|
DCA SkyPriority / full body scanner
Has anyone traveled through DCA recently using the SkyPriority lane who can share their experience with the new full-body scanner? I haven't flown out of DCA since the end of May but I'll be departing weekly over the next few months...I'd prefer to use the old-fashioned screening method until TPTB can figure yay or nay on safety, science, etc.
See also: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...nners-dca.html in the safety/security forum. |
Originally Posted by iamhereandthere
(Post 14362796)
Has anyone traveled through DCA recently using the SkyPriority lane who can share their experience with the new full-body scanner? I haven't flown out of DCA since the end of May but I'll be departing weekly over the next few months...I'd prefer to use the old-fashioned screening method until TPTB can figure yay or nay on safety, science, etc.
See also: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...nners-dca.html in the safety/security forum. |
Originally Posted by iamhereandthere
(Post 14362796)
I'd prefer to use the old-fashioned screening method until TPTB can figure yay or nay on safety, science, etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...r-thought.html |
Originally Posted by dlfrflyer
(Post 14363761)
I was there Friday -- the line was taking so long with the scanner, after showing the TSA agent my drivers license, I went to a different line -- you can easily do that too if you prefer not to do the scanner.
|
Weird security procedure to allow people to predict and avoid the machine that provides a more thorough inspection.
|
FWIW, El Paso has only the body scanner. You can have either the radiation or "alternate" search.
To answer the experience question, you stand facing one panel, with another panel behind you, you stand with feet shoulder width apart, hands over your head, thumbs touching. Your pockets must be competely empty (even of non metal items).....and of course because the US is Sooooooooooo :rolleyes: advanced, you must still take off your shoes. Dave |
I do not like the idea of being away from my wallet, even for a moment. This is a total farce.
|
Originally Posted by nfg05
(Post 14363833)
Weird security procedure to allow people to predict and avoid the machine that provides a more thorough inspection.
|
Originally Posted by dlfrflyer
(Post 14363761)
I was there Friday -- the line was taking so long with the scanner, after showing the TSA agent my drivers license, I went to a different line -- you can easily do that too if you prefer not to do the scanner.
Does this make the whole SkyPriority line slower than the regular line? That would really piss me off...it's nice to always have a quick line when DCA is busy. Wonder what will happen when Clear comes back to DCA...their line was essentially that end part where SkyPriority goes. What a waste of resources it would be to make registered travelers use the fully body scanner...clearly the highest-risk group, right? Ugh. I will definitely not be going through the scanner until they figure out ... the deal is w/safety, etc. Thanks for the info...I hope I just have to adjust my schedule accordingly... |
If everyone opts for "alternate" (which I advise everyone I know), the machines will be useless and removed.
Do not walk into one of these machines. -=tg=- |
I noticed when I got in last night they have a second scanner up at the opposite end, so I'm guessing it won't be too long before all lanes are using them.
|
Originally Posted by Moebius01
(Post 14447193)
I noticed when I got in last night they have a second scanner up at the opposite end, so I'm guessing it won't be too long before all lanes are using them.
|
I went through mid-day last Tuesday. Both lines (Skypriority and regular) were funneled to seperate luggage x-ray stations, but then everyone from both lines went into a single line for screening. If you happened to get there when the full-body scanner was available, you were sent there. If it was occupied, you went through the regular metal detector. Obviously, with both lines funneling into one place, they both backed up quickly. Finally, they opened an additional screening station at the far left end and used that to clear out the regular security line. The elite line continued to funnel to the scanner as above.
|
I was just at DCA yesterday. I chose the alternate like I usually do. I agree - if everyone just chooses the alternate, the machines will be useless.
I also agree, sometimes the regular line works better. |
Originally Posted by hockeystl
(Post 14363800)
You mean you don't want to be subjected to potentially 20x the radiation they initially claimed was emitted from these machines?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...r-thought.html I get enough scatter at work, I don't want to subject myself to even more before stepping on a plane. |
Priority lines at BOS funnel to 2 lines, one with full-body scanner and one with traditional. However, they feed everyone through full-body from both lines except when it backs up.
