Through the "nudie scanner..." and other TSA adventures...

[MineralMan]

My wife and I traveled to California on Thanksgiving day to visit my 87-year-old parents over the holidays. We were selected for the scanner at MSP. Oh, it was just horrible...oh, yes it was. That nasty TSA guy felt my left ankle after the scan. The howwow!. :sarcasm: I'm not sure if these were the new ones that only show outlines, but it was truly awful...except that it was faster than the metal detector line and everyone was really pleasant at the checkpoint. All the TSA people we interacted with wished us a happy Thanksgiving. The nerve of them!

Then, at LAX, in Terminal 6, which I heartily recommend avoiding, since it's under drastic remodeling and very unpleasant, there were no scanners at the checkpoint, so we had to go through those old-fashioned metal detectors. Delta is running some of its flights out of LAX Terminal 6, so keep that in mind. It's pretty icky right now.

My parents are doing just fine, and it was great to visit with them and my siblings and nieces and nephews for four days. I'd go through a strip search to see them one more time. You never know, at their age, when a visit will be the last one. Great trip!

[peace13]

1. What relief that they did not have to feel your mastectomy scars or fool with your catheter.

Many people do suffer at the hands of TSA. I am happy that you and your wife were not in that number.

[MineralMan]

3. I still have my manboobs, so that's not an issue.

No catheter, either, so nobody fooled with my junk. Painless and trouble-free. Other's experiences might differ from mine. I can only report my experience.

[redqueen]

17. No, you did more than report your own experience.

You also mocked other people's reactions.

[MineralMan]

28. Perhaps I did. That's also my opinion.

I must admit that I don't see the validity of the issues most often raised. But that's just me. You're welcome to object to the screening procedures. That's your opinion. DU's great that way.

[madfloridian]

50. You should be able to express an opinion without mocking others.

.

[MineralMan]

55. I can, too, without difficulty. I often do.

However, with regard to TSA screenings, I generally engage in a bit of satire or sarcasm. After observing the lack of concern among my fellow passengers on every flight since security screening has been in place, it seems appropriate. The safety record of US airlines since 2001 is also of interest to me in forming my opinion and my tone in discussing the issue.

[Gormy Cuss]

71. The safety record of U.S. airlines is no better than that of many countries without the scanners, so

your correlation of the two is likely not related to a causal link.

[HockeyMom]

2. My husband has had two hip replacements

so he can't go through the metal detectors. He tells security this and he goes through the x-rays instead. I have been fortunate so far in not having been picked, even at JFK. However, I flying to NY on Saturday and driving back to Florida with my husband when he comes up later. Since I have a ONE WAY ticket, I KNOW they will be singling me out this time. That has happened before and TSA has confirmed this to me. Oh, well. I am preparing for it.

[MineralMan]

4. How does one "prepare" for it?

I guess you could practice holding your boarding pass in your hand and holding your hands over your head at home, but they tell you what to do, and I didn't find that it required any rehearsal. Otherwise, it's the same as going through the metal detector, pretty much. Well...except for getting my ankle felt up. I'm not sure why that happened.

[CreekDog]

81. You prepare by being organized and knowing what to expect

First, when you know the screening is going to be time consuming, invasive and throrough, it means that you have to do a better job at clearing your pockets and removing removable metal as you approach the xray machines.

It also means you have to get a sense of where your stuff is going to be after it goes through the x-ray, while you're stuck waiting for additional screening.

It also means you have to decide whether or not to keep your boarding pass and passport in your pocket (it's not metal, but some screeners don't want you to have them in your pockets) or put it in your carryons which are frequently not in your sight (even though they are supposed to be, TSA agents are very inconsistent about providing line of sight to your stuff).

There are all kinds of ways to prepare and for people who get vigorously screened (we can tell that you do not --and you mock those that do get vigorously screened by the way) it is something that we think about and often are righteously weary of.

I have been screened so heavily over the years that I'm not going to let you characterize my screening as any less invasive and disruptive than it actually is.

[MADem]

5. I didn't know the scanner was optional--it doesn't seem to be out of BOS.

Every time I fly, I go through the nudie scanner, as does anyone with me! And my "revenge" is that some poor bastard has to see me in all my antique glory!

