So... Have you been pat down yet?

[Split]

Did you ever stop to think that one of the reasons the US doesn't see as many incidences of flagrant terrorism as other countries is because we make it so difficult to get in the country in the first place? Our physical scanning is really a last line of defense. Keeping an eye on suspected terrorists is actually what is keeping us safe. Not two months ago, a terrorist planning to bomb the D.C. subway system (my home town) was caught in a sting operation before anything was actually carried out.

Security at the cost of freedom is an extremely tricky balance to strike, but your approach is incredibly shortsighted.

Assuming you're talking to me, I said literally nothing about how we handle people going into our country nor anything about the quality of U.S. intelligence. I'm sure there are a large number of crises we didn't even know were impending that get averted on a fairly regular basis.

The fact that the severity with which our country regards the information it has access to has ramped up since the C.I.A.'s failings before 9-11 just further proves my point that all these layers of security are totally superfluous. The system we had before was simple and efficient, and I don't understand how that's a shortsighted view at all, much less an incredibly shortsighted one.

[amtalx]

Assuming you're talking to me, I said literally nothing about how we handle people going into our country nor anything about the quality of U.S. intelligence. I'm sure there are a large number of crises we didn't even know were impending that get averted on a fairly regular basis.

The fact that the severity with which our country regards the information it has access to has ramped up since the C.I.A.'s failings before 9-11 just further proves my point that all these layers of security are totally superfluous. The system we had before was simple and efficient, and I don't understand how that's a shortsighted view at all, much less an incredibly shortsighted one.

You didn't directly make any remarks about the intelligence community, but you did see fit to claim that the US hasn't seen any public bombings because terrorists don't think it's worth the effort. However, its apparent from their acts in other countries (and not just 3rd world) that bombing planes and public transportation is a perfectly adequate method for breeding fear. The real reason we don't see much of that in the US is that our notoriously strict border policies make it very difficult for trained terrorists to enter the country. Trained terrorists are the only ones capable of putting together a solid plan and acquiring the proper materials. There is always the threat of homegrown terrorists, which we've seen several times so far, but their efforts have been disorganized and mostly inept.

[Chukie sue]

No it's not.

Just a point of note: You do receive far more radiation during your flight than you get from the scanners due to the higher altitude, even on a short flight. These scanners only subject passengers to about .02 microsieverts (the international dosage measurement of ionizing radiation), whereas the average exposure to radiation on a transcontinental flight is... roughly 20 microsieverts. (Exposure could be more or less depending on altitude, average long & lat positions along the flight path, solar activity, etc) A paper published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine gave a preliminary finding of about 0.3 to 5.7 microsieverts per hour mean over 37 flights. PubMed Source

To put this in perspective, we receive roughly 2,000 to 3,000 microsieverts from normal background radiation sources in the environment annually. A little over 5 1/2 to 8 microsieverts every day. 70 ~ 100 microsieverts from a chest Xray. (figures gathered from NPR and The Lancet, vol 343; No. 8889)

The TSA scanners are not a health concern in and of themselves. For the average passenger, the additional radiation exposure from the scanners to what they receive in-flight is negligible - pregnant or not, regardless of the term. In fact, the radiation safety division of Duke University states (of) "Fetal Dose Less Than 1,000 millirem -- There is no evidence supporting the increased incidence of any deleterious developmental effects on the fetus at diagnostic doses within this range." (That's 10,000 microsieverts after conversion)

My only concern, in regards to radiation exposure, would be for the flight crew who spend extended periods of time at high altitudes and are either subject (or set to be subject) to these scanners in addition. While the radiation levels are negligible for your common passenger, extended exposure to elevated radiation levels and repeated scanning poses a much muddier subject when establishing a safety threshold for exposure.

Alrighty, thanks for clearing that up.

[Chukie sue]

Sinue, I just read this on yahoo.

"There are actually two types of scanners, both of which require you to step into a booth and raise your arms. Millimeter wave machines use electromagnetic waves to create an image of the body, while the more controversial backscatter devices beam low-energy X-rays to produce a picture. The government says the radiation emitted from those devices is minimal, equal to the natural exposure during 2 minutes of flying, though some research suggests it's higher.

Because the backscatter machines use low-energy X-rays, most of the radiation is absorbed by the skin and doesn't penetrate the body, as medical X-rays do. But some experts think that could raise the risk of skin cancer or sperm mutations, especially in frequent flyers.

Other concerns involve cancer patients, children, pregnant women, and anyone with a compromised immune system, all of whom are more vulnerable to radiation risks. But perhaps the biggest fear about using X-ray scanners at airports is the possibility of a software glitch or operator error that exposes passengers to excessive doses of radiation."

http://health.yahoo.net/articles/hea...-scanners-safe

Now, I'm not familiar with how credible Consumer Reports is, but would you say that your conclusion is accurate? It's not that I doubt you per se, I just want to be sure that whatever conclusion I come to is fact. Thanks.

