TSA mess and the police

[SaraJayne]

Although I have read all 37 pages (!) of comments, I often clicked to other locations/links, googled for more info, etc., so I'm not sure this was posted. This is a letter regarding the alleged safety of the back-scatter X-rays.

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

The previous post about a "loophole" reminded me of it because the letter mentions that the radiation levels, although reported to be safe, are actually using an inaccurate measure. The actual radiation levels are significantly higher than reported and thus less safe.

And as I'm sure -- many pages ago -- someone has mentioned, the machines do have the capability to capture and save images, and there has already been at least one celebrity (not in the States, but elsewhere) whose "naked photo" was printed and distributed even before he left the airport. He found out when the airline employees approached him to sign his own X-ray photo.

In the name of safety? No. As so many others have said, this is security theater.

*blink blink*

 

[ccgirl]

Although I have read all 37 pages (!) of comments, I often clicked to other locations/links, googled for more info, etc., so I'm not sure this was posted. This is a letter regarding the alleged safety of the back-scatter X-rays.

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

The previous post about a "loophole" reminded me of it because the letter mentions that the radiation levels, although reported to be safe, are actually using an inaccurate measure. The actual radiation levels are significantly higher than reported and thus less safe.

And as I'm sure -- many pages ago -- someone has mentioned, the machines do have the capability to capture and save images, and there has already been at least one celebrity (not in the States, but elsewhere) whose "naked photo" was printed and distributed even before he left the airport. He found out when the airline employees approached him to sign his own X-ray photo.

In the name of safety? No. As so many others have said, this is security theater.

This link was quoted quite a few posts back. The memo was from April. I would like to see more recent data. Of the data I have reviewed, it seems the test conducted concluded it was safe. Are the scientists hoping to get a grant so they can study this? Unfortunately, I have a family member that is a scientist and they will make their opinions based on what will give them, and their faculty, the most amount of money. I am not saying that is what is happening here. I am just saying the "safe" studies seem to far outweigh the "concerns". Actually, there have been no studies that I have found that have said the backscatters are anything but safe.

You mentioned a picture was distributed from an airport outside of the states. That would mean they are using these scanners elsewhere in the world. Have they been found to be unsafe?

You were lucky.

Apparently, I was lucky as well as were others in this thread and other threads now on the DIS.

 

[LuvOrlando]

This link was quoted quite a few posts back. The memo was from April. I would like to see more recent data. Of the data I have reviewed, it seems the test conducted concluded it was safe. Are the scientists hoping to get a grant so they can study this? Unfortunately, I have a family member that is a scientist and they will make their opinions based on what will give them, and their faculty, the most amount of money. I am not saying that is what is happening here. I am just saying the "safe" studies seem to far outweigh the "concerns". Actually, there have been no studies that I have found that have said the backscatters are anything but safe.

You mentioned a picture was distributed from an airport outside of the states. That would mean they are using these scanners elsewhere in the world. Have they been found to be unsafe?

You were lucky.

Apparently, I was lucky as well as were others in this thread and other threads now on the DIS.

The most often quoted info of common knowledge seem to liken the dose to dental x-rays. If these doses of radiation are so safe why do females of reproductive age get lead blankets whenever we are exposed to radiation either from dental x-rays or other forms?

How do we go from needing lead blankets to unprotected exposure?

Keep in mind females are born with all the eggs we will ever have so what happens in infancy has as much potential to do harm as what happens during adolescence as what happens as adults. Also, radiation is cumulative. I might not be a Dr. but 40 years of experience told me something was wrong with the picture. Also, the experts cited by anna_chonistic, if the letter is valid, are pretty prestigious, and UCSF is pretty high up there too. If they are alarmed I think everyone should be alarmed.

 

[Becky2005]

How do we go from needing lead blankets to unprotected exposure?

Keep in mind females are born with all the eggs we will ever have so what happens in infancy has as much potential to do harm as what happens during adolescence as what happens as adults. Also, radiation is cumulative.

