Has anyone here "opted out" of TSA e-strip search? Is anyone planning to? Is anyone brave enough?

[Stinky The Clown]

I have a few trips to make before the end of the year. I'm internally debating.

[Extend a Hand]

1. I plan to opt out of the scanners and refuse to be groped.

I'll change my plans if I'm the unlucky recipient of special screening. I really hate this. I've already warned my family. :puke:

[frazzled]

2. I underwent it for the first time recently

I don't see what the big deal is, except people touching the machine might be a breeding ground for spreading cold germs. I really don't care that much. After seeing ten or twenty thousand black-and-white fuzzy images of sagging boobs, I'm sure the TSA people are quite bored with the whole thing.

I had to laugh, though, because on this same trip, although we had carefully packed our plastic ziploc bags with our liquids to carry on, we forgot to take them out of our bags to show them. Nobody looked or said boo. I'd say we forget to do that about half the time we fly -- getting off the shoes and coats and jackets and taking out the laptop, etc. is so distracting and frenetic that the baggie sort of slips our mind, even after careful preparation at home. We've never been called back or stopped.

I just find the whole thing fatiguing. I hate flying.

[bluetrain]

3. Touching the machine?

[frazzled]

8. Well, my recollection

is that you were made to stand in a stupid position, very close to the equipment. With people coughing, etc., it's a possibility --- not to mention the electromagnetic waves or low-dose x-ray problems. But as far as seeing an image through one's clothes, that doesn't bother me.

I've been patted down before -- years before scanners were employed.

[bluetrain]

12. OK, thanks for clarifying. I'm more concerned with the radiation, both that aimed directly at the

passenger going through the scanner and what may be collecting in the general area, than with the photography, itself, too. However, I still think it's a massive invasion of privacy.

[boppers]

19. If you're concerned about radiation, why would you get on a plane?

That doesn't make any sense.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/body.scanning.radiation/?hpt=Sbin

"Anyone who flies is exposed to increased cosmic radiation due to high altitudes, and many pilots experience this exposure almost daily. The TSA says each backscatter scan emits radiation equivalent to just two minutes of cosmic radiation at altitude.

Peter Rez, a professor of physics at Arizona State University, disagrees. Rez has independently calculated the radiation doses of backscatter scanners using the images produced by the machines.

"I came to the conclusion that although low, the dose was higher than they said," he said.

Based on his analysis, Rez estimates each scan produces radiation equivalent to 10 to 20 minutes of flight."

The flight itself is several *magnitudes* more radioactive than the scanner.

[Justitia]

23. Not the same dose / concentration at all - that's a false argument.

US scientists warned earlier this year of the potential health dangers of the devices, saying that the radiation levels have been dangerously underestimated and could lead to an increased risk of skin cancer.

University of California biochemist David Agard warned that unlike other scanners, the radiation from these devices is delivered at low energy beam levels, with most of the dose concentrated in the skin and underlying tissue.

“While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,” Dr Agard said.

"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer."

David Brenner, the head of Columbia University’s Centre for Radiological Research, says the concentration on the skin – one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the body – means the radiation dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate.

The researcher was consulted to write guidelines for the security scanners in 2002 but said he would not have signed the report had he known the devices were going to be used so widely.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/pilots-boycott-naked-airport-scanners-over-health-fears/story-e6frfq80-1225947834443#ixzz15QElzMbs

[boppers]

26. That's the nature of them being low power.

These aren't even powerful enough to get *past* skin.

BTW, the same issue pertains to flight, and radiation that is too low-powered to get to internal organs.

Compare/contrast to getting an X-ray.

[Justitia]

29. Actually, those are more dangerous because they are completely absorbed by the dermis.

Which is the most radiation cancer-sensitive organ you have.

If the entire body were to absorb the dose, the chromosome damage is disbursed by your other organs (notably gallbladder, liver, lung).

However, "low dose" radiation is completely absorbed by the first layer - skin (and corneas).

That is why the doctor said the effective dose is approximately 20 x higher.

These scanners concentrate an ionizing beam directly to the head / neck / scalp area, which is also the most sensitive area for skin cancer.