[desturel]

Did you ever stop to think that one of the reasons the US doesn't see as many incidences of flagrant terrorism as other countries is because we make it so difficult to get in the country in the first place?

Are you kidding? How about we keep things relative. How much crotch grabbing happens in Canada? How much Terrorism? How much happens in Mexico? How much Terrorism?

If you are comparing America to what happens in the middle east, you are crazy. We are in a different hemisphere. Being paranoid is the work of a terrorist and you are playing right into their hands.

You know what is best for the terrorists? The fact that America is blowing money it doesn't have on measures that are mostly futile. Yay, lets spend ourselves into debt to "keep the country safe" and then cut taxes so that we can't even fund all of the extra spending we're doing. Heaven forbid that we actually raise taxes to pay for all of this bullshit going on. Then people are like "OMG! Socialism! WTF BBQ!", but if you try to cut funding on projects we can't afford people are like "Why do you hate America! Why do you hate our freedom!"

So god damn stupid. Get rid of the damn TSA. Lock up the cockpit. Pull the troops out of non-combat zones in friendly nations (I'm looking at you Japan, Guam, England, etc). Stop being the world police and then we might get our economy back in order.

The only people benefiting from the mass hysteria going on right now are the terrorists who have accomplished what they set out to do and the security corporations and weapons manufacturers who are rolling in the cash while the rest of America goes down the toilet.

[Volcompat321]

I think it's a little too invasive. Either you let some random person scan you and see you -basically- nude, or have an equally random person grab and feel you all over the place. Neither option sounds very enticing.

Annoying that Orlando International Airport (the closest major airport to me) is one of the participants in the new full-body procedures. Hopefully I won't be flying anywhere for a long time.

Just fly through Melbourne!
I will refuse to go through the scanners.
Not that I have anything to hide, or that I don't want people looking at my practically naked body, but because I don't want them to.

I have no problem being naked in public, or any problem like it, so that's not a big deal.

It's just the fact that they are making me do it.
If I want to be naked, or let the operator see me naked, let me do it. Give me have a choice. (obviously that will not be the case in an airport...I mean in a personal meet.)

Same reason I wont let the cops search me when getting pulled over coming out of a "bad" neighborhood. (I've literally gotten pulled over 20+ times coming out of my friend's neighborhood, and never let them search me. Sorry, I cant help he lives in a crack hood.)

I will not let people pat me down, I will not let my body scans be seen, I will not say yes to a body search. I do realize by refusing these, I would be forced to do them, but whatever.

I don't like the government, though I do want a government job..

The terrorists won.

Yea, they have.
And will continue to win as we head to the future.
There is no pulling out now, it's too late.
We already came in the belly of security, it will only grow now.

[Leviathan]

I think everyone is freaking out about this too much.

If you have nothing to hide, you do not need to be worried.

[Split]

Trained terrorists are the only ones capable of putting together a solid plan and acquiring the proper materials. There is always the threat of homegrown terrorists, which we've seen several times so far, but their efforts have been disorganized and mostly inept.

That's not necessarily true, because none of the terrorists we've been fighting against are really "trained." The term "death blossom" comes from the way Iraqi and Afghani insurgents notoriously spray wild, undisciplined spirals of bullets at their enemies' positions with AK-47s they can barely hold up properly, much less aim and keep under control when the trigger's pulled. They certainly are powerfully motivated by psychotic religious leaders and a desperate desire for vengeance (after all, we have killed around a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians), but first of all they don't really have training because suicide bombing doesn't require any sort of knowledge and can be perpetrated by a 12 year old kid, and second of all, acquiring "proper materials" for a bomb consists of a quickly searching the internet for a tutorial and then making a trip or two to Home Depot.

In other words, any terrorists that are already on our soil could very much be a threat to security-less public transportation. They're just not attacking it because in spite of a few incidents in London and the frequency with which it's done in Israel, they're looking to inflict damage that a giant beast of a country like the U.S. will have a bit harder time shaking off, like flying commercial airliners into buildings.

[BIG OLAF]

I think everyone is freaking out about this too much.

If you have nothing to hide, you do not need to be worried.

It's not about having nothing to hide, it's about privacy. I mean, I guess some people wouldn't mind letting a random airport employee take a nude body scan of them, or let them grope and feel all over their bodies for the sake of security, but others aren't too keen on either of those choices.

[Akaimizu]

I haven't even been on a plane since this stuff started. With no current plans, it may be some time before I'm a plane again. Not that I'm not going to travel, but the places I have in mind (that are a little far for car travel) are cheaper and easier with a train. Otherwise, I might do the cruise thing (which is actually local to me). I live in a city that actually serves cruises.

So a question. Are airports going to drop that indecent exposure thing? I mean, since we're required by law to do so?