It will be interesting to see how "safe" they are if all of a sudden there is a huge increase in radiation issues among frequent travelers OR the TSA agents themselves since apparently someone is standing near the scanners right vs. behind some lead wall like they do when they take x-rays.

Unfortunately, I think it's not really going to stop anything and people are just willing to go along with anything in the name of safety. Reminds me of the commercials a while ago where a lady was going through the airport nude except for some magazines she was stragetically holding & the shoes she was wearing & then had to put the magazines in the bin -- she shrugged did so & then caused commotion and the slogan was "when you have nothing to wear" -- frankly at this point it really DOES seem like that would be the next logical step. Just have everyone show up at the airport, have a special room where you just strip down and/or get issued special airline approved clothing minute you enter the doors of the airport. Either one isn't really going to stop the serious terrorists & at this point I'm not so sure they will do anything with airlines anyway -- what a great distraction for them, all our energy is focused on air travel, so they will hit something else that we aren't paying attention to.

 

[punkin]

It will be interesting to see how "safe" they are if all of a sudden there is a huge increase in radiation issues among frequent travelers OR the TSA agents themselves since apparently someone is standing near the scanners right vs. behind some lead wall like they do when they take x-rays.

Unfortunately, I think it's not really going to stop anything and people are just willing to go along with anything in the name of safety. Reminds me of the commercials a while ago where a lady was going through the airport nude except for some magazines she was stragetically holding & the shoes she was wearing & then had to put the magazines in the bin -- she shrugged did so & then caused commotion and the slogan was "when you have nothing to wear" -- frankly at this point it really DOES seem like that would be the next logical step. Just have everyone show up at the airport, have a special room where you just strip down and/or get issued special airline approved clothing minute you enter the doors of the airport. Either one isn't really going to stop the serious terrorists & at this point I'm not so sure they will do anything with airlines anyway -- what a great distraction for them, all our energy is focused on air travel, so they will hit something else that we aren't paying attention to.

You know, I never even thought of this.

 

[ccgirl]

This link was quoted quite a few posts back. The memo was from April. I would like to see more recent data. Of the data I have reviewed, it seems the test conducted concluded it was safe. Are the scientists hoping to get a grant so they can study this? Unfortunately, I have a family member that is a scientist and they will make their opinions based on what will give them, and their faculty, the most amount of money. I am not saying that is what is happening here. I am just saying the "safe" studies seem to far outweigh the "concerns". Actually, there have been no studies that I have found that have said the backscatters are anything but safe.

You mentioned a picture was distributed from an airport outside of the states. That would mean they are using these scanners elsewhere in the world. Have they been found to be unsafe?

You were lucky.

The most often quoted info of common knowledge seem to liken the dose to dental x-rays. If these doses of radiation are so safe why do females of reproductive age get lead blankets whenever we are exposed to radiation either from dental x-rays or other forms?

How do we go from needing lead blankets to unprotected exposure?

Keep in mind females are born with all the eggs we will ever have so what happens in infancy has as much potential to do harm as what happens during adolescence as what happens as adults. Also, radiation is cumulative. I might not be a Dr. but 40 years of experience told me something was wrong with the picture. Also, the experts cited by anna_chonistic, if the letter is valid, are pretty prestigious, and UCSF is pretty high up there too. If they are alarmed I think everyone should be alarmed.

This is actually incorrect. I have looked up the radiation exposure of dental x-rays and an average dental x ray delivers 1 mREM while a full set of dental x rays delivers 18 mREM's. All information I have seen indicates that the dose is less than that of dental x-rays. In addition, it is not concentrated in one area. The backscatter machines also uses radiation that bounces off the skin rather than penetrates the body. That is why you don't need to wear a lead shield.

Quote from the Chief of Radiology at MGH:
There are two types of machines - millimeter wavelength imaging and backscatter X-ray scanners. Both are used to see under clothes and identify unusual objects. Only one - backscatter X-ray machines - expose individuals to ionizing radiation such as that used in common medical X-rays.

