Hubby doesn't mind new TSA screening...
 

He says if the Body Scanner is the quickest line through CP, then that's the line he's going through...of course, he believes the gov't garbage, "if it makes us safer..." I disagree. :confused:

Of course, he went through the MMW Scan at a TX airport, while I went through the regular Metal Detector. So dumb!:rolleyes:

My concerns: 1) the undisclosed dose radiation from the Backscatter Scanner. 2) (my) children going through the machines or getting a their body groped....this is just so wrong!:mad::mad::mad:

Mr LITW is the same - all about "getting through as fast as possible, who cares". Drives me insane. I'm sure he thinks I get up on my soap box about body scanners way too often, but I won't go through them, period. If we miss our flight because of me, oh well. His opinions aren't changeable by me, so fortunately we don't travel together too often :)

Who got through faster?

Dump them - now, before it's too late.

:)

Just mention to the Mr.`s that the extra radiation is ummm 'Shrinking the boys' :eek:
or causing unknown damage to his future children.

We can post using Comic Sans? ; ) Why, Randy? ((((((((((WHY?))))))))))

:D Buwahahahahaha! Too funny.

He did. There was a longer line to go through the WTMD.

BTW, even Flavor Flav (yes, the guy with the HUGE clock) went through the WTMD too....he was in the same line. ;)

The great debate :) But on non-flying days he's kinda cool.
Now if I could just get him to opt out on the 60+ flights a year he does ...

+1

Make him sleep on the couch tonight! :D

I'm one of the fastest line through people as well but I always let people know they have the right to opt-out. (Converted one person ahead of me at SJC this morning). Call me a hypocrite - I like my options but I don't care if I have to go through the NoS...

Alas, he's galavanting around the world tonight while I hold down the fort. He can have the empty bed for the next few nights while he's home and I'm travelling around exercising my right to opt out!

The radiation caused by going through a backscatter machine daily for a year is still LESS than a single CT scan.... it's not going to "shrink the boys."

sssssshhhh ... I'm looking for arguements to turn him from the dark side.

Argue using facts, then... or recognize that your husband is a grown man who can make his own decisions.

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.

"We?" I don't believe you're in a position to speak for everyone.

Your last sentence, however, proves my point, airline traveler or not. What happened to my daughter was completely unnecessary and is the reason why I no longer drink the government Kool-Aid.

Google Hannah Poling. The government has conceded vaccines "resulted" in her autism. $23 million settlement over her lifetime. Many other cases very quietly settled. The science IS there. You just have to look beyond the conflicts of interest.

My only point was that I don't believe everything they tell me. Not after my own experience with Vioxx, and my daughter's experience with vaccines (and autism is the LEAST of her injuries). Others here posted various examples. We all have our reasons to believe the government is not being truthful. Those are mine.

I googled it. The current VICP standard is junk science and the government concession was as well. It goes to prove the point that government science is often expedient, rather than good science, but in this case, the expediency was to settle rather than to fight. The current standard on vaccines seems to be that if you can make an argument of causation, they will pay, regardless of whether that argument can be proved valid or not. I don't consider that to be scientific proof of anything.

Read the NE Journal of Medicine article for a reasoned approach to the subject.

That's a vast over simplification of Poling's case.

It's not like opting out of the full body scan is going to subject you to getting fondled by a TSA agent. But, I was kinda wondering, might a passenger, or even a TSA agent get carried away? You know: one thing leads to another (maybe a squeeze or two).

Hannah Polling didn't have autism. She doesn't now. The vaccines exacerbated a pre-existing condition she unfortunately had which resulted in a slew of maladies, some of which mirror autism.

It's also said to be likely that any high fever she experienced from an illness would've ended up with the same result.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Two things happening, one after the other, doesn't mean the first thing caused the second thing.

I'm getting off this topic now. It's way off-topic and irrelevant in this forum. For actual facts on this subject, just go here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=36

The fact is, there is without question a small risk of severe complications from these vaccines (probably not autism, though). If I thought that the NoS would be remotely as effective at preventing airplanes from being blown out of the sky as most of these vaccines are at preventing some horrible diseases, which previously maimed and killed innumerable children, my objection to NoS on health grounds would evaporate.

Privacy grounds are another matter.

Yes, it is, but those aren't my words, that's coming from the government.

Well, her doctors disagree with you. However, you could probably say that about most cases of autism. We just call it autism because of the symptoms.

Nobody knows whether or not a fever would've caused the "autism." Saying that it's "said to be likely" hardly sounds like good science to me.

I will agree that arguing about vaccines and autism is irrelevant. I'll state again that these are MY reasons for not drinking the Kool-Aid, just as others stated their reasons. I believe I've been lied to, therefore I question. That's my right and I'm exercising that right. If you disagree with my reasoning, that's just fine, but now you've brought it off topic.

Except she never had autism. She has a problem that looks similar to autism that was aggravated by vaccines. (Although, in reality, if the vaccine hadn't done it something else would have.)