The government is mandating that we fly????

In my case, the decision has been pretty simple. Nothing I've read here or elsewhere, most of wildly speculative and approaching the realm of fantasy (and so often emotionally predicated by legitimate concerns over the presence, procedures and actions of the TSA, rather than sound analysis of any potentially harmful effects of the machines), serves to convince me that my exposure by infrequent trips through the scanners provides RADHAZ at far lower levels than countless other radiation exposures in my childhood and adult life.

Nor does the prospect of on screen "nekkidness" under the eyes of the cannon fodder who seem to make up much of the TSA staff cause me to opt for a "grope'.

It seems only yesterday, we were confronted by the prospect that even in the most modern a/c, high altitude flights represented a potential RADHAZ. Then there was the clamor over cell phones. In the innocent but halcyon days of my youth, Strontium 90 in our milk was sure to destroy us.

For those of sincere conviction otherwise, the "grope" may not be a welcome choice, but then flying is a convenience increasingly burdened by inconvenience. Once comfortable, and aside from the comforts of the front cabins, increasingly uncomfortable, there remain moments in which it is the optimal alternative.

For what it's worth, I got to witness my mom opt out while my dad did his thing through the MMW. He had to get the post scan rub down and I texted him to which he replied that he may reconsider things now. Too late in my eyes, but I'll take it!

:confused:

What is it you are trying to say?

You forgot the [/sarc] at the end of your post.

Neither food nor alcohol in moderation have proven harmful. So suggesting a ban on food to cure obesity is just plain stupid and shows the worth of your comments, and bringing up tobacco is so far OT that it doesn't deserve a response.

Radiation has been proven to cause cancer, is that too difficult to understand? Why it causes cancer is not 100% understood, could be dosage, could be genetic susceptibility, could be holes in the ozone for all science can prove today. The TSA can not prove that their machines do not increase the risk of cancer to the general population, and in fact seem to expect us all to just take their word for it without any data to back up their claims.

You are free to enter their devices as often as you like, but I won't be joining you.

Sorry. I left out the a word or two in the post. I'll just keep accepting the scan, until I see or am directed to credible evidence of substantial hazard created by doing so.

No, the government maintains that they have the authority to exceed the Fourth Amendment by mandating you be scanned or groped whenever and wherever they choose.

The airport is merely one example. Then there are the train stations, the interstates, the bus stations, the subways, and the cruise ship terminals.

I'll pre-emptively answer your next straw-man - no, the government doesn't mandate that you ever leave your house, either. Unless they're doing mandatory evacuations, anyway.

Even if the FDA's projected "one in four hundred million people will get cancer as a result of the body scanners" number is true and not higher, that means you're still "substantially" more likely to get cancer from a TSA scanner than be affected in any way by an actual terrorist event.

If you read my other posts, I also opt out of the devices.

I suppose you have given up the use of your cell phone now that it is proven that they give off radiation and cell phone manufacturers cannot prove their devices do not increase the risk of cancer?

I have yet to see irrefutable proof that they cause it either.

Any type of light - IR, microwave, visible light, etc, is radiation. Not all of it is ionizing and unhealthy. In fact, you are the equivalent of a 900W infrared light bulb and put out much more radiation of shorter wavelength than any cell phone. I'll continue to take my chances using cell phones.

Whether or not the NoS is safe is up for interpretation as the government has not been honest about it. TSA often cites Johns Hopkins' testing, but then JHU says that TSA didn't give them an actual unit that would be deployed - just something similar. TSA also hasn't allowed independent third party review to see if they're safe, nor will it provide any information as to how often the devices are calibrated and tested to ensure they're working correctly and putting out the stated amount of radiation.

"We're the government, trust us" doesn't fly when the organization has been repeatedly shown to be dishonest.

That doesn't even factor in the privacy and 4th amendment concerns for using these machines. In my case, I'm less concerned about the health than I am about a government abusing its power and freedoms of its citizens. Because I can is the reason I give when asked why I opt out. I don't care about the "safety" or "privacy enhancements" they "implemented" to mitigate those issues. Until they're validated by an independent third party, I'm not trusting them.

Well, I suppose that the members and extended families of the US diplomatic mission to Libya might argue with your risk/benefit analysis....

What airplane did that happen on???

Actually, you are way off. About 2,000 people died in the September 11 attacks, out of a US population of 300 million. Even if you assume that that was the only terrorist attack of the century, the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are far higher than 1 in 400 million.

Odds of dying that day in a terrorist attack were 1 in 100,000. Still significantly lower than driving a car, having a heart attack, or dying of cancer.

If you factor that with terrorism over the years and count it as a one off, your chances are even lower.

I can live with those odds.

That is your choice, but by the time they find the evidence of substantial hazard, it will be too late. Remember that there is no foolproof way to find out whether the scanners are safe until they have been used on a large number of people for several years. Even pharmaceutical companies, which are required to do extensive clinical trials for years on hundreds of patients before marketing a new drug, occasionally discover that a compound is unsafe and have to recall it and face lawsuits.