Ok, probably a fair point. My inclination at this point is to think that there is a high correlation between those who are concerned about body scans and those who are worried about power lines causing cancer/cell phones causing cancer/plasma TVs causing cancer/ball point pens causing cancer/teh Internet causing cancer, etc.
You need to fly in business class for that service.
Yes, that is of course a problem. But the locked and reinforced cabin doors to the control room should prevent a future hijack of this sort. More of a problem is the people on the ground killed if a terrorists blows up the plane. Like at Lockerbie.
I have to fly for business reasons , but the new rules make me never want to take a non-business-related flight again.
I have a real problem with being touched by strangers. A basic pat down is bad enough, but the degree of invasiveness allowable under the new rules is, in my view, no different in form or content from sexual assault. So, as I understand it, at any random time I may be given the Hobson’s Choice of either being subjected to additional ionizing radiation ( I frankly don;t care how weak it is, it still has a cumulative effect) or being groped by strangers. In addition, it turns out that apparently if there are any problems with the scan, I’ll be subjected to the full groping anyway.
And once i’ve been offered this so-called choice, I can’t opt out, under threat of prosecution and fine.
It’s bad and utterly stupid lawmaking and at the very least, the civil penalties for non-compliance should be abolished.
All I heard was a radio story (perhaps ironically, from NPR, and based on the article you linked) that said “some are concerned”. I might have stopped my car before the refutations and counter-points were aired.
I do find it interesting that the only scientific voices vouching for its safety in that article work for TSA.
I’m especially interested in Brenner’s comments re: especially sensitive people (who likely don’t know that they are overly sensitive to radiation). When you scan hundreds of millions of people you almost certainly will get a few for whom it increases their cancer risk by a non-trivial amount.
Also, based on the article, the fact that the radiation in the scanner is focused on the skin makes it rather different than the background cosmic radiation. But it has been awhile since Physics 313, so I am probably mis-remembering.
They don’t check your ID when you go through? Seems pretty easy to keep track of who keeps booking and refusing to be searched without TSA sexual coercion.
This is assuming that all goes as planned, and the guy running the scanner does his job properly, and the scanner is calibrated correctly. I’m not a fan of having some dude whom I don’t know or trust using any radiation-emitting device on me. I work around enough radiation as it is.
Plus I’m just waiting for the headline: TSA Nude-o-Scan emits more radiation than initially thought.
Plus Plus: Normally I’d have to pay big bucks for somebody to grope my johnson in public. 
Seriously. There’s been enough, “New scanners definitely won’t do X” followed by “Oh wait, our bad, they actually do X,” that I’m not really inclined to trust further pronouncements about their safety or privacy or whatever.
For example…?
The question is how far are we willing to allow the TSA to go? As soon as someone smuggles a bootie bomb aboard hidden in their poop chute are cavity searches next? Maybe we should all just fly naked.
From what I’ve been hearing, the new searches are pretty damned invasive. One woman is suing the TSA because she was merely told that the agent would have to put her hands inside her waistband, and then the agent proceeded to reach down between her legs and actually manipulate her labia. Without telling the woman it was going to happen.
This has crossed the line from ‘annoying but stupid’ to ‘insane violation of personal privacy.’ It would be almost tolerable if you had the option to refuse and simply walk away and find another way to get to your destination. But the minute they add a fine for walking away, it becomes coercive. It needs to stop.
My wife has patients who are the victims of sexual assault, and she says that if the TSA does this to rape victims or other victims of sexual assault, they could cause a lot of psychological damage.
Two things, primarily. One, supposedly they were unable to store and save data, but it turns out they actually can. Two, there have been reports indicating that the amount of radiation given off by the scanners is higher than initially claimed by the TSA. (Cite)
I’m not saying the TSA is deliberately lying and I’m not saying I believe the scanners are inherently unsafe. I’m saying that personally, seeing them backtrack on at least two separate prior claims about how the damn things work is enough for me to find all other claims somewhat suspect.
Edit: I actually don’t care about the new scanners all that much, but am pleased that there is finally some level of public outrage about the TSA and their ridiculous security theater. Maybe if enough people complain/boycott, we can roll back some of this bullshit.
What? By questioning the TSA you’re just engaging in victim blaming, you terrorist enabler!
That was sarcasm. First chance I’ve had to use that line since this thread.
What are they finding that justifies the increased security and diminished rights? This is all for appearances sake.
Did they get secret info that someone is shoving a bomb up the butt:? Then of course we will all have to spread our cheeks to get on a plane.
My $.02: I really don’t like the Pornoscan, since it does in fact keep records and all, and I like the idea a full body [del]cavity search[/del] pat down less, but can’t figure out any alternatives.
And one of the reasons I don’t like the pat down is, aside from the invasiveness, I just don’t think it would do any good if someone was really determined to beat it. Someone could prolly shove a lot of C4 up their ass if they really wanted to, after all.
Exactly. It’s all reactionary, not a well planned analysis of security holes. Some made sense- locking pilot’s doors. That was a generalized security risk. But someone has a shoe bomb, so we all take our shoes off. Someone has underwear bombs, so we all get crotch grabs. etc.
I’m not sure how this is relevant, since increased security actually increases that specific risk, and reduced security (up to and including Archie Bunker’s proposal to “pass out the pistols” prior to each flight) would correspondingly reduce it.
Well, what is pretty easy for a person of normal intelligence is not necessarily so easy for Them Stupid Asses.
Can someone help me out with another question. If the scanners can’t see through skin, what is to stop someone from using a “flesh like” material to block the scanner from seeing a bomb taped to someone’s stomach? I’m thinking of something like the a fat suit.
You’d need a material that acts “flesh-like” under millimeter wave radar and X-ray backscatter imaging. A visual resemblance isn’t enough, so a fat suit won’t cut it.
Excellent. Not only are the Americans imposing on the entire flying world their Chicken Little irrational reactions to threats to airplane security, but as is the wont of the security apparatus, not telling the truth about what they are implementing.
Expensive, untried and generally pointlessly idiotic machines imposed due to pure cowardice and lack of a good rational mind applied to the issue…
Quite, and frankly that the American TSA imposes this idiocy on the rest of the world is bad enough, else we’d say, fine go rot in your chicken littlish behaviour.