Why does my dad do this?
 

My parents just cleared FLL security...as you know they have BKSX primary. I told them about the family line trick, but it seems that was not an option this morning.

My mom, a cancer survivor, opted out as usual. She claims to have had no problems. My dad, on the other hand, continues to be a member of the sheeple population. He went through the scan, and then when I talked to him about it said "well, everyone is doing it". (To which I offered that if everyone jumped off a bridge, would he?)

I'm sure everyone on here has a family member like this. What can we do to convince them of the lack of safety of these machines? Or are they just lost causes?

Most people don't care about the health risks.

An amazing amount of people still consume aspertame, also known to cause cancer.

They're lost causes. For whatever reason, they've decided that it's perfectly reasonable to put their personal safety into the hands of a collective of GED-bearing knuckle-dragging clerks who're all convinced they're smarter than doctors and represent the vanguard of National Security.

It's a real shame, isn't it. And he can't really use the everyone is doing it excuse since his own wife isn't doing it! I mean at the end of the day, my dad turns 60 this year, so the health risks probably won't go noticed until close to or after the end of his days. Horrible thing to say, I know. I can't believe I'm saying something so depressing about something that the Government says keeps us safe. #Rant

Ask him flat out whether he would feel safe flying if the checkpoints reverted to their pre-TSA state of metal detectors and bag x-rays. If he pulls the 9/11™ card, describe the changes that will prevent another 9/11-style attack from recurring. Explain the financial costs of AIT and that it is actually less effective as a security tool that old-fashioned metal detectors. Explain that AIT slows down the lines, and that by amassing more people before the actual checkpoint, AIT is putting him at a greater risk of someone choosing to attack the actual checkpoint.

If he still fails to understand, then give up.

The sky is falling; the sky is falling

'Cuz your dad (along with me and a few others past our prime) grew up when medical XRays were frequent and at far higher dosages than today's, as children were taken by our parents to be fitted at shoe stores with "Shoe-Scope" fluoroscope XRay machines, and by "current" standards were "radiated" far more than the modern "sensitive" folks would tolerate. Of course, many of us were also "OD"ed on pencillinn and the second generation miracle antibiotics for non-serious and often wrongfully treated illnesses, making us the vectors by which all sorts of infectious agents could mutate to become resistant. Then we ran down the street in the tail plumes of the regular mosquito spraying trucks, dined on fruits and veggies laden with insecticides, and even if not in Viet Nam sure absorbed a spectrum of herbicides near as carcinogenic and dangerous as Agent Orange.

But then, I can recall seriously and liberally "dusting" a small Italian orphanage and its tenants with DDT. In retrospect, it wasn't wise, but then neither was living in a tiny ship's stateroom through which a large lagged steam pipe passed. of course, the "lagging" was packed with asbestos fibers, thumped by every catapult shot into the air I breathed. If I'm going to worry, I guess I'll worry about the risk factor from that exposure. I forgot all the dust from 3 years of life with constant exposure to the dust from lead paint, a practice which on old ships was constant as long as it was light enough to see.

Maybe, at his age and my age, we're simply not too worried that a little more radiation by the TSA is likely to be a threat to our health. For your dad and me (and others), there ain't no do-overs.

Honestly, I see that last paragraph the same way I see a smoker saying 'Well, something's gotta kill me'.

And why do you care? It doesn't affect you or anyone else. If his dad doesn't want to hassle with opt out, why does that affect us?

If you're worried about the health risks, then my opinion is that it's your dad's decision to make. It's his body, after all.

What frustrates me is his answer that "everybody's doing it." The whole conformity and AFS nonsense really bothers me. I wish people cared more about their rights and their relationship with the government.

Well, I did quit smoking 2 packs a day 20 years ago, based on a fairly rational cost/benefit analysis. The same type of analysis for a 2 weeks short of age 73 air traveler provides me with not enough cause for alarm to delay myself and others ample time to board.

It doesn't affect me, but I'm a compassionate human and don't like to see other people unnecessarily or unknowingly potentially harming themselves.

People have to make the choices that are best for them....and for a lot of travelers, it is much more complex than just opting out or walking through a scanner.

I typically opt out of both types of scanners (though I *never* use the term "opt out.") But I have, twice, I think, made a decision (for reasons of my own) to go through a MMW scanner. I expect my decision to be respected -- whatever it is -- and so it's pretty compelling for me to respect the decisions other people make.

In your situation, I respect the decision. I have gone through the MMW once, although I was intending to opt out. This was before it was primary, so I just kinda found myself in there and went with it. However, I consider you an informed passenger and I have no problem is someone is informed and chooses to still take the risk. My problem is my dad's comment that "everyone else is doing it". Seems a bit ignorant, no?

Sadly, you've only recently discovered that your father is a complete idiot.

This may be a new development - senile dementia?

Haha! I needed that laugh! No comment on whether you're right or wrong though!

Hospitals and medical places frequently get their x-ray equipment checked by trained technicians and even then, things can go wrong. At the airport, the backscatter machines are checked like maybe once a year by NON-medical people. Think about how many passengers go through them every day and how often the machines are used. I hope everyone feels safe and reassured by what I just said. It's just a thought. :)

The sad thing is, it doesn't matter who is in charge, I think the machines are here to stay. Thank goodness we can still opt-out in North America.

Today, anyway.

Tomorrow? I wouldn't put any bets on it, given the sheer numbers of people the TSA has managed to "employ" who're more than willing to "just follow orders" so they can obtain a paycheck.