I always refuse full-body ("opt out") and instead endure a fairly thorough groping. My reason isn't about privacy or radiation, but rather that going through the scanner requires that you can't see your property on the belt at all times - in fact there is an uncomfortably long time where it is out of sight. Not safe given the proclivity of things walking away from there. |
Originally Posted by andymo99
(Post 14448429)
I always refuse full-body ("opt out") and instead endure a fairly thorough groping. My reason isn't about privacy or radiation, but rather that going through the scanner requires that you can't see your property on the belt at all times - in fact there is an uncomfortably long time where it is out of sight. Not safe given the proclivity of things walking away from there.
I'd be happier if they'd just bring the pre-cleared thing back. I didn't really need it last time it was around, but would definitely take advantage of it now. |
Friday afternoon shuttle, not using the scanner in the Sky Priority line.
With regard to not being able to see your property- I hadn't considered that. The one time I was sent to the full body scanner, I kept my wallet on me as I always do, but they made me give it to them and they went through my wallet and gave it back. They should have a video screen so that we can watch our bags while we go through the machine. |
Originally Posted by sany2
(Post 14448834)
Friday afternoon shuttle, not using the scanner in the Sky Priority line.
With regard to not being able to see your property- I hadn't considered that. The one time I was sent to the full body scanner, I kept my wallet on me as I always do, but they made me give it to them and they went through my wallet and gave it back. They should have a video screen so that we can watch our bags while we go through the machine. |
I've noticed now that a couple months have passed that they've gotten a pretty decent rhythm with the scanners now (usually). I've been nudie-scanned 3 or 4 times now and while it obviously takes longer than just the metal detector, it wasn't by much.
|
When I fly out of DCA on Monday mornings, they use the scanner but also have the standard metal detector for the same line. If someone is being scanned, they simply have people use the regular machine until the scanner is clear. The first time they implemented it at DCA the line took FOREVER. Doesn't seem so bad now.
|
i am very passionate about refusing to do this.
i personally feel it is an invasion of privacy and as many others have mentioned dangerous with the radiation levels that it exposes you to. you can opt out of it and i hope that most people do, in an effort to possibly get these things removed. it will slowly be forced on us the same way that removing our shoes was... previously you could 'opt out' of that and now there is no way you will be getting through security without taking them off. just my .02cents |
Originally Posted by nfg05
(Post 14363833)
Weird security procedure to allow people to predict and avoid the machine that provides a more thorough inspection.
|
The groping does seem over the top and a real violation for those who opt out of the body scanner thingy.
I'll opt out as well, but then I enjoy a nice session of inappropriate touching by people I don't know. :( And...what happens when a parent wants a child to opt out? I shudder to think, seriously. Good luck to all of us. |
Originally Posted by andrew10412
(Post 14656750)
and as many others have mentioned dangerous with the radiation levels that it exposes you to.
The HPS, Health Physics Society, (a group of extremely smart and passionate scientists who take their work very seriously) estimated the dose from a single WBS to be about 0.005 millirems. To put that in perspective, the HPS has also calculated dose to air travelers during solar minimums is about 0.4 millirem per hour of flight (at 30,000 ft, higher altitude would be a larger number). So, if the dose received during an WBS is unacceptable to you, then you should also not be going on any flights longer than 45 seconds at 30,000 ft, in which time you would receive 0.005 millirem. Ref: http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q444.html http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8440.html
Originally Posted by hockeystl
(Post 14363800)
You mean you don't want to be subjected to potentially 20x the radiation they initially claimed was emitted from these machines?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...r-thought.html Let's say they are right, and despite the sensationalist reporting and potential erorr in their measurements, it is 20x the above estimate. This means that you are getting as much radiation as you receive on a 15 minute flight at 30,000 ft.
Originally Posted by pokeable
(Post 14448103)
Nope. S'why I will opt out.
I get enough scatter at work, I don't want to subject myself to even more before stepping on a plane. /rant If people want to debate privacy or public safety concerns that is respectable, but please don't start with all the radiation fear mongering. |
Originally Posted by nfg05
(Post 14363833)
Weird security procedure to allow people to predict and avoid the machine that provides a more thorough inspection.
You've got to be kidding, right? |
And you still have to take off your shoes... correct?
Eight years to built the A-bomb. Nine years to put a man on the moon. Yet... after 9 years, we are still walking barefoot through airports. Something that would not be permitted in a health care setting... or a restaurant.:confused::rolleyes: |
I used the scanner at YUL in March. Guess it's a good thing I don't plan on having kids!