Radiation from flying is not a concentrated, focused dose to a single organ.

[boppers]

35. It doesn't work that way.

If it was "completely absorbed", there would be nothing to see.

Oh, and it's a lot easier to fix skin cancer than pancreatic cancer. Skin, as it turns out, is easily observed, and removed.

[Justitia]

41. Here, why don't you read the ltr from the scientists themselves? Link inside.

It is easy enough for a layperson to understand:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-concerning-health-risks-of-full-body-scanner-TSA-screenings-4-6-2010

As to your last completely irrelevant remark, certain populations experience skin cancer as a deadly event.

My son is within this population, which is why I have an interest in the information.

Please also note within the letter the additional risks to women in regards to breast cancer.

There is no "safe" dose of radiation.

[boppers]

47. "There is no "safe" dose of radiation."

Do you eat bananas?

Yes or no.

Do you live in an area of the US without background radiation?

Yes or no.

Here's a map to judge for yourself:


In case you didn't learn science basics in the last 30 years, here's how it works:

ALL MATTER IS RADIOACTIVE.

Your food? Radioactive. Your loved ones? Radioactive. Natural, organic, soy milk? Radioactive. Your holy book, or Dawkins treatise? Radioactive.

If it's made of atoms, it's radioactive.

Now, people can deal with this by fearing radiation, and being upset by it, or they can figure out how humans survive during a constant bombardment of radiation. Turns out that humans can survive specific levels of radiation, as they have self-repairing systems. What we can survive is what we call a "safe" dose.

[Justitia]

48. Again, you are conflating types of radiation, they are certainly not the same.

An environment of radioactive decay is not the same thing as receiving an absorbed targeted dose of ionizing radiation.

Which is why eating a banana is hardly the same thing as zapping cancerous tumors.

Why don't you ask a scientist or doctor - "What is a safe dose of radiation"?

But, I see you have all the talking points down - I've seen the "banana" question before, so I know it's not unique to you.

You have no problem with being irradiated for no medical reason. I do.

[boppers]

49. I'm trying to keep it simple.

Simple statements require simple responses.

Alpha, Beta, Gamma, ingested vs. inhaled vs. environmental, these issues complicate things.

'Why don't you ask a scientist or doctor - "What is a safe dose of radiation"?'

I have asked this, once, for somebody who now works for the CDC, after looking at a Trinitite rock from the very first atomic bomb (which she kept in her house). It resulted in about 300 hours of conversation and study, because the question is so naive, as to be laughable. It's akin to asking "what is a safe dose of rock music".

"I've seen the "banana" question before, so I know it's not unique to you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

"You have no problem with being irradiated for no medical reason. I do."

You should not leave the house. Or be in the house. Or be near anything made of atoms. Like yourself.

[Justitia]

50. Cool, you should have an x-ray every day, since they are so safe!

Since you think "safe" doses of radiation actually exist and are equal to "a safe dose of rock music"....

Well, what can I say to that, since you won't ask an actual doctor?

bombs away!


:shrug:


Goodnight.

[boppers]

51. How much rock music do you listen to per night?

It might hurt you!

[jberryhill]

30. I think the word "backscatter" is lost on a lot of folks /nt

[boppers]

38. Well, there are folks worried about RADAR causing cancer.

Of course, there are also folks who figure that contrails are a secret plot.

[Buns_of_Fire]

52. You think people are having to stand in stupid positions NOW?

These new guidelines, to be followed by all ramp and customer service personnel, are as follows (Revision 3.2 of TSA Procedures and Guidelines Section 5, SubSection 2.1.88, as adopted by Murkan Airlines effective 17 November 2010):

(1) Position left foot in marked area.
(2) Position right foot and ankle behind neck.
(3) Place right hand on left knee.
(4) Place index finger of left hand in right ear.
(5) Turn your head to the left and cough when the green light flashes.
(6) Stand perfectly still until the blue light flashes. You may now proceed to your gate.
(7) Thank you for flying Murkan!

