Word of warning

[deegack]

Just to respond to a few posts at once if I may -

I am very concerned that any radiation would "bounce off the skin". Skin cancer runs in both sides of my family. I have had several suspicious moles removed already and wear sun screen everyday, year round. I am that person at the beach in pants and a long sleeved t-shirt. I would not be surprised if in 10 or 15 years it turns out oops the govt was wrong. There is an increase in skin cancer with this type of radiation. Our bad.

As for the idea that if a TSA agent doesn't like his job he can find another. I have seen that argument numerous times over the past two weeks when talking about people who travel a lot for business. Hi pot, you're black, love kettle

As for the suggestion that people do things like wear shorts in the winter if they have knee replacements - really. Its snowing in parts of the country today. Its 40 degrees outside my house today. There is no way it is reasonable to tell someone to wear shorts in the winter. Besides, the TSA pat down your bare arms if you where short sleeves so what benefit would it give you. Even if you go through the scanners you would have to be pat down.

You absolutely should ask for new gloves. For example, if the person in front of you is sick, germs could be transferred to you.

As for the protests, since before the US was a country its citizens have taken part in civil disobedience. I'm sure the colonists were inconvenienced by the Boston Tea Party and the people in Washington DC during Martin Luther King Jr's March on Washington. It comes with being an American. I am positive our founding fathers are cheering the people organizing and participating in the protests.

I do want to add, I have not seen one post by a person who does not like the new security measures saying they want no security. They just want rational security. I personally, would be ok with trained soldiers with guns by the check points and with dogs. I lived in NYC during 9-11 and for several years after. I saw men with guns and dogs on a daily basis. They become part of the background unless needed. I also would be ok with the machines used as a secondary screening process and even the enhanced pat downs as a third layer if they can't resolve an issue with wanding and a scan.

Sorry this is so long, I thought it would be better to respond in one post than start several.

 

[disneyfan55]

Posters on DIS complain about profitable airfares. Many, probably most, of the people complaining about the TSA on DIS aren't willing to pay the kind of $$$ it would take to implement a significantly better system.

Security is a per passenger expense. Would DIS be happy if the 9-11 security fee went up to $20? $25?

A few years ago a TSA supervisor said they were having problems getting employees. The airport food court paid better. I don't think this is currently literally true but TSA agents aren't paid like "real" cops. We really shouldn't expect them to be as qualified as "real cops".

You made one reasonable point. TSA probably needs to have a system to scan the bar code on the BP, (assuming they can easily link the bar code to the name of the passenger)

That will be the biometrice national ID card!! Probably have all our info linked to it esp. once all medical records are required to be online (safe place for that, never gets hacked!)

 

[goofy4tink]

This is, once again, verging on the nasty. I have asked that all lumping of all TSA personel together as 'perverts' stop. Not sure how many times I have to do this. Some of you just can't stay away from that topic.

Also.....telling someone that they don't 'have' to fly is not the same thing at all as telling someone to quit their job. Plenty of people do not fly for many reasons. And they work around that when they need to travel. Am I saying that if you don't like the new proceedures to stop flying? No, not at all. But it gets tiring to see the same old rhetoric over and over again. Either find something new to say or just say nothing.

Most of us agree that the new proceedures are invasive. Many feel that they will just 'deal with it' and do what needs to be done in order to get through security as easily as possible. Others feel that they need to do everything in their power to stop the new proceedures..that they are unsafe and way too personal. And there are some on both sides of this issue that are never, ever going to change their stand. And that's okay.
So...either moderate your responses and deal with differing opinions a bit more politely or just stop posting. I have way too much to do to have to worry about who is calling whom what.

OH, and by the way...I've had several skin cancers taken off...I get it, I truly do. But I really am not concerned about the scanners. There is plenty of radiation going on all over the place. And please don't come here and tell me I'm some kind of idiot because of the way I feel. I make choices that I feel will work for me...my opinion is just as valid as everyone else's. If I choose to be a 'sheep' and trust in what the govt is telling me, so be it. But I will not be harangued by people here because of my choices.

 

[deegack]

This is, once again, verging on the nasty. I have asked that all lumping of all TSA personel together as 'perverts' stop. Not sure how many times I have to do this. Some of you just can't stay away from that topic.

Also.....telling someone that they don't 'have' to fly is not the same thing at all as telling someone to quit their job. Plenty of people do not fly for many reasons. And they work around that when they need to travel. Am I saying that if you don't like the new proceedures to stop flying? No, not at all. But it gets tiring to see the same old rhetoric over and over again. Either find something new to say or just say nothing.

Most of us agree that the new proceedures are invasive. Many feel that they will just 'deal with it' and do what needs to be done in order to get through security as easily as possible. Others feel that they need to do everything in their power to stop the new proceedures..that they are unsafe and way too personal. And there are some on both sides of this issue that are never, ever going to change their stand. And that's okay.
So...either moderate your responses and deal with differing opinions a bit more politely or just stop posting. I have way too much to do to have to worry about who is calling whom what.

