moonchild

This is becoming an issue as more airports are installing the new scanners, especially after the California man refused the scanner and pat down and made the news this week.
CNN has had spokespersons on both sides of the issue.

After reading the letter of concern from some UCSF doctors, I've advised my kids to forgo the scanner (politely) and to submit to the pat down if they are randomly pulled. My daughter going through Logan may not even be offered the metal detector option at that airport during the holidays.
Having had breast cancer, and having a brother who died of melanoma, I'm more than a little concerned about the safety of these new devices. Our family is at a high risk for melanoma, and the findings of the people at UCSF are disconcerting.

Opting Out of Full Body Image Scanning at the Airport – UCSF Faculty Concerned Over X-Rays – 100x Stronger Than Assumed? San Francisco Citizen

I'm a liberal without any anti-government bias, but I find myself in the "this is too much" camp with this issue. Anyone else feel strongly about this?

Cuse0507

If there is indeed a true health risk involved with passing through these machines, I say pull them until the risk can be mitigated. If not, I have no problem with making people walk through these things. The last think I want is to be blown to bits at 37,000 feet because someone else didn't want to cooperate with the rules.

bulletandpima

I am with Cuse, if it is a medical issue, knock it off, but otherwise I think people are blowing this out of proportion. Really, what is the big deal? You have a choice know your loved one is safe from an underwear bomber or live with the fact that they died because of them.

I prefer to know my loved ones are safe.

romanigypsyeyes

I'm going to echo above.

If you don't travel often then this shouldn't be a big deal. If you travel a lot for business or whatever, then it should raise some red flags.

If they're safe though, I have absolutely no problem with making it mandatory for everyone to go through one.

moonchild

No one wants to be blown up. I wish they would scan all the cargo, as it seems to me that there is real risk there. Not that people boarding aren't a risk, but are these scanners really effective in stopping someone intent to harm us? Or is it one more thing for the terrorists to find a work-around?
These comments concerned me enough to say no to these machines, not until their safety has been through a published and independent review.

If you've never had cancer, you may not be sensitive to these issues. Recent studies have shown that hospital scanning machines are not properly checked and adjusted for the minimal radiation exposure, and some have been found to give more radiation than is approved.
My oncologist tells me avoid hospital scans like PET and CAT unless it's a medical necessity. Too much radiation exposure. If our hospitals can't assure quality, what can we expect from TSA?

"If they're safe enough..." seems to be the consensus.
The problem is, we just don't know.

vicariousparent

moonchild, thank you for that link. I read that entire letter and I agree that it does make some excellent points. Before reading that letter I had nothing but scorn for the people who refuse to go through the scanners. I still don't sympathize with people (like that idiot over the weekend) who have privacy concerns about someone seeing or feeling their "junk". Please, people have such a high opinion of their "junk".

But the specific concerns about the health risks described in the UCSF letter to the skin and to certain individuals who have radiation sensitivity are worth a serious consideration by the TSA. It is interesting that the date of that letter is April 2010. I wonder what actions if any were taken in response to that letter.

Personally I will probably still go through the scanner when given a chance (it is quick and easy) but I hope the government will re-evaluate the radiation risks. Considering the thousands and thousands of passengers going through them, we may end up with more deaths (from cancer) on our hands than the terrorist inflicted deaths these scanners are designed to prevent.

SlitheyTove

I haven't flown since the new enhanced pat-down went in place, but over the past year I've asked for a pat-down instead of going through the scanners. The radiation risk is a concern. I also don't want to have people looking at me naked. The first time I saw a scanner, you could also see the viewing stations as well--it was all out in public.

Of course no one wants to be blown up, but the scanners aren't a cure-all. A news article today shows that they have problems with pleated clothing (think skirts or shirts). They also can't detect anything beneath the skin. Any body cavity would make a good hiding place; ditto for skin folds. That's going to be some serious extra-enhanced patdown that would be needed for those areas.

TatinG

I think people are just getting tired of being treated like potential terrorists. It's absurd to pat down babies and old ladies. So I understand the backlash against this. I don't trust the machine and I don't relish some creepy TSA agent giving me a pat down.

Flying is just torture now and I avoid it whenever possible. It used to be the start of the vacation, now it's something to be dreaded.

From the lines for security to the lack of comfortable legroom to the purchase of food to the rude cattlecall treatment, it's all just awful.

I'd rather drive.