RadioGirl

Way too low. 1/100000 of a cell phone - even if it overtransmits by a factor of 100, that's still 1/1000 of a cell phone. Keyless entry key fobs are cheap; no one worries that the key fob in their pocket is suddenly going to increase its transmit power enough to barbecue their leg. No one worries that the WiFi at Starbucks is going to start cooking customers.

Even if a MMW scanner somehow malfunctioned and put out a few hundred Watts, you would FEEL the warmth on the skin before any permanent damage would be done. Cooking with a microwave oven heats the object. It's not like you could get cooked without knowing it...

X-rays, OTOH: Just say no.

deirdre

Thanks for the link. I personally opt out for a mix of health and privacy (and annoyance) reasons, but I hadn't done as much reading on the MMWs.

lostinthewash

TPA Term E. i have been sitting in the restaurant watching the checkpoint for about an hour and my opt out was only one of three that i've seen so far. No barking, no yelling OPT OUT, and TSO doing the pat down made me listen to her whole spiel before she started the patdown. Patdown had no resistance and no mammary rub.

Lots of people willing to "assume the position"

RadioGirl

No problem. I would opt out of MMW on the grounds of (in this order) 4th amendment "reasonableness", risk of losing sight of my belongings, risk of getting groped anyway, privacy (lessened by the ATR technology), speed, and just because I think the machines are a ridiculously expensive and wrong solution to the problem. The one thing that wouldn't worry me about MMW is the health issue; I am acutely aware of how much more radio-frequency energy we're all exposed to every day. For backscatter x-ray, all of the above PLUS health concerns.

Michael El

Opted-out at PHX T4 A gates today. Clerk was blocking the WTMD and directing everyone into the cancer box. I attempted to go in the WTMD, but no dice as the clerk pointed me to the cancer box. I loudly said OPT OUT and he told me to stand next to the cancer box but I didn't move and then he said stand where ever you want. I did my best to block the path to the cancer box, but the sheeple slipped past me.

I told the clerk I wanted to be more than 5 feet away from the back scatter and told him he should too as it is believed that radiation emits from it. He looked very confused. I told him the Europeans stopped using the back scatters because of health concerns and the MWW because they don't work. I'm not going to say the look on his face was one of stupidity, but he was definitely confused by what I had told him.

A two-striper showed up after about a minute for my groping. He asked if I had "done" this before and I smiled and said "always." No resistance met. LMAO

electra

I opted-out, as always, at LAX (jetblue) at beginning of week, and San Juan, PR at the other end. The LAX agent was a surly and brusque woman, the PR agent pleasant and amused by my opting-out, and wanting to know why I would put myself through this voluntarily.

The worst aspects of the whole ordeal is a) watching the obedient and compliant sheeple stream through without a second thought, and b) my boyfriend being one of the sheeple. And then he gets cranky when it takes me a long time to get through.

Interesting point: nearly everyone going through the Nude-o-scan ended up getting a pat down as well, including my boyfriend. He went through with his phone (despite being a seasoned traveler).

I would say I opt-out as a protest statement against the utter, pointless, "follow the money" stupidity of this rigamarol. But not sure if anyone pays attention or gives a damn.

Fredd

I empathize. When we last opted out (described here), the very courteous employee asked me at the end why I had, and I replied "Because I still can." It was my impression that he and his senior fellow employee got my point, unlike a number of TSA employees I've encountered.

Why this possibly futile gesture? Read the final lines of Auden's classic poem, The Unknown Citizen:

bdschobel

You need a new boyfriend!

Bruce

electra

I will have to read the poem, and yes, I do think that there is a certain inevitable momentum to the TSA and their mis-directed powers, but I will continue to push back as much as I possibly can, while I can. And I will continue to try and get the people in my life to understand why they should care about this stuff.

EasternTraveler

I really don't want to debate this with you. But I can see your degree and raise you two. I could go on and spout all sorts of facts and reference scientific sources which I would consider valid. You did not post a single link that was to a reliable source. No wikipedia is not to be trusted. You could have written that and I could have modified it. Wikipedia is not facts. No you can't depend on flyertalk either, that is just we people spouting our thoughts. Not all are factual or reliable. You see "if you read it on the internet it must be true" even applies to you and I.

I used a bit of hyperbole and for good reason. Radiation is radiation and to say that any device does not emit radiation is an error. There are different types of radiation and all cause damage. That damage is increased based on frequency, time and power. You have not specified the frequency or the power of the units. Also cellphones are not 2GHZ.

I am sure we can agree on many things. But you would have to know when my statements are hyperbole or data facts.

nachtnebel

she presented numbers. those of of who care or have the capability could look further and say thumbs up or thumbs down on what she posted. so far, you have posted nothing quantitative nor provided any analysis up for debate. so, I agree with you, you are not debating this, as you've presented nothing for consideration. where are *your* links?

