goalie

Yes

But seriously...

Male
52
Haven't had the pleasure to opt out yet but will each and every time I am "SSSSelected"

txboris

Female, mid 50s. I've pretty much had it with the gross violations of our civil liberties and the NoS was the last straw. An unpleasant opt out experience in LAX just hardened my resolve. I strategically avoid NoS where possible and if that fails, opt out. If TSA, or other passengers, don't like it, F**** 'em.

jbcarioca

Male 65. I don't opt out but I do avoid the US as much as possible since the TSA. I resign myself to intrusion and offense. A number of my family and colleagues have entirely stopped US travel. By now the US should have noticed:
1) Fewer people choosing the US for education because of visa hassles;
2) Fewer international conventions due to the same;
3) Less tourist travel and international transfers due to TSA

All of those are not absolutes but the market share drops have been reported fairly frequently. The market shares should be rising due to the very cheap $. The US is certainly damaging its' future by alienating so many people with these silly policies. It's very irritating to me, and I'm an American.

Italy98

Male, retired or trying to be, however, Mrs. Italy has other ideas . . . and I always opt-out. As others have stated, I don't trust the TSA nor the machines, and I do not believe the use of the scanners is legal.

Fornebufox

Female, 60. I've managed to avoid the NoS so far, but will certainly opt out.

I feel very strongly about minimizing radiation exposure: my father designed radiation detection devices for DOD. Later in his career he worked for FEMA, taking part in "exercises", simulations of post nuclear attack conditions. He died at age 67--of the same cancer as three others in his lab. This is the short version but I can add detail for the benefit of the patdown screener.

There is the "unreasonable searches" issue as well but if asked for a reason this is the one I'd give. I'd also point out the risk to the TSOs working the machine. For a mammogram or dental x-ray the tech swathes most of my body in lead and then LEAVES THE ROOM. What is casual exposure doing to these people?

N965VJ

The screening clerk does not need to know why you are opting-out.

Fornebufox

There have been instances of TSA personnel making a big deal of asking for a reason.

I'd rather answer "because I can", but if I can take the occasion to plant doubt in the mind of the screener it becomes a teaching moment....

bluebird09

+1

This is just what I meant. I once was in a language course where over 15 stewardesses participated as well. Many of them already had cancer or were wondering why so much pilotes and stewardesses have cancer. They stated their personal impression: by the age of 45, 50% would have cancer .
So even without the scans, for the employees, there is already a risk. But no airline does overtly communicate this because flying is so chic and beeing a stewardess as well

IrishDoesntFlyNow

There's undoubtedly a higher rate of cancer among flight attendants, but 50% of all flight attendants is a very high estimate. One study did find a 50% increased risk of certain kinds of cancer for flight attendants over the risk of general population, but that isn't the same as 50% of all flight attendants.

That said, however, even an as-yet-unquantified increased occupational risk of cancer is certainly yet another very strong reason to limit one's exposure to unnecessary ionizing radiation.

~~ Irish

doober

I just spent some time looking at studies re: pilots and FAs and cancer rates. It is interesting to note the certain types of leukemias that are influenced by ionizing radiation do show a definite increase among that group of individuals. I would think their unions would be up-in-arms over WBI because of this, as should other groups of individuals.

N965VJ

At present, the Airline Pilots Association is conducting dosimetry studies for its membership and NIOSH is engaged in a study of reproductive disorders among flight attendants. Several studies have already been published; some show an increase in various malignancies among crew members while others show no increased risk. The following references all present data showing an increase in malignancies among flight crew members with the exception of the second British Airways paper which, as discussed above, reevaluates data published in the earlier reference. These papers can be obtained through your local library.
References:

1. Pukkala E, Auvinen A, Wahlberg, G. Incidence of cancer among Finnish airline cabin attendants, 1967-1992. British Medical Journal 311:649-652; 1995.

2. Lynge E, Thygesen L. Occupational cancer in Denmark. Cancer incidence in the 1970 census population. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 16 (Sup 2):3-35; 1990.

3. Band PR, Nhu DL, Fang R, Deschamps M, Coldman AJ, Gallagher RP, Moody J. Cohort study of Air Canada pilots: Mortality, cancer incidence, and leukemia risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 143(2):137-143; 1996.

4. Grayson JK, Lyons TJ. Cancer incidence in United States Air Force aircrews 1975-1989. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 67(2):101-104; 1996.

5. Vagero D, Swerdlow AJ, Beral V. Occupation and malignant melanoma: A study based on cancer registration data in England and Wales and in Sweden. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 47(5):317-324; 1990.

6. Irvine D, Davies DM. The mortality of British Airways pilots, 1966-1989: A proportional mortality study. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 63:276-279; 1992.

7. Irvine D, Davies DM. British Airways flightdeck mortality study, 1950-1992. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 70:548-55; 1999.

8. Gundestrup M, Storm HH. Radiation induced acute myeloid leukaemias and other cancers in commercial jet cockpit crew: A population based cohort study. Lancet 354:2029-2031; 11 Dec 1999.

9. Reynolds P, Cone J, Layefsky M, Goldberg D, Hurley S. Cancer incidence in California flight attendants. California Department of Health. In Press.

l etoile

I'm also female and always opt out (and won't visit countries that don't have that as an option). I don't care in the least about a nude image ...I care a lot about the radiation, the complete waste of money for something so ineffective, and the violation of my rights. I make sure every single person near me - screeners and passengers - knows about the radiation issue.


^

firespirit

Female 33. Will always opt out, but have not seen a NoS yet, so haven't had to.

I guess I'll give reasons too.

1) I'm currently pregnant and there is no way I'm exposing my child to an unkown, unmonitored, untested source of radiation. My dentist won't x-ray me now, neither should the TSA.

2) Liberty. It's ridiculous what this country has come to.

3) Privacy. I don't feel its any business of the TSA to know when I have my period (when I'm not pregnant).

BearX220

Male, 50. Only been NoS'd once, at LAS, and that was because I wasn't paying enough attention. Never again. I opt out for health and privacy reasons as well as broader political / civil liberty considerations... which neither the average TSO nor the majority of the flying public seem to have any grasp of:

I despair of our compliant, half-aware, easily duped citizenry. This encouraging thread notwithstanding -- you are all patriots -- we are in big trouble.

belfordrocks

Am I the only person who found it funny that it says it's a serious poll yet there is an option called "Other"?