But the radiation levels are well below the threshold that could be considered a risk to an individual's health, said Dr. James Thrall of the American College of Radiology and chief of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

"All of the concerns that we have about the medical use of X-rays really don't apply to these devices," Thrall said in a telephone interview. "The exposure is extremely low and the energy of the X-rays is also very, very low," he said.

"When X-rays are used for medical imaging purposes, they have to be energetic enough to get through the human body. The X-rays used in the backscatter machines in airports have such low energy that they literally bounce off the skin. That is what backscatter implies," Thrall said.

If you can point me in the direction of any proof that says the radiation level is unsafe I would be very interested in seeing it.

Thanks.

 

[anna_chronistic]

This link was quoted quite a few posts back. The memo was from April. I would like to see more recent data. Of the data I have reviewed, it seems the test conducted concluded it was safe. Are the scientists hoping to get a grant so they can study this? Unfortunately, I have a family member that is a scientist and they will make their opinions based on what will give them, and their faculty, the most amount of money. I am not saying that is what is happening here. I am just saying the "safe" studies seem to far outweigh the "concerns". Actually, there have been no studies that I have found that have said the backscatters are anything but safe.

You mentioned a picture was distributed from an airport outside of the states. That would mean they are using these scanners elsewhere in the world. Have they been found to be unsafe?

Uh-oh -- I'd like to retract the celebrity photo story. This has not been verified. It was at Heathrow and the airport swears it's impossible
...
... to print the photos directly from the device. That I don't really doubt, but even I can think of several work-arounds to that, so I'll put that story in the category of "unverified but possible." It was a Bollywood celebrity, and heaven knows that celebrities will probably be the first victims of something like this, so if it has not happened yet, there is no doubt in my mind that it will soon.

As for the letter, I'm not sure what studies you have seen that have been conducted recently -- but April was not that long ago, and the scientists were noting that the scanners were going to be deployed more widely, they were not making reports of what had already happened. Also, urging further study seems like a perfectly reasonable request to make, not a prelude to a request for funding (although I wouldn't be opposed to the same people submitting a request for funding to conduct these studies. Why shouldn't experts help study the problem?). But YMMV.

 

[LuvOrlando]

The actors name is Shahrukh Khan

 

[anna_chronistic]

This is actually incorrect. I have looked up the radiation exposure of dental x-rays and an average dental x ray delivers 1 mREM while a full set of dental x rays delivers 18 mREM's. All information I have seen indicates that the dose is less than that of dental x-rays. In addition, it is not concentrated in one area. The backscatter machines also uses radiation that bounces off the skin rather than penetrates the body. That is why you don't need to wear a lead shield.

Quote from the Chief of Radiology at MGH:
There are two types of machines - millimeter wavelength imaging and backscatter X-ray scanners. Both are used to see under clothes and identify unusual objects. Only one - backscatter X-ray machines - expose individuals to ionizing radiation such as that used in common medical X-rays.

But the radiation levels are well below the threshold that could be considered a risk to an individual's health, said Dr. James Thrall of the American College of Radiology and chief of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

"All of the concerns that we have about the medical use of X-rays really don't apply to these devices," Thrall said in a telephone interview. "The exposure is extremely low and the energy of the X-rays is also very, very low," he said.

"When X-rays are used for medical imaging purposes, they have to be energetic enough to get through the human body. The X-rays used in the backscatter machines in airports have such low energy that they literally bounce off the skin. That is what backscatter implies," Thrall said.

If you can point me in the direction of any proof that says the radiation level is unsafe I would be very interested in seeing it.

Thanks.

Actually, I'd like to see a study (with accompanying explanation, since I am not a scientist ) indicating that the X-rays are safe. And I don't get the whole "bounces off the skin" bit. Where did you read that? So far, what I have read indicates that it is absorbed by "only" the skin and the tissue directly beneath skin. That, to me, does not equate to bouncing off the skin.

 

[ccgirl]

Actually, I'd like to see a study (with accompanying explanation, since I am not a scientist ) indicating that the X-rays are safe. And I don't get the whole "bounces off the skin" bit. Where did you read that? So far, what I have read indicates that it is absorbed by "only" the skin and the tissue directly beneath skin. That, to me, does not equate to bouncing off the skin.

