TSA New Procedure Poll

[MBM]

this guy did, but it didn't work out well for him

 

http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/tsa-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again

 

Poor guy. Doesn't he know he's supposed to do that as a part of a large group? I wonder how they would handle the Naked Cowboy? LOL.

[Haiku]

I clicked other. I don't like the procedures, but if I need to get somewhere that's too far to drive, I'll still fly.

 

Tara

[Sputterduck]

this guy did, but it didn't work out well for him

 

http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/tsa-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again

 

OH MY GOODNESS That also says they arrested a young woman for filming the security area with her phone! Seriously? It's getting secretive now? WOW

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I clicked other. I don't like the procedures, but if I need to get somewhere that's too far to drive, I'll still fly.

 

Tara

 

 

That's because the poll leaves out one option--Against the procedures but will still fly. Some folks still need to fly-like it or not.

 

Better not to mock the "other" choosers in setting poll parameters when the poll forgets neglects all options. (Directed at poll creator not you Tara.)

[elizabeth]

"This time the defendant, Sam Wolanyk says he was asked to pass through the 3-D x-ray machine. When Wolanyk refused,"-from the link above from the examiner...

 

Uh this dork refused to comply and then took his pants off. Seriously you question why he was arrested???? It amuses the heck out of me to see the inherent contradiction between seeing yourself as law abiding and respectful of authority yet in the oddest situations you root for the iconoclast. I do not understand this attitude at all.

[Sputterduck]

"This time the defendant, Sam Wolanyk says he was asked to pass through the 3-D x-ray machine. When Wolanyk refused,"-from the link above from the examiner...

 

Uh this dork refused to comply and then took his pants off. Seriously you question why he was arrested???? It amuses the heck out of me to see the inherent contradiction between seeing yourself as law abiding and respectful of authority yet in the oddest situations you root for the iconoclast. I do not understand this attitude at all.

 

Who are you referring to?

[phathui5]

...I just can't subject my children to that or anything like that...or myself. That is why we will drive 4 days cross country to spend christmas with Grandma...then in Feb...we will drive from coast to coast for my sister's baby shower (1st and possibly only baby).

 

What you ought to do is write a letter to the airlines letting them know how many flights you're skipping because of the their new policies.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

What you ought to do is write a letter to the airlines letting them know how many flights you're skipping because of the their new policies.

 

 

Just to be clear--the airlines don't control the TSA. Now you could still write to the airlines and encourage them to do some complaining but other than as lobbyists the airlines have no actual control over TSA policies.

[phathui5]

I think that Congress will listen to the lobbyists saying this will hurt the economy before they'll listen to regular citizens who are feeling violated.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Just to be clear--the airlines don't control the TSA. Now you could still write to the airlines and encourage them to do some complaining but other than as lobbyists the airlines have no actual control over TSA policies.

 

Yep. The TSA is its own animal.

[lionfamily1999]

I think that Congress will listen to the lobbyists saying this will hurt the economy before they'll listen to regular citizens who are feeling violated.

The president has pretty well said to suck it up. Congress is the only hope (there's a scary thought).

[MBM]

Who are you referring to?

 

Probably me, I suppose. ;)

[MBM]

The president has pretty well said to suck it up. Congress is the only hope (there's a scary thought).

 

Congress gets to bypass the TSA procedures. Other than the ones who fly on their own planes, what's the reason the others get to bypass? Anyone know?

[lionfamily1999]

Congress gets to bypass the TSA procedures. Other than the ones who fly on their own planes, what's the reason the others get to bypass? Anyone know?

:glare: They're part of a secret society?

[MBM]

:glare: They're part of a secret society?

 

Could be. I do know they have less stringent financial disclosure rules than regular ol' federal workers who are higher up (SESs, for example).

[Harriet Vane]

I don't want to live in a country where letting others see and touch my privates is required to use public transportation.

 

 

 

Hear, hear! And especially with regard to my children's privates also.

