New airport scanners.

[Hatta]

question. since I haven't flown since they have enforced this measure, can I choose to be hand checked instead? I'd rather be touched everywhere than get another x ray.

Yes, they do allow you to opt out. However, they have "enhanced" the pat down to discourage people from choosing it. Your genitals will be groped.

[gtmtnbiker]

Yes, they do allow you to opt out. However, they have "enhanced" the pat down to discourage people from choosing it. Your genitals will be groped.

So which method do you plan to choose?

[Ack]

Yes, they do allow you to opt out. However, they have "enhanced" the pat down to discourage people from choosing it. Your genitals will be groped.

So which method do you plan to choose?

Depends, is the person doing the pat down cute? If she is, I say go for it.

[ZeroAX]

Well when I was going to London the metal alarm kept beeping (no idea what caused it, unless the small buttons on my pants were the problem) so I was hand check/groped but the security girl was pretty hot, so I had a slight smile on my face during and after the exam .

Hm, probably the only place I agree with looks discrimination hahaha.


Anyway even if it's a big hairy hands man, I'd prefer the patting. Rather have that than cancer.

[dedalusdedalus]

Yes, they do allow you to opt out. However, they have "enhanced" the pat down to discourage people from choosing it. Your genitals will be groped.

So which method do you plan to choose?

Depends, is the person doing the pat down cute? If she is, I say go for it.

I wonder if it's possible to freak out a TSA agent by pretending to really get into the pat-down. Something along the lines of looking up at the ceiling while you're getting patted down and saying "oh yeah...cradle the ball...cradle the ball..."

[dsheinem]

FYI on the radiation issue:

UCSF Letter on Scanner Radiation:

Gov't. Reply: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingPr ... 231857.htm

Frankly I find the government report more convincing, they make a much better supported argument.

Sure trust the Government.

An extreme example of not thoroughly researched.

I didn't say I trust the government, I said that they make a better argument on this issue - and they do. There are high quality sources in their response, and virtually little reliable/supported info in the letter from the few faculty members at UCSF. I'm usually one to be skeptical of the gov't and my intuition would be to go with my fellow academics on this issue - but they have done a very poor job of presenting their case.

What convincing info have you provided on this issue? What research? The whole point of my post was that too many people are just talking out of their ass in this thread, and you did more of the same.

[Hatta]

So which method do you plan to choose?

If I absolutely have to fly again, I would choose the pat down, if only to make the process less efficient. National Opt Out Day should not just be a day, but a lifestyle. Every freedom loving individual has a responsibility to interfere with injustice in every legal way possible.

I didn't say I trust the government, I said that they make a better argument on this issue - and they do.

They make a good argument, if you can count on the TSA agents running the scanners to do their job well. There have been major fuckups by Rad Techs who have undergone years of training. I simply do not trust the TSA goons to know what they are doing.

But the safety of the scanners is beside the point. The real point is that air travel is the safest form of travel, even if you take into account the deaths due to terrorism. How can anyone in their right mind justify invasive searches on the premise that air travel isn't safe enough?

[dsheinem]

They make a good argument, if you can count on the TSA agents running the scanners to do their job well. There have been major fuckups by Rad Techs who have undergone years of training. I simply do not trust the TSA goons to know what they are doing.

Can the scanners be recalibrated/broken/etc. by TSA agents? If so, do they have to repair them, or does an expert come and do it? I seriously have no idea whether or not the technology allows them to screw up or not - are the systems designed to shut down and lock up if rad levels get higher than they should? I get your point about the poor training of the agents in regards to the tech, but I would hope that the tech has built in fail safe measures. Does it?

I'm honestly curious, so if you can provide any reliable info on this one way or the other it would be helpful...

[CRTGAMER]

I didn't say I trust the government, I said that they make a better argument on this issue - and they do. There are high quality sources in their response, and virtually little reliable/supported info in the letter from the few faculty members at UCSF. I'm usually one to be skeptical of the gov't and my intuition would be to go with my fellow academics on this issue - but they have done a very poor job of presenting their case.

What convincing info have you provided on this issue? What research? The whole point of my post was that too many people are just talking out of their ass in this thread, and you did more of the same.

Not talking out my ass, just showing a genuine concern.

Just bringing up some examples of other questionable related occurrences. History shows as in the case of the foot X-Ray zapper what was once thought safe, years later turned out to be devastating. That one took forty years to realize. How long does it take for some of the medications advertised or the Airport Scanner?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope

I don't just think the scanners have been around long enough for a thorough enough study to merit a safe rating. So for me to avoid the risk, I would slug through the pat down. Meh, I seldom fly anyways. Luckily I can drive to visit the relatives.

Security is important, damn to privacy issues if it can save lives. But let's not jeopardize innocent lives through possible Health risks later.

[dsheinem]

I don't just think the scanners have been around long enough for a thorough enough study to merit a safe rating.

Ok, but most studies by people with expertise in the field would suggest otherwise. I really want to jump on this bandwagon but there's no compelling evidence. Comparing it to the fluoroscope isn't really fair, as there were much less stringent checks in place and the technology itself was still fairly new. There's really nothing new in these airport scanners...