<p>I would imagine that part of the problem is that TSA employees are not all purely professional people such as xray technicians. Some are very professional, others have the professionalism of someone working at a fast food restaurant (with not alot more background screening). </p>
<p>For someone who is very fearful and does not travel often, you can take precautions. Chances are right now, you’ll only go through the metal detector (remove all metal, everything and you won’t set it off)! If you have to go through the backscatter, just do it. If you end up with an enhanced patdown (and if you follow my last sentences, you won’t), do it in public, with a family member watching. Be polite and tell them your issues if they are serious.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, what is your solution? We have been flying for years without this idiocy, and of a sudden air travel became unsafe? Just because someone made a dumb decision and implemented policies and devices that have not been tested or well thought through, it does not mean we have to continue with them. Someone has to admit that this has been a huge mistake and take responsibility. Somehow, I do not see this happening, because it is really hard to admit mistakes, especially when a cushy, well paid position maybe on the line.</p>
<p>My favorite TSA story is a few years ago at Newark when 2 TSA agents were arguing over whose turn it was to watch the luggage xray screen. It was like watching 2 five-year olds fighting over a toy.</p>
<p>I just don’t see this as such a major sea change or dislocation. Sometimes I’ve been wanded. Sometimes I’ve been patted down. I used to not to have to remove shoes. Now I do. Oh well. These are all just so minor in my life.</p>
<p>I’m just wondering if the same tired argument — you’re more in danger driving than flying — was used before 9/11 when there were efforts to get airlines to step up security and lock the cockpit doors. </p>
<p>What does it mean in the context of this issue that officials are just “covering their butts” by requiring increased airport security? They’re trying to prevent an explosion that brings down a jet full of holiday travelers from occurring on *their *watch…and that’s supposed to be wrong? </p>
<p>europa,
"Wow, I cannot believe anyone would think it’s not an indignity to have to expose an ostomy bag in front of non-medical personnel in the privacy of a doctor’s office. Or even the poor woman with a faux breast, though as I said breast cancer survivors aren’t mocked as much as ostomates. "</p>
<p>-You commented on post that you did not read. Here I said: "I do not care about indignities. " By “I” I meant everybody else is excluded. I did not mean somebody else, it is their own business. Again, I, everybody else is excluded (I hope it is clear now) do not care about my (everybody else is excluded) body exposed or touched as long as they change gloves between touching different people, but I (excluding everybody else) do care about harmful x-ray exposure that causes cancer despite thier propaganda about it.</p>
<p>I posted this earlier - but mods removed it because I did not post a link. So, here it is again in case it is helpful to anyone flying this week.</p>
<p>LOS ANGELES — It was no crime of fashion, but Wendy Gigliotti’s bulky sweater and ankle-length skirt made her a target of airport screeners.</p>
<p>A female Transportation Security Administration officer at Sacramento International Airport told her, “We can’t tell if there’s something under your skirt.” She was then frisked in a way she said felt more intrusive than a physical exam.</p>
<p>“I felt not only like a criminal, I felt absolutely violated,” said Gigliotti.</p>
<p>Clothes loaded with metal studs are suddenly a no-no, as are bras with underwires. Slacks instead of skirts are preferred. Any baggy clothing can require extra inspection.</p>
<p>The main points are that women should wear pants rather than skirts and everyone is better off in a snug fitting top rather than something loose and bulky.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people are missing a point about screening - it doesn’t have to be completely consistent from person to person to be an effective deterrent. A terrorist doesn’t need to be guaranteed that he will be closely screened… he just needs to know that it is a real possibility, maybe even a probability. They are looking for the easiest way to get thru the defense, and the one with the highest probability of success. Now that the screenings are generally more intense, and there’s a good probability that they’ll be screened and caught, they’ll look for a different way to attack us (cargo, subways, etc). </p>
<p>Screening isn’t all about catching bad guys. It’s about DETERRING them from even trying an attack via this method (explosives or weapons concealed on a passenger).</p>
<p>We can’t stop them everywhere. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stop them WHERE WE CAN. And to fail to update our screening for tactics that we KNOW they have used before is ludicrous… if they got an underwear or shoe or liquid bomb past security under the old methods of screening, they’ll do it again unless we change our screening.</p>
<p>Yes, we’re a step behind. But that’s better than standing still and ending up miles behind. I once heard a Homeland Security guy say, “The bad guys have unlimited chances to try to get us. If they fail today, they try again tomorrow. But if WE fail today - just once - we lose.”</p>
<p>Rockvillmom… good post. Dress with non-bulky clothes that don’t set off a metal detector, and you’re less likely to end up in a pat-down.</p>
<p>USA screennig will do none of the above, but produced few cancers and maybe few of other deseases if they do not replace gloves between people before they touch them. Terrorists will find a way and in addition, borders are not secured any ways, so no matter waht is used or not, nothing will be accomplished. We need to learn from those with experience of effective screenning and secured borders.</p>
<p>Lafalum, this will NOT deter someone who has set their mind on blowing up a plane. I can think of many ways how pancakes or powders of explosives can make it through the security. Metal wires needed for detonation can ride through the X-rays in the carryon bags… The technology to detect minute traces of explosives and precisely tell what the material is EXISTS TODAY, yet it is not being fully iplemented because someone else successfully lobbied for the inefficient and dangerous X-ray body scanners. This technology is called molecular sensors and biosensors. Do you know that at the major post office distribution hubs all mail that passes through is being tested for anthrax using molecular testing? A vacuum cleaner type of a device sucks the air above the conveyor belt, the particulate in that air then gets passed through a special cartridge where spores of bacteria get broken down and their genetic material gets “fingerprinted” using the technology called PCR (similar to the proven tech that is used in nabbing rapists and determing paternity). Similar sensors exist for small, synthetic molecules, and they work even faster than PCR and cost chaeper. That is what the Departmant of Homeland Security needs to be doing, instead of sniffing our stinky sneakers and groping our genitals. Unlike X-rays, molecular sensing is harmless to people.</p>
<p>twomules, I think that is part of the problem. Apparently they are not doing serious security checks on these people, that do have so much responsibility for keeping us safe. Probably costs too much money, and they had to hire alot of people in a hurry. Perhaps they should consider it worth the cost…if someone can be bought off to look the other way as a weapon or bomb goes through, all of this screening is for nothing. I’d think the money would be better spent in that reguard than a huge number of these expensive machines.</p>
<p>Me thinks we all should be going Alanis Morissette route next time we fly ;)</p>
<p>“In 2004, Morissette hosted the Juno Awards in Canada, dressed in a bathrobe. Protesting recent incidents of censorship, she removed the robe during the ceremony to reveal a flesh-colored body suit.”</p>
<p>My local airport had this message via a news station today:
“There are only four of these full body screening machines in the main terminal. TSA won’t use them if there are long lines or if they don’t have enough personnel.”
[What</a> Kind of Security to Expect at MSP?](<a href=“FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul”>FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul)</p>
<p>So security and screening all passengers is critical, except when it isn’t.</p>
<p>An unusual amount of flexibility for a major airline:
“Delta Airlines is now saying it will even consider refunds for passengers who cancel travel plans because of concern over the new security measures, they’re doing that on a case by case basis.”</p>
<p>busdriver, I’m working on it. Bodysuits are hard to get a hold of. Just don’t get in the same security line with me - the sight of me in a skin-tight catsuit ain’t gonna be pretty :p</p>
</p>