 

:iagree:

[Holly IN]

I would have to be stripped searched due to my knee. I have a screw in there due to previous surgery to correct my kneecap problem. So NO NO NO I will not fly due to their new rule/policy. That rules out trip to Bahamas unless we tavel by ship. :D

Holly

[Harriet Vane]

The president has pretty well said to suck it up. Congress is the only hope (there's a scary thought).

 

Or a judge to rule on the constitutionality of the new procedures. Where's the ACLU when you need them??? What we need is a lawsuit.

[Sophia]

Seriously you question why he was arrested????

 

I don't question why he was arrested.

He was arrested so the TSA authorities could beat themselves on the chest while they make it clear that You. Will. Submit.

[OrganicAnn]

That's because the poll leaves out one option--Against the procedures but will still fly. Some folks still need to fly-like it or not.

 

Better not to mock the "other" choosers in setting poll parameters when the poll forgets neglects all options. (Directed at poll creator not you Tara.)

 

You are absolutely correct in your criticism of my poll options. I had intended to put Against - but will fly the same or less got flustered and didn't word it properly. Also

 

I promise not to mock the Other option

I promise not to mock the Other option

I promise not to mock the Other option

Edited November 22, 2010 by OrganicAnn

[Maria from IN]

Gee I don't know I think given the options that a pat down beats the hell out of coming back in mangled, unidentifiable pieces. I think the poor souls that perished on 9-11 would have preferred a pat down. Seriously has it crossed no one's mind that maybe , maybe there is credible intelligence indicating this is needed right now.

 

Exactly. I would much rather submit, to an albeit unperfect, system of scans and searches than blow up in the air. Sure, the Israeli system is better. Sure, it feels invasive. But to wait until they think of a procedure that doesn't offend us will kill thousands more Americans.

 

For decades, Americans have enjoyed (relative) safety from international terrorists...perhaps they thought we were doing a good enough job killing each other. September 11th was a wake-up call. We got caught with our pants down. We can't be smug about our security any longer. For those who have grown up in other countries--where driving a few hundred miles means trying to get along in a place where the language, culture, and money are different--people are more aware and security checks are obviously more refined.

 

I would be far more offended if these security checks weren't done and we have another disaster.

[mommaduck]

These are ridiculous arguments. It matters not how modest the individual is who is being unreasonably groped. It doesn't matter how old or whether they are male or female. Being touched in an unwanted or intimate manner is unpleasant (to put it mildly) no matter who you are. I don't think that wearing a t-shirt and leggings makes it any less traumatizing for one woman than it does for another with a skirt and headscarf. Let's not try to divide ourselves being saying it is worse for one "type" than the next. You have no idea how upset it may be making the person next to you so don't try to judge based on how they are dressed.

You missed my point. I agree with you! My point was in the search for "TSA skirts" women with skirts are being TARGETED (aka profiled) for this extended "pat down" and told it's BECAUSE they are wearing skirts.

 

It doesn't make their version of the pat down procedure right on anyone else either.

Edited November 22, 2010 by mommaduck

[lionfamily1999]

Or a judge to rule on the constitutionality of the new procedures. Where's the ACLU when you need them??? What we need is a lawsuit.

I think they're staying in the Lincoln bedroom for awhile. Maybe we'll catch them once their vacation is over. ;)

[Elaine]

I think they're staying in the Lincoln bedroom for awhile. Maybe we'll catch them once their vacation is over. ;)

 

:D You are so bad!:lol:

[Elaine]

Exactly. I would much rather submit, to an albeit unperfect, system of scans and searches than blow up in the air. Sure, the Israeli system is better. Sure, it feels invasive. But to wait until they think of a procedure that doesn't offend us will kill thousands more Americans.

 

 

But, Maria, it is not (relatively) perfect. Everything in place now was done after the fact. That is not keeping us safe, it is giving the illusion of safety, big difference. Profiling does not offend me- I welcome it, because I don't fit the profile. That is the point, if you fit the profile, you should worry and think twice before you attack.

