The other night I brought this up to my boyfriend because we're flying soon, and I didn't want him to be surprised if the TSA ended up forcing me to cause a scene. We both have similar social and political views so it didn't surprise me that he was ok with my decision to opt out if chosen for the scanner - what did surprise me was his plans. He showed me the credit card sized metal card with the bill of rights "security edition" on it, that he planned to take with him, so he can demonstrate just they're taking away his rights in more than one way. And my favorite part is now he's planning on wearing one of his kilts.

Neither of us is looking for a fight, but if they're going to try to force us to do things, we know our rights and will exercise them.

If I were with someone who wanted to go through the scanner that would be OK with me - but if they wanted me to just follow their lead - I'd say no way in hell.

I think there's a bigger issue then just disagreeing on using the scanners - if you disagree on that, you probably disagree on a lot of bigger issues that lead to your decision in the line. But that's just my opinion.

Tell him you really don't want to lose him to early cancer. Hopefully he isn't a smoker. ^

The problem is that radiation exposure to the NoS isn't fast acting enough, otherwise TSA would be a self-correcting problem. I fear that we are on an evolutionary timeframe here, with genetic mutations in screeners children becoming the deciding factor. Screeners will become the subjects of some future doctoral paper. Something along the lines of the Tuskegee Airmen. . .

That sound you hear is Mr. LITW standing up and cheering you :)
I long ago gave up telling him what to think and v.v ... but I still reserve the right to be driven insane by his opinions :)

(and he'll be the first to tell you that I drive him just freakin' crazy :) ) But I still wouldn't trade him for anyone.

Well then enjoy your radiation treatment every time you go through the backscatter scanner, and in 10 or so years if you come down with a malignant skin cancer, you to can join the class action lawsuit filed against the Federal Government and you or more probably your heirs can enjoy the money from the settlement, whatever is left after the lawyers take their cut of the settlement.

Remember this is the same Federal Government that said the air was safe to breath at the World Trade Center site a few days after 9-11, and 9 years later dozens have died and over a thousand have severe life threatening disabilities because it turned out the air was toxic.

And this is the same Federal Government that said the Agent Orange was safe if it was sprayed on you.

If these machines are as safe as they claim, then how come the TSA won’t allow industry and university researchers to test their machines, won’t divulge how they are inspected and maintained to make sure they are not exceeding their normal radiation levels and won’t allow the TSO’s who work next to these machines to wear dosimeters.

So for me I would rather op out than take a daily dose of their so called safe radiation.

Mr. Elliott

30 RT per year, I am now 55 years old and never had a CT scan. If I opt to use the scanners, my cumulative radiation exposure from them is instantly infinitely higher than the CT scans, and I get no personal medical benefit. So you are suggesting the combination is as safe as just one or the other?

If I'm getting a CT scan, there's usually a medical reason for it. Thus, the risk is outweighed by the potential benefit. The backscatter x-rays on the other hand, have no medical purpose. While there is a low chance of getting cancer, it is a non-zero chance. With the number of passengers that go through airport security, a few people a year are going to get cancer as a result of it.

I fly 300 flights a year. I'm not subjecting myself to any additional radiation that I don't have to. These machines provide zero additional benefit over traditional security methods, and in any case there is a line that has to be drawn in the sand when it comes to security measures. For me, this is it. These people are supposed to be protecting us. Instead, they're going to give a couple people a year cancer that they otherwise wouldn't have had. I will not stand for that.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That's not how exposure to carcinogens work. @:-) Averaged over thousands of nameless subjects, you are correct, but for myself and my loved ones, that one un-necessary exposure at a TSA checkpoint is one too many. TSA security is pure theater and I don't see why I should subject myself to -any- personal risk, not matter how small, to support their absurd mandate.

Same federal government that said Vioxx doesn't cause heart attacks. And vaccines don't "cause" autism (they just "result" in autism). And hormone replacement therapy is perfectly safe.

Um, yeah, I'm sure that little dose of radiation is perfectly harmless.

I was drinking a cup of tea when I read that and spewed all over the keyboard. Dang I would love to be behind you guys in line that day....... :D:D:D

Tell him "Real men opt out"

We do try to separate conspiracy theories from fact here. Let's not cloud the primary objective with undifferentiated paranoia.

We all know that any risk from a properly calibrated NoS is low, but we question the risk/reward ratio (given that the TSA has not interrupted a terrorist plot since its inception, has only issued post-hoc screening directives, and hires only minimum-wage marginal English speakers as employees).

As airline travelers, we resent any exposure to risk that is purely driven by government theater.

Don't want to turn this off topic... but vaccines do not "cause" autism. They also don't "result in" autism. The only connection is that vaccines tend to be given around the same time that autism is noticed and diagnosed. That's it.

The science is there to say that. Just like the science is there to say that backscatter machines are dangerous.

OK, then send your adolescent daughter through one 10 times a year. Me, and my family, not so much.

It's worked well for me:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...1289900298.jpg

My husband also doesn't mind the NOS. We both travel a lot for work; Thanksgiving will be our first trip together since this nonsense started. He knows I'll opt out if that machine is running, which means we will have to get to BOS super early.

That's ok, he can keep an eye on my carry on stuff.