[MineralMan]

9. This was my first trip through the scanner.

Most times, they just send me through the metal detector. There were no scanners at the Terminal 6 checkpoint at LAX, anyhow.

[CreekDog]

74. If I was with you I wouldn't go through the scanner

I always Opt-Out.

[MineralMan]

77. OK. It doesn't worry me, in terms of exposure to the radiation.

I know how they work. No concern on my part.

[CreekDog]

83. Ionizing radiation affects your cells, correct?

"Ionizing" being a key term.

[MineralMan]

84. It does affect my cells. However, the power of these

scanners affects only the outer layer of those cells. A lot of other things do the same. I'm at much higher risk from the sun, since I'm an avid angler. So, I wear sunscreen and a hat.

These days, I'm flying only a couple of times a year. I've only been through a scanner once, so far. Most of the time, I go through the metal detector.

The risk is very minimal, almost to the point of nonexistence.

[TheKentuckian]

6. I'm glad you found your virtual strip search experience to be pleasant.

Your compliance with and support of the police/security state are an example.

[MineralMan]

7. Indeed.

Not really pleasant, but uneventful and no worse than it's ever been. My favorite trip through the screening was one time when I had three flats of mineral specimens to get through security as a carry-on. "What's in the boxes, sir?" "Rocks." "We'll have to have a look inside." "OK." "Wow! Those are really beautiful. What's that one?" It took a few minutes, and I had to give an impromptu mineralogy lecture. :shrug:

[wryter2000]

8. I don't care for someone looking at me in the nude, thank you

I got a pat down and found the women who did it quite courteous and professional. In fact, everyone was very nice. That doesn't change the fact that those machines are nothing more than a way to make Michael Chertoff rich.

[MineralMan]

11. I'm sure it's not a titillating expercience for anyone in my case.

Nothing to see here, folks. Just passing through.

[wryter2000]

16. That's not the point

I don't want to get nude in front of anyone except a lover or my doctor. Period. I don't think I should have to subject myself to that in order to visit my sister.

Frankly, the whole thing is nothing but "securty theatre," and I normally will go way out of my way not to fly for just this reason. I would have taken Amtrak from Oakland to Connecticut if I'd had the time and money.

[MineralMan]

22. OK. Everyone looks at it differently, I'm sure.

[seabeyond]

19. but it does not matter how YOU feel, obviously. MM doesnt mind so we all should be fine

with it

[MineralMan]

23. Not at all. I'm only relating my own experience and opinion.

Yours may differ. I don't believe I told you what to think or feel about it.

[seabeyond]

31. you are too bright and perceptive of a person for me to believe, you didnt clearly show your intent

and even contempt for differing views.

[MineralMan]

45. No, not contempt. I find those views shortsighted, however,

and often amusing, since they're often stated by people who don't fly for other reasons that have nothing to do with security screening.

The airports are crowded with people just like me, who aren't particularly concerned with the security screenings. They're just going from one place to another in the most efficient way. I'm a close observer of people around me. I pretty much never see anyone in security screenings who are anything but just going through the process without any particular reservations or concerns. It's mostly people who don't fly who are concerned, from what I've read on DU. Most. Some, who have special situations that require more extensive screenings have justifiable issues with the screening procedures, and I understand their annoyance.

I observed one elderly woman in a wheelchair at MSP on this trip. The TSA screeners who dealt with her, however, were very solicitous of her situation and she seemed not to mind the additional procedures. I'm sure that isn't the case sometimes, but it certainly seems like the MSP screeners are sensitive to people's concerns in such situations. I've seen that with my mother-in-law, who is in a similar situation. I've accompanied her through screening more than once with a gate pass, and have been impressed with how her screening was handled. She's never been troubled by the process, despite its inconvenience and impositions. She flies twice a year to visit her daughter in Florida, and hasn't been troubled by the TSA screening at either airport at any time. It's inconvenient and involves personal contact, but she treats it as a necessary evil and maintains her normal equilibrium and attitude. I've never seen anything other than care taken at the airport, nor has she reported any such thing.

I'm sure there are unpleasant incidents, and am equally sure that they are not the norm.