Danger Man

I don't see any links to any hard numbers either. Not from a reliable source anyway. I understand the hyperbole. ET is saying, don't minimize any facet of the dangers of any of the technology. Whether you opt out for constitutional grounds, or privacy reasons or health reasons. The choice is yours. To minimize anything is why there are so many sheeple. To stop the TSA, would require a LOT more opt outs.

The jury is still out on health risks and all is still assuming we are being told the truth on anything. I was told Agent Orange was totally safe. How did that turn out for us. I remember being told PCB were safe and even asbestos. This list is endlessly and some day in the not so distant future, we are going to wake up to this as well.

That is my opinion and I am sticking to it. Since no personal attacks are allowed on here. I am not naming anyone in a negative way, like the last poster and will not rebut this at any point from this posting. Have a wonderful day and stay safe (NO TSA)

RadioGirl

You really don't want to debate this with me. Why would you assume that I only have one degree? Mine are in electrical engineering, specializing in radiocommunications, and I've spent twenty years in spectrum management activities.

Go ahead and quote "all sorts of facts and reference scientific sources." Feel free to use big words.
I actually posted links to my previous posts in Flyertalk. The first one was this post: LINK1 which, had you followed it, had a link to the FCC website. Here it is all spelled out for you:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/procee...me=da%2004-373

Are you claiming that the FCC is not "a reliable source" when it comes to radiofrequency spectrum?

You then have to click on some links on the FCC page and you will find that (as I summarized in this post) the frequency band of the MMW scanner is 24.25 - 30 GHz and the power is limited so that "peak emissions cannot exceed 0 dBm" (at 4.5 meters from the antenna mast). In the post above I also provided my calculations that linked that level to the TSA claim of ~1/100000 of a cell phone.

I did not post a single link to wikipedia in any of this discussion; in fact, I disputed the links from wikipedia used by another poster.
Sound is radiation. Sound at a sufficient power will cause immediate, traumatic damage; a few moments exposure can rupture your eardrums. But most of us are exposed to sound all day long at significantly lower levels and there is no damage as a result. Light is radiation. Staring directly into a powerful light will cause immediate, traumatic damage to your retina. But most of us are exposed to lower levels of light all day long without any appreciable damage. In the same way, high-power radiofrequency energy (standing too near a television tower, putting a kitten in the microwave) will cause immediate, traumatic damage. But we are exposed to lower levels of radiofrequency energy all day long, from television and radio station transmitters, cell phone towers, WiFi, remote controls, and thousands of other things people don't even know about, without any damage. Immediate, traumatic damage from high-powered radio transmitters is due to thermal heating of tissue and burning; at levels lower than that which causes thermal heating, there is no mechanism for damage. And like other thermal effects, it is not cumulative. I might have a warm bath every evening, but it doesn't add up to the effect of getting into boiling water.

The health effects of x-rays, however, are cumulative, as they directly affect DNA. Yeah, I'm just a random person on the internet, so here's the FCC again (pdf warning) ; I hope that's authoritative enough:
Not quite. High enough power of anything will cause damage. Lower power at radio frequencies, even for long periods of time, will not. Long time exposures at x-ray frequencies is likely to cause damage. Or so the FCC says, see above.
No, the manufacturer has specified the frequency and power in filings to the FCC, as I linked above (okay, here it is again: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/procee...me=da%2004-373) I merely quoted it. The manufacturer could've lied to the FCC but that would be pretty counterproductive.
Funny, I had dinner this week with many of the people who wrote the 3G standard. If 3G (third generation) cell phones are not 2 GHz, those carriers in Germany and the UK and elsewhere who spent billions buying spectrum at 2 GHz (pdf warning) are going to be really, really mad. As will the American companies who paid $21 million for, according to the FCC, 1.71 - 1.755 and 2.11 - 2.155 GHz:
Also here (pdf again): http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/aws...wsbandplan.pdf

Or, for reliable sources, how about the International Telecommunication Union, a specialized agency of the United Nations, which, among other things, sets international framework for radio spectrum usage. LINK

Hyperbole isn't the same as "just making stuff up" and yeah, maybe you can point out what actual data facts you've provided.

Sorry, there are MANY MANY good reasons to oppose the MMW scanners, starting with the 4th amendment (which should be sufficient reason in itself) and going on to the ineffectiveness, the cost, the risk for having your things stolen, and the unnecessary embarrassment it causes for people with innocuous medical devices. But scare-mongering about non-existent health risks just makes the community look foolish.

InkUnderNails

You are in my area of expertise.

Sound is not "radiation." It is radiated pressure waves, usually air. It can be in water (the reason we hear sounds in the pool), in solids (the reason we listen for noises in our engine with a long screwdriver, or some of us do), or any media. It is the reason that we can not hear in a vacuum, there is no medium in which the waves can propagate. The higher the pressure (louder the noise) the greater the damage. It is the reason the eardrums rupture. It is a mechanical phenomena, not a RF one.


Correct.

Bungnoid

What you define as "radiation" seems to be limited to electromagnetic radiation only, but that is not the only kind of "radiation" strictly speaking.