No, it won't make anyone safer, no, it won't make flying any less a pain in the ass, but the folks in line behind you need some levity to make all it tolerable.:evilgrin:

[Extend a Hand]

6. The big deal

is the invasiveness of the procedures. I would object even if there was some chance that these procedures were something more than 'security theater' but there not -- and that adds insult to injury. There is a twitter campaign asking cnn to ask the president if he'd like for Michelle/Malia/Sasha to be subject to the naked picture scanner or groped.

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%40cnn+Mr.+President%3A+Would+you+send+Michelle

[HipChick]

11. Security Theater..never done baggies

and fly every week...

[krabigirl]

33. It's a big deal..they plan on using these as the primary screening method in a few years.

[Angry Dragon]

4. I have not flown for about two years and

I do not plan on going through the scanner

I have gone through a explosive scanner, carry-on
hand search, explosive swab test, wand, a dog sniffer search
at border patrol, but have desire to go through porno scan
because of x-ray excess.

[krabigirl]

34. I agree with you.

I don't mind having my bags searched, be interviewed when checking in, go through an explosive scanner, swabbing, etc, but these new measures are just creepy.

[bluetrain]

5. I really think the fondlers should be required to change their gloves for each passenger.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to request.

They wear the gloves .... why? To protect us? Them? Both?

[bluetrain]

13. I doubt it's part of the plan, though.

[mrs_p]

9. i have to travel in early december for a conference

and i plan to request a pat-down if i'm "chosen" for that e-strip thing. i'll be 26 weeks pregnant at that time and there have been no studies on how these scanners affect babies in utero. i'd rather take the feel-up as the lesser of 2 evils.

[emilyg]

10. I'm waiting to see the

look on their faces when they find only one breast.

[AndyTiedye]

14. Take the Train

I predict an upsurge in ridership on Amtrak. (OK that doesn't work if there's an ocean in the way).

[MurrayDelph]

15. I'm going to be doing the BIG opt-out

Over the next six months, my time is going to be evenly divided between Southern California and Northern Oregon.

As far as TSA, I am going to be performing my form of opting out of their intrusive activities:

I am driving!

[Justitia]

16. My husband did & I watched him get the aggressive once over at Boston Logan.

He got selected for the scanner, opted out and then got "the treatment", during which he complained the whole time.

I was flabbergasted at the intrusiveness.

BUT, we will STILL NEVER agree to those freaking scanners.

I wonder what happens if you tell them you don't want to be touched?

After that video from this weekend at SAN, they won't let you leave anyway?

[bluetrain]

17. Well, the guy at SAN did leave; yet to be seen if he'll really be sued and fined...

[rexcat]

18. I did it once...

but understand that I always go for the metal detector line and have only been asked to go through the x-ray machine once. This happened at the Columbus, OH airport and the TSA thug who gave me the pat down was really rough. I complained to the supervisors and they just laughed at me. There is no way I would let these thugs use x-rays on me for multiple reasons.

Last night I flew out of Columbus, OH again and they were concerned about my portable printer. The supervisor came over and proceeded to give me a very hard time. He was a complete asshole but that seems to be the standard at the Columbus airport. He wanted to know what time my flight was but I arrived at the airport with several hours to spare. From his demeanor and attitude it seemed he wanted to make me miss my flight but there was no way he could hold be for several hours without probable cause.

If you question any of these thugs they start to make up stuff. I had one tell me to stop yelling at him. The sad thing was I was not yelling at him, just asking questions that he was not comfortable with. I think they will make up just about anything to cover their asses. I am thinking about getting a recording device that looks like an ink pen just to cover myself. The TSA is completely out of control.

The editorial by Secretary Napolitano today in the USA Today was full of lies. I wrote a ltte but I doubt it gets published. Earlier this year I contacted the FDA about the backscatter x-ray machines and found out some very interesting things. The machines did not have to go through any regulatory process for approval. There were no studies proving they are safe and the group (Johns Hopkins Physics group) "monitoring" the safety of the machines gets most of its funding from the government and their have been some ethical issues at Johns Hopkins in recent times.