 

Many here keep saying, oh I will just drive. That is not a solution. OK, it is a solution, but at what cost? Why should we have to be forced into road travel out of fear? Why don't they fear us? They are laughing at us! I can hear it now: Stupid Americans!:lol: Trying to protect themselves from what we have already done. Do they really think we are foolish enough to attack the same way again? :confused:

 

They know that we are afraid. They know that we are an easy target. The Israelis are not afraid (in the same way that we are) because they deal with it everyday, and they are prepared in a way that says, We are not afraid. They have taken a proactive stance. (Read Asta's TSA alternative thread)

 

It is absolutely pathetic that instead of an armed military and police force patrolling the airports we have unqualified people. Read the TSA's website on the security job requirements. My 11 year old is qualified for this job.

 

 

 

I am not throwing tomatoes at you, really, I am just so aggravated by this whole thing.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Elaine

[mommaduck]

Elaine, my comment on driving is because #1 it's cheaper and #2 more of an adventure (you see so much more on road trips...I'm a road trip kind person ;) ). However, I would still like to see this fought tooth and nail. I fully agree with you that any terrorist will not try to strike the same way twice (not if they have more than a few brain cells).

[lionfamily1999]

:D You are so bad!:lol:

You know you think I'm right ;)

[Gwenhwyfar]

OH MY GOODNESS That also says they arrested a young woman for filming the security area with her phone! Seriously? It's getting secretive now? WOW

 

that's nothing new - at least not here. it is, after all, a SECURE area (most secure areas do not allow filming)... a couple of years ago when my husband & a friend were flying away, i was taking pictures of our daughter giving him a hug right before he went into security...a few minutes later, from inside the security area, he started waving at us - so i went to take his picture through the doorway and the security lady there told me that it's not allowed to take photos of the security process and stuff. (she was very polite.)

[Gwenhwyfar]

Apparently some people on here think it should be and are just fine with it :glare:

 

Sheeple. If they want to give up their rights, then... they can. I won't.

 

 

are you talking about the 40 people who voted in the poll that they are okay with the new procedures? people who are your fellow board members, fellow homeschoolers, and for all you know (as the poll is anonymous) they may be your friends?

 

just wondering if those are the people that you guys are being unkind about...

[mommaduck]

are you talking about the 40 people who voted in the poll that they are okay with the new procedures? people who are your fellow board members, fellow homeschoolers, and for all you know (as the poll is anonymous) they may be your friends?

 

just wondering if those are the people that you guys are being unkind about...

No, I was specifically referencing one poster and it was due to some things that person stated other than that they were okay with it (and that poster was not you ;) ). If someone is okay with it, that is their personal opinion and I'm okay with that. However, the other comments by this person...well, that is what got my goat.

Edited November 22, 2010 by mommaduck

[Gwenhwyfar]

No, I was specifically referencing one poster and it was due to some things that person stated other than that they were okay with it (and that poster was not you ;) )

 

ahhh. i was guzzling slightly cold coffee and reading along, saw the 'some people' :glare: and the 'sheeple' remarks and thought ??? because this is an issue that obviously will have people carrying different opinions and i don't think it's fair to jump on them and say that they don't think for themselves (the meaning of sheeple) or whatever....

 

blech. coldER coffee. :p

[mommaduck]

ahhh. i was guzzling slightly cold coffee and reading along, saw the 'some people' :glare: and the 'sheeple' remarks and thought ??? because this is an issue that obviously will have people carrying different opinions and i don't think it's fair to jump on them and say that they don't think for themselves (the meaning of sheeple) or whatever....

 

blech. coldER coffee. :p

Naw, I try hard not to broadbrush like that and I'm glad you called it when you thought you saw it ;) But no, just one particular person got my goat and I was being general, but it was at a particular back and forth in the conversation.