So far, this is what I was quickly able to copy:
The other issue besides privacy that has surrounded backscatter X-raying has to do with radiation exposure. Most of us do not get X-rayed on a regular basis; and when we do get X-rayed in a hospital or doctor's office, we've got a lead vest thrown over our vital organs. But at airports, there's no lead vest. So are people who travel a lot going to be subjected to dangerous levels of radiation if they get backscattered too often? Most experts say no. According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta. And it would take 5,000 scans in a year to reach the upper limit of safety. A traveler would have to get 100 backscatter scans per week, every week, for a year, in order to be in real danger from the radiation. Few frequent flyers fly that frequently.

It has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

Sorry...I could google later for more.

Honestly, if someone can show me a study that says otherwise I would very much like to see it as it would change my mind. Thanks!

Also, I think the term backscatter is sometimes incorrectly used. There is a backscatter and a millimeter x-ray. The one that goes all the way around you is the millimeter. The backscatter is a flat wall that you stand in front of with your arms raised. You could google to see the difference.

ETA: I found this interesting link which provides some useful information. I found some new information as well.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Backscatter_X-ray

 

[JLTraveling]

What do you think the chances would be that Disney would release an "Emperor's New Groove" T-shirt that says "No Touchy, no touchy, No touch!"

I don't remember when it was said in the movie but I distinctly remember it because I remember teaching it to my kids to say to each other when they would invade each others space as an alternative to fighting.

I want one for Christmas... I wonder if it can be done with Photoshop and some transfer paper?

That reminds me so much of when I worked at a residential psych facility for teens. It was a coed group, and one of our rules, which the kids had to repeat out loud at every house meeting, was "No touchy-touchy feely-feely." Many of our kids had been sexually abused, and they sexualized every touch, even the most innocent. Sigh. This just gets worse and worse the more I think about the implications for various populations

 

[OceanAnnie]

The actors name is Shahrukh Khan

Yes. I read about him. That was a disturbing case where the workers were passing around copies of his scan. Wrong on so many levels.

Also there is the case where the TSA worker was ridiculed about his "junk" by other TSA workers. The ridiculed co-worker assaulted the guy that was taunting him and was arrested. I don't know if the scan was passed around or word got out by someone that saw it. Can't remember.

I have read articles a month or so ago (?) where the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano confirmed the scans are saved. That's creepy.

 

[anna_chronistic]

So far, this is what I was quickly able to copy:
The other issue besides privacy that has surrounded backscatter X-raying has to do with radiation exposure. Most of us do not get X-rayed on a regular basis; and when we do get X-rayed in a hospital or doctor's office, we've got a lead vest thrown over our vital organs. But at airports, there's no lead vest. So are people who travel a lot going to be subjected to dangerous levels of radiation if they get backscattered too often? Most experts say no. According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta. And it would take 5,000 scans in a year to reach the upper limit of safety. A traveler would have to get 100 backscatter scans per week, every week, for a year, in order to be in real danger from the radiation. Few frequent flyers fly that frequently.

It has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

I like you. Quick response, matter of fact, citing sources and giving further info to read. I'll openly acknowledge that I don't know what the dangers might be (whoa, I just had a weird deja vu moment -- I need to check my posts from a couple years ago...), but I have a hard time trusting citations of studies from the government without independent review. I can't find these studies online -- the actual studies, not just quotes about them and assurances that everything tested out A-OK -- but maybe I'm not looking hard enough. But again, the letter I linked simply asserts that:

"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. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose."

The response from one agency, according to medindia.net, was,
"The Office of Science and Technology responded this week to the scientists' letter, saying the scanners have been "tested extensively" by US government agencies and were found to meet safety standards.

But Sedat told AFP Friday: "We still don't know the beam intensity or other details of their classified system.""

So the government essentially said, "Trust us, we tested it exhaustively," but refuse to release (or at least, have not released despite prompting) their test info yet?