OH, and by the way...I've had several skin cancers taken off...I get it, I truly do. But I really am not concerned about the scanners. There is plenty of radiation going on all over the place. And please don't come here and tell me I'm some kind of idiot because of the way I feel. I make choices that I feel will work for me...my opinion is just as valid as everyone else's. If I choose to be a 'sheep' and trust in what the govt is telling me, so be it. But I will not be harangued by people here because of my choices.

I am assuming the bolding is directed at my post, which I re-read. I never called anyone names or even implied that someone was an idiot if they did not agree with my take on things.

 

[disneyfan55]

Just to respond to a few posts at once if I may -

I am very concerned that any radiation would "bounce off the skin". Skin cancer runs in both sides of my family. I have had several suspicious moles removed already and wear sun screen everyday, year round. I am that person at the beach in pants and a long sleeved t-shirt. I would not be surprised if in 10 or 15 years it turns out oops the govt was wrong. There is an increase in skin cancer with this type of radiation. Our bad.

As for the idea that if a TSA agent doesn't like his job he can find another. I have seen that argument numerous times over the past two weeks when talking about people who travel a lot for business. Hi pot, you're black, love kettle

As for the suggestion that people do things like wear shorts in the winter if they have knee replacements - really. Its snowing in parts of the country today. Its 40 degrees outside my house today. There is no way it is reasonable to tell someone to wear shorts in the winter. Besides, the TSA pat down your bare arms if you where short sleeves so what benefit would it give you. Even if you go through the scanners you would have to be pat down.

You absolutely should ask for new gloves. For example, if the person in front of you is sick, germs could be transferred to you.

As for the protests, since before the US was a country its citizens have taken part in civil disobedience. I'm sure the colonists were inconvenienced by the Boston Tea Party and the people in Washington DC during Martin Luther King Jr's March on Washington. It comes with being an American. I am positive our founding fathers are cheering the people organizing and participating in the protests. I saw men with guns and dogs on a daily basis. They become part of the background unless needed. I also would be ok with the machines used as a secondary screening

I have no problem with dogs or military checking us out.

 

[Lewisc]

This is, once again, verging on the nasty. I have asked that all lumping of all TSA personel together as 'perverts' stop. Not sure how many times I have to do this. Some of you just can't stay away from that topic.

Also.....telling someone that they don't 'have' to fly is not the same thing at all as telling someone to quit their job. Plenty of people do not fly for many reasons. And they work around that when they need to travel. Am I saying that if you don't like the new proceedures to stop flying? No, not at all. But it gets tiring to see the same old rhetoric over and over again. Either find something new to say or just say nothing.

+1 People don't fly for a variety of reasons. Some people get severe ear pain that doesn't respond to common solutions. Some people have an irrational fear of flying. People who won't fly due to the new security are just another group of passengers with an irrational reason not to fly.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

Big Protest Day..... was kind of a bust and seems NOT to have impacted travel

Atlanta news reporting... 47,000 screened today. OPT OUTs........

THIRTY NINE! (39) There is some woman standing outside running a solo protest. She must the the ONLY protestor since ALL the media has shown the SAME woman... There are a lot more AirTran employees protesting the lack of a contract. Guess that's the bigger deal here! (I think the people taking the protestors flyers were doing it to be on TV, they kept looking more at the camera then at the protestor!)


The protest owner is claiming it was a "success" because folks didn't fly. (That's why ALL the airport parking in Atlanta is full and the "drop off" zone had things backed up to the interstate.. no one was at the airport? )

And my Dad doesn't fly because "I bought a motor home so I could take my home whereever I wanted to go!"

 

[safetymom]

Many of the airports were not using their AID scanners so nothing to opt out of. Lets see what happens after the Thanksgiving travellers get home.

 

[disneyfan55]

Many of the airports were not using their AID scanners so nothing to opt out of. Lets see what happens after the Thanksgiving travellers get home.

Yes, I read that as well.

 

[goofy4tink]

I am assuming the bolding is directed at my post, which I re-read. I never called anyone names or even implied that someone was an idiot if they did not agree with my take on things.

No you didn't..and I do apologize for making it appear that you did. I got on a roll and didn't keep in mind exactly what you had posted..and that's not fair. So, again, I apologize. I got on a rant.

 

[goofy4tink]

Many of the airports were not using their AID scanners so nothing to opt out of. Lets see what happens after the Thanksgiving travellers get home.

To the best of my knowledge, Boston's Logan had all their scanners up and running. Of course, they don't have the newer scanners at all security areas to begin with.
It was a huge non-issue in Boston today according to the news stories tonight.

 

[bwilcox]

The news is reporting that only 3% of holiday travelers are being screened. Of those 3%, polls are showing that about 20% of travelers would opt out of the scans. That is why there are no back-ups-such a small percentage of travelers are even being asked to pass through the scanners.
Of course, that begs the question-What good are these new invasive security measures doing if so little people have to use them? Right now, a terrorist would have 97% chance of passing through security without being asked to be scanned. For this ILLUSION of safety, we are giving up so much!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

The news is reporting that only 3% of holiday travelers are being screened. Of those 3%, polls are showing that about 20% of travelers would opt out of the scans. That is why there are no back-ups-such a small percentage of travelers are even being asked to pass through the scanners.
Of course, that begs the question-What good are these new invasive security measures doing if so little people have to use them? Right now, a terrorist would have 97% chance of passing through security without being asked to be scanned. For this ILLUSION of safety, we are giving up so much!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

This is about the same as what was going on before. Only in the media or on boards like this is it "EVERYONE" and the subsequent "hysteria". As I said.. I have been selected ONCE!