I have no idea of whether he is truly ignorant or whether he is just not interested in explaining his decision to other people. But, "going along to get along" is a valid reason to skip the grope. In the end, it's an untenable choice, anyway, so I can't get worked up one way or the other.

Only to the person(s) "going along" with it.

That's the only person that matters if a violation of one's body will result from not going along.

Or, sadly, maybe your dad would rather hazard the machines than get felt up by another man.

Not true. The more idiots "just go along with it," the more pressure brought to bear on the those who don't give proper obeisance to the thugs in blue.

The problem is you're wrong, because a long term increase in the number of cases of cancer will effect all residents and repeatedly irradiating large numbers of people will likely* result in increased cancer rates. Cancer is an expensive, labor intensive disease to treat (been there, paid those bills) and the U.S. health care system is already straining and costs are skyrocketing.

Trying not to veer too far into OMNI territory, I will just say that the cost of those machines in the long run will be a lot more than just civil liberties lost.


*based on the reports of a number of concerned, qualified scientists and doctors about untrained staff using machines not evaluated by independent agencies for safety and reliability

Sorry, I must disagree that anyone who is uncomfortable with choosing a path that will cause their body to be invaded is an "idiot." Allowing someone to grope you is not something that I can fit into any construct of refusing to give "proper obesiance." I choose to allow it, and I respect the right of others who choose to (try to) avoid it as best they can.

Even for people who don't take the 'anything for safety!!' line, the harm of radiation is invisible, speculative, and in the future, whereas the harm of the humiliating patdown is palpable, certain, and immediate. There's a lot of research on cognitive biases that suggests that people tend to prefer to expose themselves to objectively unreasonable risks (that is, risks of greater harm, even discounted for the low probability of occurrence) in preference to the choosing of certain, smaller harms.

I respect whatever choices people make, as long as they are actively making a choice. That's why I talk to my friends and colleagues about why I opt out. I believe that knowing more about the facts makes for more informed decidion-making; and it's definitely persuaded some of my friends and co-workers to opt out. :)

After watching the TSA in AUS grope EVERY SINGLE PERSON who passed through the MMW scanner because they had sweat on their skin under their shirts, I've come to the conclusion that anyone who chooses the scanner based on the incorrect notion that it means they won't be groped is an idiot.

These people kowtow to the TSA in the hopes they won't be groped, and they're groped anyway.

The only way to avoid being groped by the TSA is simply to avoid any place the TSA is.

Of course, idiots will always reverse their behavior when you tell them that they're idiots. Name-calling always results in the elimination of irrational behavior.

In other words ... "if you don't like it, don't fly".

Okay, let me power down a bit. But just a bit.

Not everyone agrees with me all the time. That doesn't make them idiots, and it doesn't make me an idiot. It means one, or both, of us is mistaken. Honestly mistaken, to be sure, but still mistaken. I need to have the good sense to recognize that my firmly-held, well-reasoned convictions might be wrong, even as I try to persuade them that their convictions are wrong. And, above all else, I shouldn't call them names.

Because, after all, they think I'm the idiot, and I'd want them to treat me with the same courtesy --- even if I don't deserve it.

There's a disturbing number of comments in this thread that are automatically dismissive of those (like the OP's dad) who don't agree with them. Let's discuss, persuade, even argue ... but let's do it with some respect.

Oh, wait ... I forgot ... we're about to enter the "silly season" of politics for the next two months, where everyone who disagrees with me must be called names. Never mind. [sigh]

That isn't what I said.

At this late stage of the TSA's idiocy and games, if one cannot tolerate being groped by one of the TSA's blue-gloved thugs, one will be barred by those self-same thugs from boarding the aircraft.

But you are correct. I should turn it down a notch. They're not idiots.

They're simply inexcusably and deliberately ignorant.

The good news is this: ignorance is curable. Idiocy, not so much.

Do you want the actual answer or the FlyerTalk answer?

The actual answer is that your dad has a different method of risk assessment than you do. He places more faith in the government and assumes that they would not put him through anything unsafe (most media reports, after all, claim that the scanners are safe). He may not be concerned about long term health risks, and he doesn't see himself as guardian of the constitution. Instead, he is more concerned with immediate efficiency and comfort than you are.

The FlyerTalker answer is that he is "ignorant"and/or an "idiot", as others have said.

If he doesn't know what the machine is, then he is ignorant. It doesn't mean he' an idiot. I don't think anybody here says he was.

I did, but I retracted it in favor of "deliberately ignorant."

So how much does he need to know about the machines in order to not be called "ignorant"? He knows that it's a machine that checks for hidden objects. Does he need to know how the software reads the image? Does he need to understand the science behind the radiation?

The machine performs an electronic strip search, has potentially dangerous health effects, is questionable in it's security effectiveness.

There. No longer completely ignorant.

You left out "unexamined/uncertified by the FDA, and operated by persons untrained/uncertified/uneducated in the operation of devices utilizing ionizing radiation."

So is obesity, are you suggesting a ban on food too?

Hurry, ban cigarettes, alcohol and fast food too! Nobody should have any choice anymore in things that affect their health.

Ironic that your statement is exactly how the TSA justifies using their body scanners...

To be clear, I opt out of using them. It just becomes a slippery slope.

Not at all.

If the government mandated that people smoke, the argument would be similar.

However, since the body scanners are mandated while smoking/eating fried food/other generally unhealthy things are choices made by the people, it doesn't swing.