[kestrel91316]

20. I don't want or need radiation exposure, so I will opt FOR the groping.

Of course, I WILL insist that their best-looking male be the groper.

[drmeow]

21. I haven't decided

what I'll do if I get tagged when I go visit my parents in Dec. Unfortunately, if I want to see my family, I have to fly or drive 2000 miles each way. Kinda sucks up your vacation time!

If I get scanned I'm seriously considering flipping the viewer the bird - but they'll probably give me shit about it if I do. But I'm leaning towards the body scanner over a pat down.

[Raine]

22. I totally opted out of flying

I refuse to be treated like a criminal. I'd rather take the train, bus or drive.

[LibDemAlways]

24. I'm not flying as long is my choice is between

a virtual strip search and a grope conducted by some lowlife moron who couldn't get a job anywhere else.

I hope people who do fly find ways to make life as unpleasant as they can for those who have chosen to work for this criminal enterprise.

[jberryhill]

27. "some lowlife moron who couldn't get a job anywhere else"

That's pretty much all hourly wage workers.

Just a step up from welfare queens and bums, eh?

Or unemployed people, who can't even get jobs at all!

The lower classes are so brutish and stupid

It's good to be above them.

Just tell them that your ticket cost more than what they make in a month. Put them in their place, so they respect their betters.

[jberryhill]

25. Nope - just keyboard warriors here

Going on about crimes against humanity and doing exactly nothing.

[Warpy]

28. If you're talking about those scanners, they don't bother me

mostly because I'm their penance, an Old Fat Naked Lady for Peace. Besides, they make everybody look like unclothed department store mannequins, just the shape with no detail--and bald. Belts will show up, as will metallic bling on t-shirts, but none of the cloth in clothing will.

Should they want me to disrobe physically in our airport, which is usually freezing in winter, they'd find out that I am not a sweet old lady. Taking my shoes off on those frigid tile floors is bad enough. Any attempt at a cavity search will have me throwing punches.

[krabigirl]

31. Of course I will opt out, if I ever fly again at all.

Or I will fly out of Tijuana or something. lol.

[Radical Activist]

32. Too poor to fly.

This is just another issue that the corporate class who run the press want me to care about a whole lot, but I don't.

[jberryhill]

37. What is interesting in some of these threads...

...are the characterizations of TSA workers as a group.

A big part of the problem is that people are being touched by, as one person put it above, "lowlifes".

The idea that an hourly wage employee, maybe without even a college degree, might actually TOUCH you... through gloves and with your clothes on... it's horrifying.

It's bad enough that they handle our food, wash us in hospitals, pick us up off of the road from car accidents... Contact with the barely getting by working class is just creepy. They are people of low quality and intellect, who get bizarre sexual thrills from it, too.

[Radical Activist]

39. Yes.

That is most definitely part of what has people so worked up. They might even be poor people of color!

[jberryhill]

40. That is absolutely true at Philadelphia airport. /nt

[Alameda]

43. Get a grip and get on the topic....it's not about low wage people

many here are unemployed

[jberryhill]

46. I cordially invite you to read upthread about...

 "some lowlife moron who couldn't get a job anywhere else"

[Initech]

36. Aren't these a direct violation of the fourth amendment?

[LibDemAlways]

44. Of course they are, but the Constitution is apparently

an antiquated document no one takes seriously anymore, least of all the Dept. of "Homeland" (In)security.

[Gormy Cuss]

42. I did and will again.

This was over a year ago when only a few airports had test sites before the big roll out. All through the pat down the TSA agent asked me why I didn't go through the scanner and I told her I wasn't interested in stripping just to fly. At one point the agent also asked me to relax my shoulders and I told her that I wasn't able to do that while a stranger was rubbing her hands on my body. All of the communication was in a civil tone but she did seems surprised at my answers.

They weren't using the new jail-style pat down and while I'm not looking forward to it if a TSA agent using her palms to grope me I'll make sure she knows how I feel about it.

[Alameda]

45. I'm so glad people are standing up at LAST! This is too much.

...and I really don't think it keeps anyone safe anyway. It just puts money in the manufacturers of the damned machines. Follow the money.