NPR: 23% Would Refuse Scanners
 

There's an interesting NPR/Thomson Reuters Health Poll that says Americans consider the security check to be a bigger health concern than flights. In fact

This provides insight to the sluggishness of air travel growth and the recent disconnect between economic growth and air travel growth. Although the vast majority of travelers do use the scanners, the vast majority of those who refuse are simply not traveling. Thus, the TSA's stats showing a miniscule number of opt-outs do not support assertions of acceptance of the scanners.

I would throw into this number those (such as many of us) who self-opt out be choosing a line with only a metal detector. If I pick the west main Dulles checkpoint as an example, I don't think I'm too far off by asserting that about 50% of people voluntarily line up in the metal detector lines and 50% line up in the Cancer Box lines. So, if I apply the 23% figure to the 50% who line up in the Cancer Box lines and add it to the 50% who have already opted out by going through the metal detector lines, I will assert that ~62% of passengers at Dulles refuse to go through the Cancer Boxes.

Of course, this number needs to be increased by people who have stopped flying, use surface transportation, or have switched to an airport(s) uncontaminated by Cancer Boxes.

What they say in a telephone poll and what they do once they are in line are two totally different things. I've never seen anywhere near that amount of people opting out of a scan. The poll was based on results from 3,000 americians, not 3,000 americians who actually fly.

While it's an interesting number, I think the results would matter more if it was of people who fly or are standing in line.

It's an interesting number because it represents a pool of potential flyers, including once-in-a-blue moon flyers. A fair amount of traffic comes from this pool, one-timers, or infrequent flyers. This could represent numbers of people who won't fly now. They are total-opt outs; you'd never see them at the airports. Declining passenger numbers in excess of declining economic stats indicate that this is indeed happening.

There still appears to be quite a few people (alluded to above) that have opted out of flying altogether due to the TSA's overreach on screening. Count me as one of them. When even closely practical, I will drive instead of fly - and have been successful in a full opt out for quite some time in over 21k miles over the road last year. (Think the airlines would have liked some of that money spent on my travels?)

To only poll those that fly provides a false number as well - in general, they have already decided that it is (somewhat?) acceptable. Or, perhaps, they have resigned themselves to the fact that, unlike for me, alternate forms of transportation were not available for their travel plans.

Eventually, if you only poll those that fly, you'll end up with near 100% acceptability of screening methods as only those who accept it will fly...

Enjoy it while you can before the TSA decide to spread their tentacles to the roads....

No kidding... not sure what I'll end up doing then... start using the backroads?

You betcha booties it's happening. I'm one of 'em.

Sure, but weigh the unknown number of on-strike flyers against the number of survey respondents who talk a good game on the phone to an NPR pollster, but cave (lose the courage of their convictions) when they're running late for a flight or find themselves in the wrong line, and the study is pretty much meaningless. An awful lot of loud anti-scanner types can't be trusted to walk the walk.

bolding mine.
since the numbers are unknown, I could regard this as a zero (0) as well as anything significant, correct? I'm not willing to throw away the survey quoted by OP on the basis of your hypothesis backed up by no numbers at all, or ones that you admit are not known in any way, shape or form.

My family goes to extra expense (fare + time) to travel by train on a regular basis, including college kids traveling. We're done with air travel. I myself would be up in Seattle by air in 10 days in a heartbeat for an occasion I'd like to attend. But I will not travel by air now. My airport now has MMW and I just don't want to put up with that nonsense. If I can't go by train (less likely due to time constraints) I'll just not go. I've seen the number of cars on the AmTrak trains increase and the AmTrak fares increase a LOT over this past year, accelerating in the past 7 months. so people are opting out of travelling altogether or are traveling by train or other means.

I believe TSA has scr*wed the pooch, and the numbers (total pax, various satisfaction surveys such as that posted by OP) will continue slide, showing the negative impact of TSA scope and grope routine since October 2010. Just look at the airline industry numbers over the past quarter. Margins are getting hammered.

I would like to know the opt-out rate in Canada where, if you're selected, CATSA is required to disclose to you the nature of the machine and your ability to select a patdown as an alternative to the MMW.

I imagine the real opt-out rate would increase dramatically if the TSA were required to give each passenger selected a similar talk. I believe this would certainly be the case if lines such as "your body will be covered with a low dose of x-ray radiation during the scan, which..." were included in the disclaimer.

Only once - and this was in passing - have I heard a TSO mention to a passenger that the NoS is optional. This was in Boston in early 2010. This was before the masses had heard about the NoS and before the aggressive patdowns had started, even as pilot programs in BOS and LAS.

Oh don't worry about that, I'm sure the TSA will find some way to get thier tentacles around AmTrak pretty soon.

Not while O'Connor is chief at AmTrak. He is however, getting old. Also, it would be too expensive to force airport-like sterile areas at amtrak station, and there won't be budget allowed for it. There might be marginally more VIPR walk-thrus if congress increases the number of VIPR teams. That would be it.

If they were smart, they'd train and arm certain personnel on the trains, and continue with the bomb sniffing dogs occasionally. The main threats are external along the umpteen thousands of miles of track. As opposed to aircraft, there is quite a different set of threat vectors for land targets like trains.

This is assuming the TSA is really interested in effective security. We all know that it's a welfare program and also a way to condition the population into accepting a police state.

yes, I suppose there *is* that aspect of it. Plus the CYA factor. They want to be able to point to all the stuff they are doing in the event of a successful terrorist attack.