[Elaine]

You know you think I'm right ;)

 

No, no! I know you are right!:D

[FaithManor]

Dh is a chemistry and physics guru and says that the technology is already readily available to terrorists to get around the new security measures. As long as America only takes a reactive stance, we will never be any safer. Our approach to security is to wait and see what they are doing and then react to it...and while we are sitting around on our thumbs deciding how to react, they are already working on something new. It's pathetic.

 

And yes, many of our 5th and 6th graders are quailified for TSO jobs. These are "unskilled" labor jobs. These individuals are not taking classes in law enforcement, behavioral psychology, abnormal psychology, personality disorders, history of terrorism, planning and strategy, disaster training, etc. My dd, as a paramedic, has been given more psyche training than TSO's.

 

Essentially, we the sheep, are being stripped of our humanity and dignity for something that has virtually no chance of stopping the kind of terrorism of which we are apparently so frightened.

 

We have highly trained security teams within the National Guard and I've said it before, so I will say it again, if they were also given the same kind of behavioral psyche training that the FBI and Federal Marshalls receive at Quantico, they'd be perfect for airport security. We shouldn't be deploying them overseas, they should be home here protecting us which is what they were created to do. First line of security and defense on US soil against domestic problems and national disasters. They aren't supposed to be fighting foreign wars. These guys could be sooooo good and we wouldn't have to deal with the loss of our liberties.

 

Both of the National guardsmen that attend our church are already very, very good and they haven't gone through all of the training that is even available for this. I'd love to have the likes of Dennis and his buddies doing airport security instead of the highly under trained, not qualified, TSO's. We wouldn't need the rigamorole that masquerades as airport security now.

 

If you have never watched the Fox show, "Lie to Me", I suggest you watch one episode (the first season is available on Netflix instant watch). It is some what exaggerated and yet not that much. This kind of behavioral science is taught at Quantico and it's pretty accurate. That's why when serial killers show up in a community, nine times out of ten, the local sheriff, state police post, etc. call in an FBI man whose done the training. They are amazing at developing a profile of who the police should be looking for and when they catch that individual it is astonishing how accurate the profile is.....us human animals wear our emotions on our sleeves, so to speak, socio/psycho paths share common traits, and people can be trained to spot them "out of the pack" no matter how good the psycho is. They can even tell when a person has had nerve damage to the face and therefore, can't show the normal range of emotions. I've known police officers who were never given the formal training, that through years of experience on the job, became VERY good at it!

 

This is what we need. Not nude scans and patdowns of babies, diapers removed at airports so EVERYONE going through gets to see your baby's genitalia, grabbing and squeezing breasts and testicles, etc. We end up living in more fear of our government than of the terrorists themselves. Maybe that is the ultimate goal of our government, take control of the sheep through sanctioned bullying.

 

Faith

[lionfamily1999]

Dh is a chemistry and physics guru and says that the technology is already readily available to terrorists to get around the new security measures.

Myself and another poster already figured out how larger people could carry on toothpaste. If the scan works the way it should, then I could hide plenty of stuff beneath my b00ks.

[Mejane]

 

It is absolutely pathetic that instead of an armed military and police force patrolling the airports we have unqualified people. Read the TSA's website on the security job requirements. My 11 year old is qualified for this job.

 

 

 

 

 

Many airports are using the opt-out clause to boot TSA agents and hire their own. They will still have to adhere to TSA procedures, but they can hire and train whom they want.

 

How can we have our military patrolling our airports (or borders) when they're all overseas guarding other countries? :tongue_smilie: Really, don't get me started...

[mommaduck]

And yes, many of our 5th and 6th graders are qualified for TSO jobs. These are "unskilled" labor jobs. These individuals are not taking classes in law enforcement, behavioral psychology, abnormal psychology, personality disorders, history of terrorism, planning and strategy, disaster training, etc. My dd, as a paramedic, has been given more psyche training than TSO's.