Maybe it is safe. I still wouldn't enjoy getting an X-ray, but I would submit if I had to for medical reasons. But this is not medically needed. Even if it is found to be completely safe, I find this particular process/policy abhorrent.

Maybe I'm a prude for not wanting anyone but my doctor or someone I know, love and trust to see me naked (or touch me in places I would NEVER feel comfortable allowing a stranger to touch), but up until now I've had the right to be a prude. Now some people are saying I DON'T have that right, if I want to fly?

Well, if this policy is still in place next time I fly, I guess I'll submit to the pat-down and fill out a comment card when it's over. Until then, I'll write letters, as suggested previously, and hope logic eventually prevails.

And for a country that seems to worship on the alter of reason and logic (after all, don't people frequently dismiss "feelings" and "opinions" as invalid tools for argument?), this seems like a highly illogical and nonsensical "security" measure.

 

[CathrynRose]

Is Gambling frowned upon, on The Dis?

After seeing the San Diego man's video's and interviews....I'd like to start a wager.... $5 says the newest "step in airport security" will be to turn your phone or camera OFF, while in the security area.

 

[C.Ann]

Yes, without a doubt. I've written extensively on the body scanners and their possible triggers for various phobias on my About.com website. Anyone is welcome to PM me for the link; I'll avoid posting it here since certain posters may be inclined to accuse me of "advertising." But yes, claustrophobia is just one of many phobias likely to be triggered by these devices.

Well - not that I plan on flying anyhow - since anyone can be randomly selected for these pat downs (not just those who opt out of the scanners) - this would not work for me at all.. Somewhere along the line - in the past 4 years - I have developed extreme claustrophobia.. I took a fall a week or so ago (I only weigh 82 lbs.), landed on my tailbone (second time since February) and this time I'm 99% sure I broke/cracked it.. Can't do a closed, open, or sitting MRI - CAT scan is out too - so I'm out of luck.. Just dealing with the pain the best I can and believe me, it's not easy! Sounds like the scanner would push me right over the edge..

Or, or, or, or..... OR if the parent agrees to the naked scanner, and the child moves, which would initiate a pat-down, correct? That's been the "rule" with everything I've read.

And why 12? 13 is still legally a child - as is 14, 15, 16 and 17!!!

Everything I have found indicates that if the child (regardless of age) wiggles so much as a finger (let alone moves a millionth of an inch or twitches), it will require a pat down..

DGD just turned 12.. No way she is going to let a stranger touch her - nor will her parents allow it.. So - no flying for them either.. DD's FIL stopped flying before 9/11 because he didn't agree with the guidelines then - it will be a cold day in you-know-where that he'll fly now.. His wife? Not a chance in a million that she will allow a stranger to touch her - so no flying for her either.. (She's also had a knee replacement, so that could cause a problem with the scanner..) My sister requires the use of a wheelchair - wouldn't be able to stand up for the scanner - she's not a touchy-feely type person either - so yet another person who won't be flying.. I could go on and on with all of the people I know that have now decided they won't fly, but you get the gist..

The airlines will feel it in their wallets.. Too many people up in arms..

 

[Shutterbug]

This whole matter was just the lead in story on NBC new tonight.
Anyone else catch it?

Right now the TSA knows there are people griping but hopes all these small groups will go away and actually knows it will go away.

When gas prices shot up hugely after Hurricane Katrina, people complained, tried to organize gas out days.....but in the end people are still driving going places.

The only way TSA will change the way it does things is if its pressured...not from you or me..but from the airlines. That will only happen when airlines feel they are losing too business because of the TSA guidelines. Right now they arent. I was looking at flights the past couple days planning a trip. They are all basically full.

People will continue to fly. Yes they will gripe about it but they will still put up with it because of the convenience that flying gives you. 24 hours cramped up in a smelly minivan or go through the security screening. I am betting most will reason it down enough to the point that they will see the screening as a minor inconvenience to avoid the 24 hour drive.

 

[C.Ann]

People will continue to fly.

You're right - "some" will - either because it doesn't bother them or they have to fly for work - and others won't..

Time will tell...