[uppityperson]

97. Unlike you, who clearly showed your contempt. eom

[TBF]

10. We flew to Chicago this summer, and will be going to FL for Xmas -

a visit with each set of parents this year which is a treat. We only do direct flights and bring electronics along to entertain the children. Other than delays we have been pretty lucky with our flights.

Going to/from Chicago in July was particularly easy. The agents asked me and the kids to walk through the metal detectors and put my husband through the Xray on the way out - on the return we all walked through the metal detectors. They must've relaxed the rules somewhat and they often have special lines for parents with small children. It really was easy and this was with coach tickets.

[MineralMan]

12. All of my checkpoint screenings have been uneventful,

since the 1970s. I go through, and go to my gate. Hundreds of them over the years. Now that I'm an old fart, I don't fly so much. What I used to hate, though, was in the early days of laptops, when you had to turn the laptop on. I had one lunchbox PC that didn't have batteries that I used for a couple of years. That one was a PITA at the airport, since I'd have to take it to an outlet to show the screener that it was really a computer. Funny stuff. The technology changes, but not much else does. So far I don't have any metal inside my body, but my sore hips are a sure sign that there's a replacement down the road.

Life's full of little hassles, I guess.

[TBF]

15. I flew a lot for business in the 90s and kept it simple with small carry on bags -

it was often more comfortable in those days, now the planes are packed and seem to have delays/cancelled flights more often. But we don't fly as much now either so it's really not so bad. My husband only flies rarely for business as so much is done with phone/computers/skype and our trips with the children are never more than twice a year.

Now the laptops can go right through in some of new bags - I got one for our next flight for $60 at Target & it has netting over the compartment so it can just lie flat on the belt and go through. If you read the tips ahead of time on their websites it makes life much easier.

[MineralMan]

26. I've thought about buying one of those new bags, but we travel

so infrequently these days that pulling the laptop out of the bag isn't all that much trouble, really. Besides, I like my old leather laptop bag with all the pockets. I use it as my only carry-on, so I don't have to compete for overhead bin space. It fits under the seat just fine. It turned out that we didn't even use the laptop this trip, since my parents' PC is just fine. We probably won't take it next time.

[seabeyond]

21. reinforcing what people have been saying. it was overkill and not needed. nt

[kestrel91316]

13. When I went through LAX in May, you had to go through the metal detector

and then through the scanner. It looked like EVERYONE was being scanned.

I wonder how well that plexiglass shields everyone within 50 ft from such near-constant radiation? Particularly the employees who stand their all day. Oh, and not a dosimeter to be seen. Guess OSHA doesn't have jurisdiction where DHS operates.

[MedicalAdmin]

38. That is what kills me ...

and according to the reports I've read, it should be very concerning to anyone who works there or who believes that workers should be protected.

Fuck it - all food will soon be irradiated or GMO and there will be zero labeling in the US for it. Get used to it proles.

[kudzu22]

14. I don't care for such invasions of privacy

But that's me. If it even made us 1% safer I could maybe be persuaded, but this is just security theater. It serves no purpose but to make passengers think they're safe, and to make the corporations that sell x-ray scanners rich.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. [phone] brazillions.

[MineralMan]

35. A lot of people think it's theater.

I'm not so sure about that. Certainly, we haven't had incidents, so it's entirely possible that it's not just theater. Given the number of things like weapons found, it's entirely possible it's preventing problems. Since they've been doing screenings of one sort or another for a very, very long time, maybe a number of incidents have been prevented.

I don't think it's accurate to simply say it's security theater. I haven't seen anyone provide evidence of that, actually.

I admit that I don't know whether the screenings are useful or not. I don't have the information I'd need to make that assessment. I do see the reports of things like loaded handguns being found in carry-ons. I like that news OK, since I don't know the people on the plane I'm on, or anything about them. I'm pretty confident, though, that they're not going to shoot anyone, though, after going through screening.

Personally, I'm not bothered by the screening. Others might feel differently. Everyone has his or her own opinions on this. One thing's certain: the situation's not likely to change anytime soon, so it's a decision travelers have to make for themselves. Given the crowded airports, it looks like most are deciding to fly anyhow, just like me.