 

My husband at least had to take "dog behavior and psychology" when he worked at turning on and off people's electricity :tongue_smilie:

 

 

I think it's laziness of cheap economics to not hire TRAINED and QUALIFIED people for this job rather than just Jo Schmo off the street.

[Maria from IN]

But, Maria, it is not (relatively) perfect. Everything in place now was done after the fact. That is not keeping us safe, it is giving the illusion of safety, big difference. Profiling does not offend me- I welcome it, because I don't fit the profile. That is the point, if you fit the profile, you should worry and think twice before you attack.

 

Many here keep saying, oh I will just drive. That is not a solution. OK, it is a solution, but at what cost? Why should we have to be forced into road travel out of fear? Why don't they fear us? They are laughing at us! I can hear it now: Stupid Americans!:lol: Trying to protect themselves from what we have already done. Do they really think we are foolish enough to attack the same way again? :confused:

 

They know that we are afraid. They know that we are an easy target. The Israelis are not afraid (in the same way that we are) because they deal with it everyday, and they are prepared in a way that says, We are not afraid. They have taken a proactive stance. (Read Asta's TSA alternative thread)

 

It is absolutely pathetic that instead of an armed military and police force patrolling the airports we have unqualified people. Read the TSA's website on the security job requirements. My 11 year old is qualified for this job.

 

 

 

I am not throwing tomatoes at you, really, I am just so aggravated by this whole thing.

 

I understand your aggravation, and I feel it too. I too know that it depends greatly on who you hire, and how well they are educated...many of us educate our own children so they don't end up as "sheeple," to steal a word form an earlier poster. Countries like Israel, however, have had to deal with these issues for far longer than we have, and have learned what works and what doesn't. Eventually America will figure out which policies are ridiculous or ineffective and change them, and it's going to take a long time--I don't see us consulting anyone else anytime soon, since we've historically been so arrogant about these things...but we do have to start somewhere.

 

...I've always thought that anyone who thinks America is such a wonderful, secure, free country is sadly mistaken. Sure, there are things about America that are wonderful, but it's times like these when we display so much ignorance and arrogance that I'm ashamed to tell people where I'm from.

[Mrs Mungo]

Again, I don't necessarily think these new scans are really keeping us safer. I agree that they are invasive and expensive and that we are entering the realm of diminishing returns.

 

HOWEVER, I have to say something about the radiation factor. You do realize that you are exposed to radiation while flying? Here's an article that addresses this issue.

 

excerpt:

To be clear, this fact check isn't declaring TSA's new full-body scanners safe. We're simply looking at the comparative exposure to radiation as suggested by Pistole, who said that the radiation coming from the new TSA body scanners "are equivalent to about three minutes' worth of air travel by anybody, say, at 30,000 feet." It may sound strange, but it's right. We rate this statement True.

[Tea Time]

Many airports are using the opt-out clause to boot TSA agents and hire their own. They will still have to adhere to TSA procedures, but they can hire and train whom they want.

 

How can we have our military patrolling our airports (or borders) when they're all overseas guarding other countries? :tongue_smilie: Really, don't get me started...

 

Not trying to get you started, honest! :001_smile:

 

But, here's the thing. If we have to move the front line from where we thought it was best to fight (overseas) to here, in order to be safe, that might mean we are losing the battle. I am sad that, after all this time, we have not been so effective over there that we are safe from fear over here. That was the idea of meeting the enemy where they were. If that failed, or if it is failing now, maybe that should be addressed as well. These measures definitely give me the feeling that our national security has degraded somehow. Unless, of course, it really is a reaction to only the underwear bomber. Then it just seems irrational. So which is it?

[Sputterduck]

But, Maria, it is not (relatively) perfect. Everything in place now was done after the fact. That is not keeping us safe, it is giving the illusion of safety, big difference. Profiling does not offend me- I welcome it, because I don't fit the profile. That is the point, if you fit the profile, you should worry and think twice before you attack.