(For the record, that was the only time I've used it an I plan to avoid it from now on). |
Originally Posted by johnm1019
(Post 14657461)
This is complete nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
The HPS, Health Physics Society, (a group of extremely smart and passionate scientists who take their work very seriously) estimated the dose from a single WBS to be about 0.005 millirems. To put that in perspective, the HPS has also calculated dose to air travelers during solar minimums is about 0.4 millirem per hour of flight (at 30,000 ft, higher altitude would be a larger number). So, if the dose received during an WBS is unacceptable to you, then you should also not be going on any flights longer than 45 seconds at 30,000 ft, in which time you would receive 0.005 millirem. Ref: http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q444.html http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8440.html They don't state what original dose estimates they are referring too but I'll ignore that. Let's say they are right, and despite the sensationalist reporting and potential erorr in their measurements, it is 20x the above estimate. This means that you are getting as much radiation as you receive on a 15 minute flight at 30,000 ft. Then you should also stop eating banana's, which provide about 0.01 mrem for the "average" banana. (Bananas contain naturally radioactive potassium) /rant If people want to debate privacy or public safety concerns that is respectable, but please don't start with all the radiation fear mongering. I don’t know what it does to my body and to be honest find it unnecessary. Cell phones are also “safe” however what they emit can pop a kernel of popcorn (those who don’t believe, youtube it.) How many millirems do you think are in that? |
Originally Posted by StayingHomeIsBetter
(Post 14658744)
And you still have to take off your shoes... correct?
Eight years to built the A-bomb. Nine years to put a man on the moon. Yet... after 9 years, we are still walking barefoot through airports. Something that would not be permitted in a health care setting... or a restaurant.:confused::rolleyes: But people just accept it. They say they only travel a couple of times a year, and yeah it's a nuisance, but it's tolerable if it keeps us safe. But it doesn't keep us safe. Just because they tell us it keeps us safe doesn't mean it actually is. |
Originally Posted by andrew10412
(Post 14661631)
Cell phones are also “safe” however what they emit can pop a kernel of popcorn (those who don’t believe, youtube it.) How many millirems do you think are in that?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tec...ne.popcorn.cnn http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp There are many reasons to object to the full body scanners. Concern about unsafe radiation is not one of them. |
Originally Posted by MS02113
(Post 14661864)
Um, that's a well documented internet hoax.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tec...ne.popcorn.cnn http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp There are many reasons to object to the full body scanners. Concern about unsafe radiation is not one of them. Unsafe radiation is very much a valid concern: Also note that TSA refuses to release test data on the scanners, claiming that it is SSI. This refusal is the subject of an FOIA lawsuit by EPIC. |
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 14661997)
Unsafe radiation is very much a valid concern:
|
Originally Posted by bennos
(Post 14663480)
This is a great read, written by actual PhDs in relevant fields. Anyone dismissing potential impacts of these scanners without reading this document or who is not similarly credentialed has (IMHO) no standing in this argument.
|
Originally Posted by hockeystl
(Post 14363800)
You mean you don't want to be subjected to potentially 20x the radiation they initially claimed was emitted from these machines?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...r-thought.html The TSA swore up and down that the machines had no capability of storing images. Total lie, their own requirements actually state the need for the option of storing images. After this came out they now say that the machines only store images when in testing mode, and that the airport machines are never used in that mode. Only a matter of time before something happens and we find thousands of pictures of people floating around the internet. Also, these things are much slower than the metal detectors. |
Originally Posted by Moebius01
(Post 14663533)
While it definitely bears further study, even they admit in their letter that the concerns are speculative. I would say at this stage, while cause for question, I wouldn't be going out of my way to avoid the scanners (ymmv). In my last 7 weeks leaving DCA, I've only been nudie-scanned twice.
Thank you, but my wife & I will NOT be the guinea pigs.
Originally Posted by Nocturnal
(Post 14663538)
They have also lied about these things before.
The TSA swore up and down that the machines had no capability of storing images. Total lie, their own requirements actually state the need for the option of storing images. After this came out they now say that the machines only store images when in testing mode, and that the airport machines are never used in that mode. Only a matter of time before something happens and we find thousands of pictures of people floating around the internet. Also, these things are much slower than the metal detectors. Sooner or later (probably sooner) I'm sure your prediction will come true. The U.S. Marshals Service has already admitted to saving ~ 32,000 nudie scans of Americans at a courthouse checkpoint. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:44 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.