[kudzu22]

51. It is theater

Standing in the queue at the Orlando airport I observed holes in their procedure that would allow someone to get a handgun through the checkpoint undetected. I can think of a dozen ways to attack a plane that either defeat or bypass the current practices. If I can think of them, so can a terrorist. The fact that we've had no incidents just means that they haven't tried it yet.

I do understand the value of the theater, though. It was important after 9/11 to make the public feel safe flying again. However, if the security procedures make flying so unpleasant that people just stay home or choose alternate transportation, it becomes a fool's errand.

[MineralMan]

58. Considering that every flight is full these days,

it appears that people don't consider it so unpleasant that they use your two options. The crowded airports are further evidence of that. I've observed that a lot since 2001. It appears that flying is still the travel method of choice for most people who are going a long distance.

[seabeyond]

18. well, yea... for poppin in with your snarky. glad the experience was pleasant for you.

i dont agree with me. but you got the snarky and denigration of others concerns down well.

[MineralMan]

24. You don't agree with yourself?

The point is that not everybody feels the same way about it. Not by a long shot. I didn't notice anyone looking annoyed as they went through security screening on this trip. So, apparently most travelers just take it all in stride, like I do. The only comments I heard involved how quickly the screening went on Thanksgiving day. Maybe the folks who are troubled by it aren't flying. I don't know.

[seabeyond]

34. i have driven across country on every vacation and has been an unexpect boon

for me and my family.

yes, many people bothered simply are not flying. and many know it is inevitable so they endure.

[MineralMan]

39. I like driving trips, too. However, the three day drive from my

home to my parents' home each way would prohibit our travel there, since we work. If we didn't work, then I'd enjoy the drive. I'd rather spend four days with my parents and siblings than skip the trip. It's all a matter of priorities, really. I remember the days before security screening. Yes, flying was fun back then. I've been on hundreds of flights over the years. It's less fun, now, but still the only way to make the trip in many cases. A half hour going through a security screening line isn't that big an issue for me. Inconvenient? Sure. Annoying? Sometimes. It's part of the process, though, and doesn't stop me from flying when that's the only way to make the trip. If it stops you, that's unfortunate, truly. It's a choice everyone has to make.

[LanternWaste]

25. I imagine that minimizing and trivializing the concerns of others

I imagine that minimizing and trivializing the concerns of others via one's own anecdotal and biased experience is the most effective way available way for one to argue a point when there is no credible foundation or point to argue from.

My own grandparents used to call that 'petulant posturing' and reserved if for children under ten, but I imagine you are adept at rationalizing it into something else... :shrug:

[MineralMan]

29. I'm not rationalizing anything. My opinion is quite clear.

Do I use sarcasm? Why, yes, I do, thanks.

[LanternWaste]

32. Quite adept indeed...

Quite adept indeed... :shrug:

[Huey P. Long]

27. Tool of the Police State...the scanners for sure.

[Nye Bevan]

30. The TSA. Such consummate professionals.

[PufPuf23]

33. The question is did you feel safer and do you think the DHS security process is of value or

unnecessary intrusion?

IMHO airport security post-911 is systematic social conditioning as we lose our freedoms.

How would you or your wife feel if your wife was taken aside for a strip search because of a medical appliance and you missed your flight?

[MineralMan]

36. A strip search? I haven't heard about those, really.

My wife and I don't have any medical appliances. If we did, then checking those would be part of our trip, I suppose.

Do I feel safer? Yes, I do. I flew before there were any security screenings at all. I've flown throughout the entire history of screenings. A plane in California once went down when a disgruntled former employee of the airline brought a pistol on board and shot the pilot and co-pilot. The crash happened just a few miles from my home. It sort of brought the whole issue home for me. I was glad to see screening put into place, with carry-on x-rays and metal detector gates. The additional screening procedures that have been added don't bother me either. I do feel safer.

You might have a different opinion. That's certainly your privilege.

[PufPuf23]

56. I am priviledged to have that opinion but no longer have the same freedom.

Statistically, you are far more likely to be killed or hurt driving than commercial flying per mile traveled.

Airline security prior to 911 had already made hijackings negligible.

Airline hijackings by far peaked in the 1970s and one still had to go through screening though far less visible and intrusive.

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

When and where was the incident you mentioned (if this is not too personal)?