 

[EMom]

This whole matter was just the lead in story on NBC new tonight.
Anyone else catch it?

Right now the TSA knows there are people griping but hopes all these small groups will go away and actually knows it will go away.

When gas prices shot up hugely after Hurricane Katrina, people complained, tried to organize gas out days.....but in the end people are still driving going places.

The only way TSA will change the way it does things is if its pressured...not from you or me..but from the airlines. That will only happen when airlines feel they are losing too business because of the TSA guidelines. Right now they arent. I was looking at flights the past couple days planning a trip. They are all basically full.

People will continue to fly. Yes they will gripe about it but they will still put up with it because of the convenience that flying gives you. 24 hours cramped up in a smelly minivan or go through the security screening. I am betting most will reason it down enough to the point that they will see the screening as a minor inconvenience to avoid the 24 hour drive.

But you see, I believe many of us are reaching a breaking point. I know I am. As I said, my Thanksgiving plane trip was booked prior to these latest changes. I am one of those people who would always fly instead of driving if the drive was over 4 hours. I despise driving. The thought of a cross country car trip is hell on earth to me....especially in our small car. I could go on, but you get it.

For Christmas, we have decided to drive from Texas to WDW. One thousand godawful miles of road. But the only ones who will see me close to naked will be the family members sharing a hotel room. And of those, only DH gets to be friendly enough to get anywhere near an "enhanced pat down."

I put up with having to get to the airport waaaaaaaay ahead of time. I put up with having to put TSA locks on my cases and hoped they would actually open them instead of break them. I put up with a metal detector and having to take my stupid shoes off. I learned to pack 3-1-1. Once, they even gave me a cursory pat down two years ago and that was about my limit. When I asked what that was about, I was told I was randomly chosen. Oh goody.

But letting a perfect stranger see me (and maybe my little girl) buck nekkid when I have done absolutely nothing to raise an eyebrow other than commit the "crime" of wanting to travel in America.....No thanks. And no way am I going to let anyone, let alone a stranger, get THAT physcially familiar with me. Not no, but hell no. I've taught DD that NO ONE touches her in certain areas. But now some flunky in a blue uniform gets to run their hands all over her for no good reason whatsoever, except that they CAN? Well, Hell hasn't frozen over yet. So no, keep your intrusive, invasive, unwanted, unecessary hands off my child. BTW, do we (the public) get to feel up the TSA folks after they've done it to us? Seems fair to me. That might slow them down.

Nope. Naked pics and full on groping (molesting in the case of DD) is beyond my limits of tolerance. They can stick their plane tickets where the sun don't shine. Then they can let a fellow TSA agent do a cavity search to locate that ticket. THIS....These two things....are going to be the triggers that push many Americans over the edge and make them say, "Enough is enough."

 

[C.Ann]

I was looking at flights the past couple days planning a trip. They are all basically full..

Just for the heck of it, I checked from upstate NY to Orlando, FL - the day before Thanksgiving (that's supposed to be the busiest day right?) and Thanksgiving day itself and there were still plenty of flights available.. Played around with some other dates and destinations and nothing is full..

 

[C.Ann]

Okay - I found a partial answer to the colostomy bags and such on the TSA link below.. If you scroll down the page you will see the various appliances..
------------------------------------------


http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1370.shtm#3

Security Officers should not be asking you to remove your orthopedic shoes, appliances, or medical device (insulin pump, feeding tube, ostomy or urine bag, or exterior component of cochlear implant) at any time during the screening process.

Advise the Security Officer if you have an ostomy or urine bag. You will not be required to expose these devices for inspection.
----------------------------------------------------


So if you don't have to remove them - or expose them - how do they know what's inside of them?

Remember - anyone terrorist can purchase many of these appliances and just stick them on with the proper adhesive..

---------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

And still no one has addressed this issue.. If something such as the above (a perfect hiding place for "whatever") is not subject to inspection or scrutiny, why is it that infants, children, adults, senior citizens, and those with disabilities are being are being randomly chosen for these invasive/intrusive, useless groping pat downs??????