airlines.

Airline A has mandatory full body scans, bomb sniffing dogs, trained security personnel, x ray machines , and limits on liquids ect.

Airline B pretty has a minimal security check, but a 30% savings on your ticket cost.


With whom do you fly?

That would never happen. The security isn't only for the people in the plane but for the people on the ground that could be injured if a plane exploded.

As for the radiation question, if you are that close to some radiation threshold than you shouldn't fly as you are exposed to radiation being on the plane. I was also under the impression that there comes a point in a pregnancy when you can't fly. I don't know if it is for safety or because they don't have a delivery room on the pane but I thought there were some rules.

Flying is not a right, it is a privilege. This is why the TSA can x-ray your bags and do a search on you without having to obtain a warrant.

 

[WDWKOOK]

SNIP

Flying is not a right, it is a privilege. This is why the TSA can x-ray your bags and do a search on you without having to obtain a warrant.

Flying isn't a privilege anymore - it's a punishment.

 

[ladycollector]

the free market capitalist in me has to ask this question.
It seems that folks are all up in ire about being forced to be scanned.

Let's say instead of the tsa being in charge it was left to the individual airlines.

Airline a has mandatory full body scans, bomb sniffing dogs, trained security personnel, x ray machines , and limits on liquids ect.

Airline b pretty has a minimal security check, but a 30% savings on your ticket cost.


With whom do you fly?

a.

 

[dbriggsq]

I can see the pro's and con's of body scanners.

To scan everyone it would cost a lost of time and money. Would it really be cost effective to scan my elderly parents or the average family with 2 or 3 children off to Disney or would it make more sense to concentrate on the person whose profile fitted with that of the recent terrorists or potential terrorists (all very similar). Would it be better to divert scarce resources into preventing people on a suspect list from ever getting on an aircraft without thorough inspection which is what happened in this case.

It seems that we are always very reactive in response to these real or perceived attacks - everyone taking shoes off after the 'shoe bomber' - no liquids after the potential liquid bomber - and the hasty implementation of body scanners and the 'sit in your seat for an hour before landing, with no blanket and no sky map' after the latest incident. These measures will not make flying any safer.

Another point - as far as I understand Muslim women would not submit (for obvious reasons) to this body scanner so perhaps the new threat would be terrorists employing women accomplices to carry out their plans.

Interesting discussion - being scanned wouldn't bother me because I'm not a terrorist - but then that's the problem of course.

 

[AndyLL]

So... does the scan replace the metal detector?

If so you are replacing an automatic check with one that relies on a human to read the results.

Yeah I feel much more safer replying on a employee making 25,000/year sitting in a segagrated room for 8 hours looking at scans.

After all... nothing gets by the human operated x-ray machines.

Of course the fact that the full body scan is pretty easily defeated means nothing...

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Ess...ullbody-scanners-might-not-work-as-advertised

 

[PrincessKsMom]

So... does the scan replace the metal detector?

If so you are replacing an automatic check with one that relies on a human to read the results.

Yeah I feel much more safer replying on a employee making 25,000/year sitting in a segagrated room for 8 hours looking at scans.

After all... nothing gets by the human operated x-ray machines.

Of course the fact that the full body scan is pretty easily defeated means nothing...

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Ess...ullbody-scanners-might-not-work-as-advertised

And just to even up the playing field, here are a few more articles from that site:

Here it comes--Congress set to ram through govt healthcare

Future War: Iran already killing Americans

U.S. military is liaising with extraterrestrial life according to independent sources

National Guard ad revives Nazi oath to Hitler: "Always place mission first," not US Constitution

Barack Obama not disclosing extraterrestrial presence is top ET/UFO story of 2009