[MineralMan]

60. The flight I mentioned took off from the airport at LAX, CA.

It crashed near Cayucos, CA, in 1987. You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771

[MineralMan]

63. It was that incident that cause regulations to change and

required airline personnel to have to go through screening as well as the passengers. It also required airlines to immediately remove credentials from all personnel immediately upon their being terminated. Two very good changes. Security procedures are changed when new information is available.

[PufPuf23]

64. I remember that crash.

Interesting that rules were changed in the aftermath.

From the wiki you provided:

Consequences

Several federal laws were passed after the crash, including a law that required "immediate seizure of all airline employee credentials" after termination from an airline position. A policy was also put into place stipulating that all airline flight crew were to be subject to the same security measures as passengers.

The crash killed the president, James R.Sylla, 53, and three other managers of Chevron USA along with three officials of Pacific Bell, which prompted many large corporations to create or revise policies on group travel by executives.<8>

[MineralMan]

67. I added info about those changes in a reply, too.

It was a pretty horrible incident, for sure. A lot of security screening provisions have been put into place after incidents. 9/11, of course, was one such incident, but the shoe bomber and other stuff have also resulted in new procedures. Even plans that were never carried out were the reasons for procedures such as the liquids and gels rules and others. While they often seem unreasonable changes to some, there's a reason for every change that has been made. Even the scanners came about because some explosives that can be carried on the person don't show up in the metal detector screenings. That's why I'm not all that troubled by the changes. Each one has a reason for being. If C4 explosive, for example, can't be detected in the metal detector, which it can't, there needs to be a quick way to look for it. Drug-sniffing dogs can detect it, but with millions of passengers to screen daily, there aren't enough dogs to handle the job, and really can't be.

Some suggest the Israeli techniques, but those often involve strip searches of passengers who trigger suspicion and also can't accommodate passenger numbers in the US.

It's unfortunate that we have to go through these screenings, but necessary, it seems, whether it seems so to everyone or not. The screenings are not "unreasonable" and so don't violate the 4th Amendment.

[SixString]

37. Passive aggressive. As usual. N/T

[MineralMan]

41. Thanks for noticing. It demonstrates your interest in my posts.

That's always heartening.

[SixString]

43. Just my li'l ole innocent opinion.

[MineralMan]

46. Innocent? No. My opinion? Yes.

You have one, too, I'm certain.

[Bunny]

44. Classic, isn't it?

[MineralMan]

49. I'm old, and in some categories, an antique rather than a classic.

Nice of you to notice.

[Bunny]

52. How could I not notice?

You're one of the bigger ones on DU. Thanks for paying attention to me, too.

[MineralMan]

61. Bigger ones? I'm at a reasonable weight and BMI.

Bigger ones of what?

[Union Scribe]

73. And not the clever kind

Just the annoying kind.

[Taverner]

40. One experience does not a precedent make...

[MineralMan]

42. Absolutely correct. It's one point of data.

Such is an experience. Yours might differ, for sure.

[krabigirl]

47. I will never, ever go through the scanner. Sorry, I would rather deal with a grope.

[MineralMan]

53. Luckily, you have that option.

So, you can fly whenever you want. Having been frisked numerous times during my USAF enlistment, that wouldn't bother me, either. At one of the places I worked while in the service, we were frisked each time we went in and out of a building.

[Laelth]

48. Making fun of those who object to the government violating the 4th Amendment?

Not cool.

-Laelth

[kudzu22]

54. +1

I can imagine someday people describing how polite the people searching their house were. And those cameras in the living room? You hardly notice them.

[MineralMan]

57. I noticed the word "unreasonable" in that Amendment long ago.

Perhaps that is part of my lack of concern. I don't consider airport screenings to be unreasonable searches. Not one bit. Apparently, millions of others each week agree with that. Maybe they noticed that word, too.

[Laelth]

107. I consider nudie scanners to be highly intrusive and unreasonable.

Opinions obviously vary.

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

110. Certainly you may consider them to be anything you wish.

However, it appears that they do not meet the legal standard of being unreasonable. I consider it highly unlikely that will change, given the current state of things. It is not individual considerations that apply to constitutional issues, but rulings by the constitutional judicial authority designated to rule in such cases, the SCOTUS.

The bottom line is that we're going to have these things in place for some time to come, so every traveler will have to make a decision. I've made mine, and continue to travel by air. Your decision might differ from mine. :shrug:

[mmonk]

59. I remember life without scanners and metal detectors and related sheep lines.

Humans can be conditioned to accept anything without realizing they have been trained.

[MineralMan]

62. Yah, I remember that, too. My first airline flight was in 1965.

Lots has changed since 1965. A lot of those changes have been for the worse. A lot of others have been very much for the better, too. The Civil Rights movement, for one example, along with many, many other changes.

It's a mixed bag, as usual.

[gateley]

66. My first flight was in 1956 (I was three) and I still remember

the stewardesses had everybody's name on a list, and along the back a long row of seats kind of like the back of a bus. I still remember looking out the window and thinking the dwellings below were doll houses (my mother said "yes they are" in response to my question as she clutched her rosary and mouthed Hail Marys) and my brother throwing up. I think that exciting trip ignited my love of flying and my brother's life-long aversion to it. :7

[MineralMan]

69. In my collection of menus, I have one from TWA in 1956.

It's an eye-opener. I also remember getting a 5-pack of cigarettes with my meal on flights, and lighting up after eating. Lots of changes since those days. These days, I buy a deli sandwich before the flight and forego smoking for several hours each time I fly. And many times, the flight attendant who hands me a cup of coffee is a man, for goodness' sake. The days of all those pretty young stewardesses is over. Of course flight attendants don't get fired when they turn 30 or get married anymore. Lots of changes. Some for the better, some for the worse. I still love flying, though, for many reasons.

[gateley]

70. I DO remember the stewardesses taking our "order" for our

meal. My brother got a chocolate milkshake (don't know if that was before or after the upchucking episode). And yes! Smoking! Totally forgot about that!

[redqueen]

88. "many times, the flight attendant who hands me a cup of coffee is a man, for goodness' sake"

"The days of all those pretty young stewardesses is over."

:wtf:

[MineralMan]

92. There's satire in that, you see.

The current situation is far superior to the old one, as was pretty clear if you read the post in its entirety.

My point was that the situation was very sexist early on, when flight attendants were fired for gaining a few pounds, reaching a certain age, or getting married. That you did not see where I was coming from is not my fault. Please reread the post, if you will.

[redqueen]

96. I did read it entirely,

and those comments did seem incongruous with other statements in your post.

Given the state of society today, and especially considering some of the defenders of the status quo around here when it comes to the status of women (objectification is A-OK!), I hope you'll forgive me for mistaking your satire for earnest opinion.

[MineralMan]

101. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I deplored the conditions under which

the flight attendants worked in earlier times. Those conditions were sexist and completely stupid. Changes in such rules are some of the positive changes that have occurred, along with banning smoking on airlines - something I also mentioned. Many other changes have been negative, in my opinion, or at least have turned flying into a somewhat less pleasant mode of travel. Still, the ability to replace many days of driving or other forms of travel with just a few hours on a plane more than compensate for the minor annoyances of today's air travel.

I don't care who serves as a flight attendant, as long as those who serve are competent at their job and reasonably pleasant in performing their job. Beyond that, it's a matter of indifference to me, today or earlier. Conditions for early flight attendants, however, were certainly sexist, and that I do object to. Those condition no longer prevail, however other poor conditions do, such as poor wages and poor passenger attitudes. That's why I say a pleasant thank you to all flight attendants when they do something that assists me in any way. I'm also a very cooperative passenger, and cause them no problems in any way.

[mmonk]

114. I either make baaaa sounds like a sheep or mooing sounds like cattle

when I go through the detector lines at the RBC Center for hockey games. Others follow suit. :) Gotta learn how to have a sense of humor these days.

[gateley]

65. I remember going out to the gate and actually tromping down

the jetway -- "excuse me, excuse me" -- past the people exiting to go and meet whomever it was I was there to see. I was always so excited to see my friend/family that I didn't want to wait in the lobby, and I never got stopped.

[MineralMan]

68. Yup, those days were certainly more fun. Everyone could go to

the gate to see people off, and stuff like that. I remember it, too, and with a lot of fondness. Those days are gone forever, along with lots of other things, like flight attendants who got fired when they got to a certain age or gained too much weight. Much has changed.

[Union Scribe]

72. Citizen MineralMan, when you try to put the smiling face on a police state

maybe it would go over better if you didn't sound like such a sarcastic tool.

[OnyxCollie]

75. !!

:rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

106. hehehe

:spray: :thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

109. Thanks for your assessment of my character.

That's always so refreshing. And your clever use of the fact of my citizenship in a clumsy attempt to demean citizenship and tie it to old Soviet terminology is an added fillip of cleverness. Bravo!

[truebrit71]

76. My goodness what a good little German you are...

...don't take offense though...I'm just using :sarcasm:...you know...just like you...:eyes:

[CreekDog]

78. With the body scanner --you're suggesting that because it didn't feel bad that it is perfectly safe?

that's not really how radiation works.

also, sounds like your screening was a lot easier than many of us experience. does that make our experiences false, or mockable?

[truebrit71]

79. ...looking at the tone of the OP I'd say most likely both...

...

[CreekDog]

94. you are correct --I imagine the OP was lecturing on the safety of nuclear testing a while back too

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

102. You'd be incorrect. I have been an opponent of nuclear industry

of all kinds, industrial and military alike, since I was able to understand it in the early 1960s. You needn't imagine my opinion. I state it very clearly here. Your imagination will be incorrect most of the time. All you need do is ask me, and I will tell you my position. Your imagination of it is not necessary.

[MineralMan]

80. I know how radiation works. That's why it doesn't concern me.

But thanks for your concern for me anyway.

[CreekDog]

82. you don't know how ionizing radiation works or else it would concern you

your ignorance, not knowledge is the reason for your dismissive attitude.

[MineralMan]

85. Actually, you are quite incorrect. I know precisely how it works.

I also know how much of that ionizing radiation I'm receiving from these scatter imagers. It's not a cause of concern for me, to be quite frank. I'll receive much more than that during the flight. You assume too much about my level of knowledge. You are incorrect.

[CreekDog]

86. I didn't "assume" your knowledge --you indicated your knowledge by your statement

your blithe statement of dismissal.

[MineralMan]

87. I said that I was not concerned for myself. That is because I

have the very knowledge that you claim I do not have. You are incorrect, and you did assume. That's generally a mistake.

[CreekDog]

89. so how much is the dose?

and since you compared it to sunlight (which you wear a cap to deal with)...clothes prevent ionizing radiation from affecting your cells in the same way a cap prevents your sunburn --correct?

[MineralMan]

90. The dose varies with the equipment. It's very low, though.

Far lower than the amount you receive in flight. Have a very nice day.

[CreekDog]

91. you mean you don't know what the dose is?

just that "it varies with equipment" and is "low"?

sounds like you don't want to get into specifics. sounds like you don't want the details discussed. :shrug:

[MineralMan]

93. Please feel free to introduce any specifics you wish.

That wasn't the topic of my thread, but you are free to introduce anything you wish. If you want to show the dosages, then by all means you should do so. I'm not interested in doing that in the thread. Your choice.

You can find the information here, along with discussions of the controversy, if you don't know it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

As a matter of interest, I don't know what type of scanner is in use at MSP, nor do I care. My exposure is not a concern to me. If it is to you, you may be better off with a physical search. If your particular situation requires something other than a physical search, then you are not a typical passenger by any definition, and my discussion does not apply to you.

[CreekDog]

95. So you don't need to know the doses to prove it's safe but I need to know them

to argue that it may be harmful in the long term.

but since that data is not available (which is why you don't know it), you don't want to have that discussion.

because if the data isn't available, we can't dare have a discussion over what level is safe and harmful over the long term.

[MineralMan]

99. I am not trying to prove it's safe to anybody. I am saying that it's

not an issue of concern to me. For those to whom it is, there is the option of the physical search. For everyone, there is still another option, one which many have chosen. For others, flying isn't something they do, so it's irrelevant. If it is of concern to you, then it's your concern. I'm satisfied with the information that is available, which you can see on the link I provided or on the TSA site, if that's more official for you.

Again, you're attempting to take the discussion to a place that doesn't interest me. Backscatter X-ray exposure simply doesn't worry me, nor does millimeter wave exposure. Those are your concerns, not mine.