 

Many here keep saying, oh I will just drive. That is not a solution. OK, it is a solution, but at what cost? Why should we have to be forced into road travel out of fear? Why don't they fear us? They are laughing at us! I can hear it now: Stupid Americans!:lol: Trying to protect themselves from what we have already done. Do they really think we are foolish enough to attack the same way again? :confused:

 

They know that we are afraid. They know that we are an easy target. The Israelis are not afraid (in the same way that we are) because they deal with it everyday, and they are prepared in a way that says, We are not afraid. They have taken a proactive stance. (Read Asta's TSA alternative thread)

 

It is absolutely pathetic that instead of an armed military and police force patrolling the airports we have unqualified people. Read the TSA's website on the security job requirements. My 11 year old is qualified for this job.

 

 

 

I am not throwing tomatoes at you, really, I am just so aggravated by this whole thing.

 

Maybe you have a point about not being scared when you live with it everyday. I hadn't thought about that before. I am not at all scared that if I fly in America a crazy jihad terrorist will take over my plane and crash it into something important. I live in a place where we go through police barricades all the time and military checkpoints just to be able to drive around and get where I need to go. It's normal and everyday here. I feel very safe. There is no way someone could wreak havoc here with all the vigilant police and military operations.

 

Anywho, they don't touch my genitals to make us safe, so I'm happy.

[Elaine]

Maybe you have a point about not being scared when you live with it everyday. I hadn't thought about that before. I am not at all scared that if I fly in America a crazy jihad terrorist will take over my plane and crash it into something important. I live in a place where we go through police barricades all the time and military checkpoints just to be able to drive around and get where I need to go. It's normal and everyday here. I feel very safe. There is no way someone could wreak havoc here with all the vigilant police and military operations.

 

Anywho, they don't touch my genitals to make us safe, so I'm happy.

 

You probably did not mean for that last line to be funny, but it gave me a good guffaw!:D

 

I am not afraid to fly either. I got on a place two weeks after 9/11 and then again a month later. I am in the when your numbers up, your numbers up camp. I could be the victim of an act of terror on a plane or someone could drag me into the woods and murder me while I am in the middle of a run. I refuse to live my life in fear.

[mommaduck]

You probably did not mean for that last line to be funny, but it gave me a good guffaw!:D

 

I am not afraid to fly either. I got on a place two weeks after 9/11 and then again a month later. I am in the when your numbers up, your numbers up camp. I could be the victim of an act of terror on a plane or someone could drag me into the woods and murder me while I am in the middle of a run. I refuse to live my life in fear.

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

But, here's the thing. If we have to move the front line from where we thought it was best to fight (overseas) to here, in order to be safe, that might mean we are losing the battle. I am sad that, after all this time, we have not been so effective over there that we are safe from fear over here.

 

The military and other federal agencies have worked tirelessly in killing and capturing terrorists as well as foiling terrorist plots. Part of the trouble? For the most part, the American people are more interested in Lindsey Lohan than Afghanistan. I would bet greater than 75% of adult Americans couldn't locate Afghanistan on a map.

 

There is nothing on earth that will make us 100% safe from those who intend us harm.

 

That was the idea of meeting the enemy where they were.

 

Do you know how many foreign fighters are regularly captured or killed on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan? I absolutely, positively believe that giving them a place to fight our soldiers (v. attacking our citizens on our ground) has been an effective strategy. Does that mean it or any other strategy is 100% effective? Of course not.

 

If that failed, or if it is failing now, maybe that should be addressed as well.

 

What is your definition of failure? Has there been another successful terrorist attack or not?

 

These measures definitely give me the feeling that our national security has degraded somehow. Unless, of course, it really is a reaction to only the underwear bomber. Then it just seems irrational. So which is it?

 

Do you (or anyone else) honestly believe the government works that quickly? Everything I've read says that the government put this in the works in 2006. It takes a lot of planning and discussion before it can even get to that point.