Right now there are NOT machines everyplace and the time addition is high

I think the REAL question is

"What good is the TSA?" We have been giving up a lot of the 'theater' since Day 1 of this waste of my tax $$$.

 

[kaytieeldr]

What they're supposed to do, and what actually happens often differ.

A lot of hot air. To paraphrase a bumper sticker from the 60's: "What if they held a protest and nobody showed up?". Even with 20% (a number I heard on normally-conservative talk radio this morning) of passengers being backscatter-scanned instead of the typical 3% (reported in the news recently), there was no mass demand to opt-out and be patted down.

Do you realize that the ACR and John's Hopkins opinions are based on data supplied by the device manufacturer? This data is now seeming to be inaccurate . . . actual exposures may be 20 times higher than reported. You might want to read the letter Congressman Holt, a Ph.D. physicist and former director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory sent to Pistole.

No, not really. Twenty times three one hundredths of anything is six tenths. Still not a number that concerns ne as an occasional traveler. I don't think anybody is saying people who have to go through the backscatter scanners frequently (e.g. multiple times daily, or even daily) might not be at some higher risk than they would be without the AITs.

What they're supposed to do, and what actually happens often differ.

What they're supposed to do, and what actually happens, sometimes differ.

 

[Oglet]

Okay I'll throw this out there and see what people have to say.

So some very evil people done something to us on Sept 11, 2001 and as a result not only did we lose the lives of many people we also lost something else and that is our freedom.

Just the fact that we now have gone to such an extreme as these new scanners and procedures for airline travel is a statement to the real damage they done that day. Every single time you visit an airport you are reminded of what happened that day and how they changed our lives as a nation.

My main point is where do we stop, there are threats everywhere and we can't stop them all. If we somehow managed to make air travel 100% terrorist proof does anyone honestly think it would stop them from trying another angle to hurt us? so where do we draw the line? Putting similar scanners in schools, hospitals, sports venues or any other public place everytime there is a potential threat or something happens.

It might sound far fetched but one day these scanners will be everywhere because next time something happens somewhere else they will appear and on and on it goes.

Something needs done to protect our freedom, these scanners are not the answer to our problems they are just going to create more.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Originally Posted by CPT Tripss
Do you realize that the ACR and John's Hopkins opinions are based on data supplied by the device manufacturer? This data is now seeming to be inaccurate . . . actual exposures may be 20 times higher than reported. You might want to read the letter Congressman Holt, a Ph.D. physicist and former director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory sent to Pistole.

...

No, not really. Twenty times three one hundredths of anything is six tenths. Still not a number that concerns ne as an occasional traveler. I don't think anybody is saying people who have to go through the backscatter scanners frequently (e.g. multiple times daily, or even daily) might not be at some higher risk than they would be without the AITs.

. . .

The effects of 20x the exposure may not be linear. And as for the existing conclusions based on inaccurate data, you do know what GIGO means, right?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Yesterday had fewer passengers than an average day, TSA had more screeners on duty than an average day, and there were fewer selectees than anaverage day. So things went smoothly for air travelers, good! But, not a surprise.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Yesterday had fewer passengers than an average day

Source? Given that this is the busiest five travel days (Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday-Sunday) annually, I'm honestly curious how suddenly the day before Thanksgiving suddently had fewer passengers than an average day.

 

[goofy4tink]

+1 People don't fly for a variety of reasons. Some people get severe ear pain that doesn't respond to common solutions. Some people have an irrational fear of flying. People who won't fly due to the new security are just another group of passengers with an irrational reason not to fly.

If someone chooses not to fly due to the new security measures, I don't think it can be called irrational. It's a valid reason. They believe that the new measures are harmful in some way. There are plenty of people that feel this way.
Most of us feel differently..but that doesn't make those who feel differently 'irrational'. I just hope that their fears are unfounded. I am banking on that. I don't want to be here, in 10 years, saying, 'well, I guess you guys were right.' when they find that the new scanners radiated us all to the point of our skin falling off (a bit extreme I know).

 

[Lewisc]

If someone chooses not to fly due to the new security measures, I don't think it can be called irrational. It's a valid reason. They believe that the new measures are harmful in some way. There are plenty of people that feel this way.
Most of us feel differently..but that doesn't make those who feel differently 'irrational'. I just hope that their fears are unfounded. I am banking on that. I don't want to be here, in 10 years, saying, 'well, I guess you guys were right.' when they find that the new scanners radiated us all to the point of our skin falling off (a bit extreme I know).

I'm comparing the irrational fear of flying due to safety concerns with the irrational fear of flying due to a concern that the TSA inspector who screens my child is a pedophile looking for a thrill.