[Doremus]

98. If you feel safer after participating in theater performances, good on ya.

Come back in a decade and tell us how those scanners may have affected your health.

Some tradeoff, huh.

Quite likely one's own health over time in favor of a warm, fuzzy feeling from security theater.

None for me thanks. You can have it all.

[MineralMan]

103. Thank you. I take it you will not be at the airport, then?

That will speed my passage through the screening, I'm sure. So, thanks.

[Doremus]

112. Correct, you won't find me there.

If I get the urge to take a trip I'll find a less invasive mode of transportation, thanks.

Security theater does not comfort me in any way, nor does the knowledge that full body scanners are quite likely hazardous long-term.

[uppityperson]

100. I need to chime in here and chastise you

in a snarky, know it all way way for being snarky and know it all. And for using sarcasm icon

:sarcasm:

Glad you had good trip and TSA was ok with you.

[MineralMan]

104. I'm thoroughly chastised, then, thanks.

I was, however, somewhat annoyed on my outbound flight. The passenger ahead of me decided to recline her seat the full 5 degrees, which decreased my knee room and caused me a bit of annoyance. However, it was not enough to spoil my view of the geography of the Earth passing beneath me. I was fortunate enough that the flight actually passed over my own home town, something that doesn't usually happen.

Had I been just a bit faster, though, I could have gotten to the boarding area counter in time for my wife and I to get seated in an exit row, something they were seeking two volunteers to do. Sadly, someone beat me to the counter. Next time I'll choose a seat closer, I think, just in case another such opportunity occurs.

I hope you had a pleasant Thanksgiving!

[kath]

105. What about the radiation issue? Europe has banned the naked scanners for exactly that reason.

[MineralMan]

108. What about the radiation issue? The backscatter x-ray

scanner produces a dosage that is far, far below the dose of ionizing radiation you'll get during your flight. That's the nature of backscatter x-ray equipment. I don't know the exact dosage, but I know how the system operates, so it cannot be high enough to cause me any concern. If I'm not concerned about the radiation during the flight, why on earth would I be concerned with the scanner radiation? At my frequency of airline travel, neither represents any risk to my health worth any concern at all.

If you fly and are concerned with that exposure, then I encourage you to opt out of the scan and have the physical scan. I've watched a number of those, and they are not invasive the the degree that any normal person should feel assaulted by it. If you feel assaulted by a physical frisking and are unwilling to subject yourself to tiny amounts of x-ray radiation, you should be far more concerned with the extra radiation that flying above 30,000 feet subjects you to and avoid flying at all. Truly that exposure is far higher than the backscatter x-ray scanner.

In all cases, it is far, far riskier to drive than to fly, so you may want to not travel at all if you're nervous about risks. Common sense is called-for in all such situations.

[SomethingFishy]

111. So you feel safer.. even though every single change to

airport security was made after the fact?

After 9/11, after the shoe bomber, after the underwear bomber....


I fly 4 or 5 times a month. I don't find the scanners too obtrusive, I know how to be ready to get through the line. However, I would never say that I am happy about it.

Let me ask you something, was your bag searched? Was there a note in your suitcase from TSA? I used to get them all the time after 9/11 but not a one in the last 5 years. Not one bag search.

Was the cargo that was loaded onto the plane scanned, searched and x-rayed? You do know that nearly every flight that takes off has some sort of cargo besides the baggage on board.

I have taken cargo out for a flight 30 minutes before the flight took off and watched as the box I handed off was put straight onto a truck and driven straight to the plane.

If you feel "safer" because you are being scanned, then you truly have no idea how lax airport security is. Personally I say go back to metal detectors and let everyone keep their damn shoes on. This is costing a fortune and is stopping nothing.

When someone is willing to DIE for their cause all the security in the world can't stop them.

[cliffordu]

113. I won't fly as a direct result of all this.. I won't have anyone put their hands on me or

treat me like a suspected terrorist.

I find it very telling that they grope old men and little old ladies and scan other good decent law abiding American Citizens because the politicians are stupid scared.

And, when you get down to it....lazy.

[Major Nikon]

115. I didn't know TSA scanners were such a hot topic

It seems they are right up there with breastfeeding in public, circumcision, Olive Garden, porn, pitbulls, and smoking.