[Elaine]

The military and other federal agencies have worked tirelessly in killing and capturing terrorists as well as foiling terrorist plots. Part of the trouble? For the most part, the American people are more interested in Lindsey Lohan than Afghanistan. I would bet greater than 75% of adult Americans couldn't locate Afghanistan on a map.

 

 

 

Sadly, :iagree:

[FaithManor]

Idaho passed legislation in May to ban backscatter scanners.

 

Here's the link to the article:

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/idaho-legislators-vote-against-forced-body-scans-a216854

 

I have not been able to determine if there were any legal challenges from the feds on this or if Idaho airports will remain scan free.

 

Faith

[eternalknot]

HOWEVER, I have to say something about the radiation factor. You do realize that you are exposed to radiation while flying? Here's an article that addresses this issue.

 

excerpt:

 

It's true that one is exposed to radiation inflight; the statistical likelihood of contracting certain cancers rises if one is a crewmember, or very frequent flyer. This is especially true depending on one's regular route. Certain routes (altitude and latitude) expose flyers to more radiation than others, and it's never clear which number the government is using for any given reference.

 

Flight attendant and pilot unions have been studying this for decades. Inflight radiation is pretty much like exposure to radiation from everything else in life; walking through the scanner is a much more concentrated dosage, which is a concern (IMO, YMMV).

 

The guys in the radiology department at my brother's hospital all wear dosimeters at every shift; they are properly trained to calibrate and ensure calibration of the machine for each passenger, er - patient. They take protective measures to minimize unncessary exposure to themselves or to the patient. Neither of these are evident at the airports, or apparently even register on the TSA's radar. Nevermind that the exposure level for an adult male will register as significantly more harmful to a young child going through the same machine.

 

Are people with comprised immune systems being educated about what opting-in may mean for them? What about people predisposed to cancer? Are passengers being told to close their eyes while they're in the scanners? I fly every week, and have never heard it said. Not that it doesn't happen, just that it's obviously not SOP or even common knowledge among the TSAs. I have no doubt that many, if aware, would caution their passengers. The problem is that they are incredibly ill-trained to perform what's currently being asked/expected of them ... on many levels.

 

Add in the fact that (at least according to the linked article) these assurances of safety are coming from Pistole (TSA) and the FDA? Yeah LOL not exactly known for credibility. Google "Are scanners worth the risk" to find the NYT's article that identifies the committee who evaluated the scanners. Hint: it was made of manufacturers for the scanners and TSA representatives.

 

Long story, summed up :blush: while true that one is exposed to radiation inflight, it's not necessarily apples to apples when considering the source of the information.

[Sophia]

Idaho passed legislation in May to ban backscatter scanners.

 

Here's the link to the article:

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/idaho-legislators-vote-against-forced-body-scans-a216854

 

I have not been able to determine if there were any legal challenges from the feds on this or if Idaho airports will remain scan free.

 

Faith

Interesting.

So I wonder what they have down about the pat-downs?

[elfgivas]

against new TSA procedures - will continue to fly as usual. (we have work and people we love far away)

 

we flew saturday. we fly again sunday. that's the way it goes.

 

ann

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The military and other federal agencies have worked tirelessly in killing and capturing terrorists as well as foiling terrorist plots. Part of the trouble? For the most part, the American people are more interested in Lindsey Lohan than Afghanistan. I would bet greater than 75% of adult Americans couldn't locate Afghanistan on a map.

 

There is nothing on earth that will make us 100% safe from those who intend us harm.

 

 

 

Do you know how many foreign fighters are regularly captured or killed on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan? I absolutely, positively believe that giving them a place to fight our soldiers (v. attacking our citizens on our ground) has been an effective strategy. Does that mean it or any other strategy is 100% effective? Of course not.

 

 

 

What is your definition of failure? Has there been another successful terrorist attack or not?

 

 

 

Do you (or anyone else) honestly believe the government works that quickly? Everything I've read says that the government put this in the works in 2006. It takes a lot of planning and discussion before it can even get to that point.

 

:iagree: