Why is the Opt Out available?
 

I have been wondering why the TSA continues to even allow an Opt Out of the scanner. It causes more work for them, and it seems to be a generally unpleasant task.

Here are the possibilities I could think of:

1. They really did not think that many would choose the frisk, and by making it fairly unpleasant they could reduce its choice over time.
   
   
2. By offering the Opt Out, the passenger is choosing a frisk instead of the scan. By choosing a frisk, the passenger has given up his 4th amendment rights. It was his choice for the frisk.
   
   
3. Closely related is that by offering an Opt Out, they can argue that the scanner is not a 4th amendment violation in that the passenger could have avoided the scan by taking a frisk instead.
   
   
4. If refusing both, the passenger will be told, fine do not fly, and the only legal recourse is trying to convince a court to agree that there is a right to travel, and specifically travel by air. The 4th amendment argument can not be used as neither search was done.
   
   
5. The only passengers that might have a 4th amendment argument are those that get scanned and still have to get a resolution frisk. But even then, they could have chosen not to fly instead and we are back to a right to travel argument.

So, the continuation of having an Opt Out available, forces any legal action into a right to travel suit rather than a 4th amendment suit, which may be much more difficult to argue and win.

Now, IANAL, but many of you folks are and I respect your knowledge and opinions. First, is my analysis accurate? If yes, do you think the DHS lawyers planned it this way or did it occur by accident?

Some people can simply not stand, hold their arms above their head or stay still long enough for an Electronic Strip Search.

Know anyone who has rotator cuff issues? See if they can assume the surrender postion.

... or stand at all.

Covered that.

I should have been more clear.

Why would they offer an Opt Out for non-medical reason?

Of course it could simply be that they have no reason to ask about medical conditions and allow the passenger to Opt Out without stating a reason.

If it is as simple as that, then I am guilty of over-thinking this issue.

because a thorough patdown should be as effective as one of those xray machines, as for their official reason i'd be curious to know as well....

Because there's really no reason not to. Once they have to have an alternative screening process in place (e.g. for those medically unable to participate in AIT screening), there's no reason not to use it for other purposes as well.

Otherwise, you end up with situations where people might intentionally lie --- or obfuscate --- about their medical conditions simply to obtain an opt-out screening. Far better to just let people opt-out without requiring a reason.

At least, that's how it should work in theory. In practice ... well, we've seen what happens.

So, what happens if you go through the checkpoint with a sling on? A family member has torn both rotator cuffs, and has limited movement above shoulder height with one arm. He'd be willing to remove the sling (which he doesn't wear at all), but cannot, no matter how hard he tries, lift his arm very high.

Your analysis leaves much out: considering just one point, why has TSA always allowed anyone, for any reason, to "opt-out" of WTMD screening (didn't have to provide a medical reason) and receive the full pat down?

I think the opt-out is made available so that when people get cancer from excessive BKSX exposure and sue the government/airport/TSA/etc., they can be told "you could have opted out".

Opt-out of WTMD is necessary because it apparently violently disagrees with pacemakers.

A few days ago one of our TSA posters mentioned than nothing gets added to SOP that is not thoroughly vetted by the legal guys. If I am over-thinking this that would not be surprising as I do that a lot, but typically the SOP, or what we know about it, does not offer passenger options for much of anything. A lot of the threads here are how we must do things certain ways, even if it is illogical or proven ineffective. Yet, they continue to offer Opt Outs.

I was just wondering if the non-medical Opt Out was placed there by the lawyers to give the TSA a point to argue the inevitable court case that the passenger made the choice, we did not force him or her. "They chose not to fly instead of taking any of our reasonable alternatives and there is no right to fly."

My speculation is that they made a conscious decision that if they were going to defend or argue anything in court, they would prefer to argue that we have no inherent right to fly, not defend their decision to circumvent a 4th amendment right. They may not be this smart, just lucky.

I may be wrong. I often am, yet whether they considered the effect of the SOP before implementation or not, this has been the result in practice. It always boils down to a right to fly, a much more difficult argument than the 4th amendment one. The Opt Out makes this necessary.

I think there are a lot of issues at play, all designed to allow the TSA to do whatever it wants. I don't mean this in an emotional sense. The enabling legislation allowed the TSA administrator to take "whatever steps he/she deems necessary to protect the transportation system." (Not an exact quote, but it's close.) I know of no other federal agency with this type of blank check authority.

I think the theory posted above of it's easier to be sued for a right to fly issue versus a 4th amendment issue is very astute. Losing a 4th amendment case infringes upon or destroys the blank check. A right to fly loss does not.

Culturally, the TSA is a master at deflection. Offering a frisk deflects attention from having to resolve the Cancer Machine risks and the virtual strip search accusations. As a matter of fact, keeping the frisk option means that they will never have to confront these issues or be accountable for them. They know that people love to fly so much that they will subject themselves to one or the other, or both.

They also know that the vast majority of disabled or medically handicapped persons do not have the financial resources to sue the TSA. So, all they have to do is to hunker down, ride out the bad press for a week or so and open the checkbook for an occasional out-of-court settlement.

Also, they aren't overly concerned about bad press from frisking children. The vast majority of parents these days are highly competitive and will condone frisking kids as long as the victim isn't their own kid. (The Disney blog about the 6-year old pretty much confirms this hunch.) They will allow their own kid to be frisked because that alternative is better than having to deal with the aftermath of telling their kid(s) that they aren't going to fly to Disney World this year.

There is a larger than we think percentage of the population that actually trusts the government. The TSA can always count on them for support. it doesn't matter whether or not the supporters have ever actually flown or not. Each of them has one vote, just like you and me.

Yes, intimidation and punishment is definitely part of it. They are major elements of the TSA culture.

Francine's legal approach is not one of "Is it Constitutional and an appropriate response to the validated threat?" It is one of, "How far can we go this time?"

The TSA enabling act calls for establishing an independent greybeard board of experts which is supposed to independently validate every proposed TSA security measure. In the ~9 year history of the TSA, I do not think this board has met more than a couple of times.

Finally, keeping the frisk does not cost them a dime.

The Supreme Court stated long ago.
" Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country…may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”

It seems TSA doesn't believe in this.

DHS/TSA has little belief or use for the entire Constitution.

The likely reason is for liability reasons.

A lot of people think the machines are safe, but they aren't. It's full body ionizing radiation specifically tuned to intersect soft tissues. It's about the "worst thing in the world" as far as cancer goes and it's absorbed about 1-inch deep into the body according to most reports, for children, 1-inch on front/back = a near full body depth radiation exposure ... it's sick.

Consider what happens when you get cancer from the machines, what are you going to do? File a lawsuit against the TSA? You'll be sitting in court arguing about this and then they say "why didnt you opt out"?

Also of note on this thread, the scanner manufacturers were obsessed about handling liability concerns from these technologies (and other domestic military surveillance equipment that has negative health impacts on the public).

In 2006 Rapescan was granted immunity from lawsuits under the so-called "SAFETY Act" if it kills people in its machines. Getting this immunity was one of the very first things they did.

Excellent post. Thank you.

Ok, but why was and is anyone for any reason able to opt out of WTMD screening and receive a pat down? You stated a medical reason, but didn't cover any other example. Why?

But my point is this: the opt out is not policy regarding AIT. It was and is a policy that pre-dates the use of AIT, thus, it can be cincluded it has Littleton do with the AIT.

IMO this is a very interesting topic, and I think you've articulated something well with this pair of reasons. TSA has very cleverly created a scheme where they can claim that the majority of scans and pat-downs were passenger choice. This excuse could be used to defend either an anti-patdown lawsuit or an anti-scanner lawsuit or liability, but not both.

The courts in the Gilmore case already set a precedent for using passenger choice as an excuse to not put a stop to TSA antics, in that a passenger could choose not to show ID and accept SSSSelectee SSSScreening, therefore the ID check was a choice.

Where TSA's cleverness breaks down is on the passengers who still get an "enhanced" or "resolution" patdown after going through the scanners. E.g., should people with ostomy bags be required to undergo invasive personal touching as a condition of flying?

I do think one reason you missed is that there are some people who cannot use the scanner (e.g., can't lift arms), and TSA knows that they can't officially be in the business of diagnosing medical problems, so they have to make it a passenger choice. The long-standing (but little known) "anyone can opt out of the WTMD" policy would be for the same reasons.

If you look at the big picture, TSA has actually been *very* careful to either cover up their policies or create an illusion of choice when it comes to some of their most egregious violations. I believe that their legal and PR departments both know full well that mandatory-ID checks would not be tolerated (at least 6-10 years ago), so they created the no-ID SSSS choice and now the no-ID 20-questions choice. And I think they knew full well that mandatory virtual strip searches would not be tolerated.

Where they may have erred is that they've now created a scheme where certain populations get mandatory very personal physical searches that hopefully some court will rule goes beyond what is reasonable without any individualized suspicion other than a medical condition and possessing an airline ticket.

I don't recall any discusssion, signage, or advisement that a person could Opt Out of the WTMD if they just wanted to.

Another case of TSA not being upfront with the public?

I think the basis reason for the opt out is that they knew, ahead of time, a certain percentage of the population, including airline employees, would object to being exposed to the radiation emitted by these machines, on an infrequent, but especially frequent basis.

I'm sure there were legal strategies, but the hit to the airline industry, and the political fallout, AND the resulting scrutiny of the safety of the machines would have become a major situation in the US.

Instead, they just offer a "pat down", and people "choose" to be felt up, rather than "safely irradiated", and it takes the charge out of the issue.

It was a clever choice, and it's worked.

I'm just waiting for them to start saying that the nudie-scope kills germs and that by using the nudie-scope they are making flights healthier.

Unfortunately the response from many TSOs appears to be the same whether one 'opts out' for medical reasons or for other reasons. I don't actually consider it 'opting out' when one cannot use the WBI because one cannot raise ones arms, stand for the required period of time, follow directions, etc.

Yet there doesn't seem to be any differentiation in my experience; the hostile response that many report here for non-medical opting out is what I experience when I explain that I am unable to use the machine. I would still choose to opt out even if I could use the machine, but I am unable to do so, and TSA doesn't seem to have considered that and doesn't seem to have a protocol in place as how to deal with those passengers. (They may in fact have a protocol, but it doesn't appear to have been understood by the TSOs I have encountered)

The average poor shmuck that has to grab your genitals is probably not thrilled about it, but their management, who doesn't have to do it themselves, got you to consent to a search -- either the virtual strip search or the hands on version. The option of 'no search' wasn't selected. Because it means not flying today.

Keeping the opt-out means trained staff who can perform the grope as backup for the nude-o-scope once the WMD's are removed. If the nude-o-scope fails, then they pat down everyone as a fall back to technology. It also can be used at airports that don't have the nude-o-scope yet. Send a TSA screener or two, and a box of gloves and you're done. The next generation search may be the nude-o-scope followed by the grope, because we can't be too careful. As soon as 100% of screeners are trained in the process. The choice then, might be the grope before the xray, or after.

Is the public just being softened up for the next big thing? This may not be by design -- more likely it's just by accident -- try a new technique, and if there's not enough objection incorporate it into the ceremony. The current version of the pat down was test marketed at two airports before it was rolled out everywhere else. Why? No one objected enough.

Grope or Xray - the perception that the public has a choice is maintained.

Go back 10 years - would what's going on now, have been accepted then, if someone proposed it?

Fast forward 10 years and use your imagination for what's to come: An extension of today's airport environment into federal buildings, courthouses, other modes of transportation, K-12 schools and public events (sporting, concerts, political events) by private and public organizations. All places where at least some of them have at least WMD/HHMD today, but didn't have it some number of years ago. Will most of the public accept that? Out of an abundance of caution? If it happens verrrrry sloooooowly? For the children? Yes, they will and they have accepted it.

The airport environment will probably get more intrusive. It seems to be the testing ground for what a sample of the population will tolerate, before it escapes from there and spreads to other venues.

Getting slightly more fantastic, future airport 'tests' might include be DNA sampling ("We're just holding onto it for now, in case we need it later. It'll just take a second. Say ah") more intrusive searches becoming the norm. Maybe photo boarding passes you get to wear around your neck.

Some schools are requiring students to use clear back packs (google clear back pack) Is clear carry on luggage in the future? Prisons already have sit-and-go detectors to detect items inserted into the body. How long before the airport does? It's only a few seconds, and it'll come to pass when the next generation bomber decides to go internal. In-body prosthesis? Good luck with that.

The technology to do all of this exists, it just hasn't been widely implemented. Yet.

10 years from now, airport gropes may be looked back with a fond remembrance, compared to what's happening then.

Opting out or not, may not be the key issue right now.

My guess is that the TSA is offering the 'choice', hoping to stave off court battles or losing court decisions, until the technology evolves into something more acceptable.

For example, if there was a MMW scan (virtually all science agrees there is no danger from microwave exposure at this level), and it was completely automated image detection (no person sees the images, perhaps a stick figure with an area circled), and the images were never stored, I think most people would consider that a 'reasonable' search that is roughly equivalent to a DUI checkpoint. If TSA could accomplish this type of search without making you remove EVERYTHING from your pockets, that would be doubleplusgood as far as Congress is concerned.

I know some people on this forum would not agree that this level of search was reasonable or Constitutional, but I think it would eliminate the objections from 99.9% of American travelers.

I do sometimes wonder if the lack of a trusted traveler program is because it would open a can of worms by either
a) having a disparate impact based on race, religion or gender
b) codifying TSA's infractions against the traditional right-to-interstate-travel, enabling an easy lawsuit

But I'm guessing it's probably bureaucratic paralysis and incompetence rather than deep analysis of civil rights. :D

If 10 years ago you told people they'd be waiting in line without shoes throwing away their shampoo and water while being analyzed by pre-crime mindreaders as a man kneels in front of them to feel their genitals they'd say you were a loon. If you continued on about scanners that allow the government to see them naked they probably would have locked you in a mental institution.

Passengers have always had options. If you did not want to pass through the WTMD, then you could have the full-body pat down as an alternative screening method. Same applies with the AIT.

The key to the AIT is that you must be physically capable of standing still for a brief amount of time in order to be scanned. People who are not physically capable are NOT ELIGIBLE to undergo AIT screening. This is not the same as the opt-out. People who ARE physically capable but decline to undergo the screening have opted out and undergo the newer version of the full-body pat down as an alternative screening method.

The people who typically opted out of WTMD screening were those with pace makers (most current pace makers are perfectly safe for WTMD screening but TSA encourages pace maker patients to avoid WTMD screening) and pregnant women. There is no risk to pregnant women; however, I can understand why pregnant women would want to avoid ANY risk no matter how remote. The last category of people who were patted down in lieu of undergoing WTMD screening were those who physically cannot pass through the WTMD like passengers with disabilities. That's about as simple as I can explain it. No twists, turns or hidden agendas here. The point is that passengers have to undergo a screening process.

Why then do so many TSOs treat us as if we are choosing to opt-out? I am not referring to the pat down, but rather being treated with aggression, the shouting of 'I got an opt out!' or similar, and the generally unpleasant behaviour that some of us do encounter?

Not everyone who is ineligible to use the AIT has a clearly visible reason. Yet even on the days when it must be obvious to even the most obtuse observer, I have been treated in that fashion.

And until recently I tended to side more with the TSOs and didn't have real issues at the checkpoint, and don't approach with an attitude or react with verbal insults etc.

I'm genuinely curious as to how this is trained to the actual TSOs at the checkpoint, as it seems that there is a general lack of training around diversity and special needs.

When you say that these folks in the past were patted down, you should point out that this was the old fairly reasonable frisk, not the new butt caresses and sex organ rubdowns. The old was tolerable, the new one is demeaning and abusive. So please don't talk about them as if they are the same thing.

^^^
good post. However, I think that the percentage of government-trusters is very fragile. QE 1, 2, and soon to be QE 3 has pretty much finished our currency, yet in this Hobson's choice the economy collapses without it. The consequence is being seen in the collapsing value of the dollar (several year low, and now accelerating in its decline, today plunging below 74: with 72 being the tipping point), which is why you have rapidly rising prices (oil, other resources, food), and public statements from foreign governments (China) that they can buy no more of our debt or absorb more of our currency as foreign reserves.

Things are rolling to their conclusion a lot faster than most folks realize. There will be little love left for the federal government when this happens, and no money. No money to play silly games at airports. No money to buy and staff scanners. a lot less pax. of those that are left, a much higher percentage of angry pax.

Those who think the TSA has set up a new and lasting status quo are very badly mistaken.

Based on your knowledge, when can we expect a rash of skin cancer cases showing up for all those TSA agents standing near these machines all day? One year? Two, three? That would do it.

Here is my understanding of the -exact- mechanics involved here:

- Ionizing radiation is radiation with a wavelength and sufficient energy to knock atoms off of molecules.

- When atoms are knocked off a molecule, the molecule becomes something new, a new chemical.

- If this occurs in DNA, i.e., knocks an atom off a DNA molecule then, in rare cases, the cell will survive and replicate with "broken DNA" (mutagenic).

- Usually your body just kills the changed cell or does something else with it, but in some cases the cell can survive and go on to replicate and this now becomes a cancer. This is why sometimes tumors have teeth in them and hair and stuff, the DNA got all FUBAR and starts making different kinds of cells/etc., including new ones that don't work right or may replicate very quickly (taking resources away from healthy cells).

- Also, some of these "new chemicals" themselves are carcinogenic (alter other molecules because they aren't balanced with their bonds/etc and are unstable). These chemicals can sit in your body a long time, maybe you never remove them.

- It only takes one unlucky ionization of a molecule and you've got a fatal cancer.

- Even if they have got the dosage sooo low, like, let's figure the maximum best case of a single x-ray particle per like 1 square millimeter of your body, they are still doing it to your whole body. The images I've seen indicate the dosage is probably a lot higher than this? 100,000 x-ray particles per square MM? (This is a total guess) ... a lot of the x-rays are going to be absorbed, and they need them to bounce off the molecules in your body to get an image.

The above is basically my understanding of the direct process of these cancers.

Now, in terms of timelines, do you see why it's so hard to predict? From what I've heard, the typical "gestation period" for a cancer can be as long as 20 years.

This is why it makes me so angry they are putting children in these things ... they have 80 years of life before some of these effects can turn into cancer, and their WHOLE BODY inside and out is exposed to these including vital organs because they are so skinny.

The other thing I really don't like about the scanners is the wavelengths ... they are specifically tuned to bound off skin ... that means specifically ionizing soft-tissues. It's my understanding that things like bone x-rays and things, most of these go right through your body without hitting anything and only some of them hit bone. But these soft tissue x-rays? They are going to be hitting all of your skin and bouncing off.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a safe exposure to radiation, every additional exposure increases your risk of DNA mutagenesis or these toxic chemicals being left in your body/etc.

And if you look at the only known image that was an official one, you can see that where the guy had clothing on, the xrays bounced off the actual skin layer, but where he didn't have clothing (his face/etc) it actually imaged his skull and had near total absorption in the cheeks.

Your face and any exposed skin gets hit really pretty hard by these machines.

Radiation should only be used from the perspective of risk analysis. Does the benefit outweigh the risks? In the case of these machines the existing estimates indicate as many or more people will get cancer from these machines as terrorists kill per year. This effectively DOUBLES our risk of being killed while flying over terrorism alone.

And then you weigh whether the machines actually help reduce the risk of terrorism and I don't think a case can be made that they do because anyone can walk right through these machines with a tampon/butt bomb.

And that's another part that I don't like. The specs I've read indicate the machines can put out something like 10,000X the radiation. What for? Are they planning to just have some camel jockey spinning a knob and giving you a full body CT-Scan (massive radiation) just because he wants to look inside your anus?

Also, the TSA is materially misrepresenting reality when it says these machines are the same as radiation in flight. Cosmic radiation overwhelmingly goes right through the hull of the plane and your body without intersecting anything. Indeed quarks actually go right through the whole planet 50% of the time because they are so small. Soft-tissue intersecting radiation is going to be overwhelmingly blocked by the hull of the plane and the shielding they build into it. Hard radiation will get through, but it's not of the same properties that intersect your skin.

I'm not saying cosmic radiation isn't a cancer risk (it is and there is a lot of it at high altitude), but the TSA is materially misrepresenting reality when comparing the two. Different particles, different wavelengths/etc., they all have different effects and the sort of radiation they are using in these machines, my personal view is that it may be lower dosage than a bone x-ray, however the properties of these x-rays intersecting soft tissue are much much higher risk particles, maybe 1000X higher risk per particle because of the properties (total guess on my part).

Bottom line ... just opt-out (especially your children), sexual assault is indisputably the safer choice.

You know, I've come to a sobering conclusion recently. When I look at our encroaching police state abuses, and the sheeple I realize that no one ever fights back against human rights abuses. Not even Americans. As long as you abuse a small percentage of your country at a time and spread the abuse throughout people groups, we'll just take it. Revolutions, and/or true political change only happen over money. Once the majority have financial problems, the government is in trouble. Until then, everyone is happy to bend over, or ignore the oppression of the next guy.

I had a really spirited discussion with my dentist (well as spirited as I could be while having my teeth cleaned) recently about the NoS. Her comment: "I wouldn't go near those things. Our x-ray machines are calibrated every 6 months and I know the exact amount of radiation given off every time we use it."

It's not the dosage I get from one scan that concerns me. I'm sure it's low enough to not make me turn green or sprout a third eye. What concerns me is the cumulative effect of being scanned 100, 200, 300+ times a year over many years. I fly about 150 flights a year. Over a 5 year period, I could get scanned 1,500 times. That much extra x-ray radiation can't be good.

I have a family member who worked in regulatory compliance for a major company that made CT scanners. His stories about their products scare the living hell out of me.

All I can tell you is that TSA trains officers to be aware of the unique needs of passengers with disabilities. I don't know how my airport compares to others; however, I believe it probably rates pretty high in treating passengers with disabilities with dignity and respect because we process a lot of wounded warriors on a regular basis. The TSOs at my airport are accustomed to the various types of situations and sensitivities required to address them.

Did the two TSA screeners at Detroit personally apologize to Tom Sawyer yet? Or did they determine that no further training was required?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/

On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”
Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”
Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”

Before starting the enhanced pat-down procedure, a security officer did tell him what they were going to do and how they were going to it, but Sawyer said it wasn’t until they asked him to remove his sweatshirt and saw his urostomy bag that they asked any questions about his medical condition.
“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”
The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, “He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.”
Humiliated, upset and wet, Sawyer said he had to walk through the airport soaked in urine, board his plane and wait until after takeoff before he could clean up.


“I am totally appalled by the fact that agents that are performing these pat-downs have so little concern for people with medical conditions,” said Sawyer.
Vote: What do you think about "opt out" day?
Sawyer completed his trip and had no problems with the security procedures at the Orlando International Airport on his journey back home. He said he plans to file a formal complaint with the TSA.
When he does, said TSA spokesperson Dwayne Baird, “We will review the matter and take appropriate action if necessary.” In the meantime, Baird encourages anyone with a medical condition to read the TSA’s website section on assistive devices and mobility aids.
The website says that travelers with disabilities and medical conditions have “the option of requesting a private screening” and that security officers “will not ask nor require you to remove your prosthetic device, cast, or support brace.”


Perhaps the TSA federal security director in Detroit is just a bit too busy for Mr. Sawyer to come by the office and the two screeners apologize to him in person.

Please don't expect credence in what you espouse here when so many TSA screeners do exactly the opposite. You remind me of gsotso suggesting to file complainants when the reality is your exalted management ignores them.

Really quite sad Bart, you could be so more productive if only you would realize how little the TSA is going to change even with your input.

So which is it? NO risk, or a REMOTE risk?

Bolding mine: Me :) and although I have yet to go thru a NoS ;), I have had an enhanced patdown where I tell the TSO that I cannot raise my right arm higher than my waist-which has been met with "that's ok, just raise it as high as you can" (which in my case is about 30 but no higher than 45 degrees)

I have a particle physics background and I won't tell you what to do. But I would definitely opt out all the time if flying that much.

Here is the thing ...

Your doctor is paid (and usually cares) about you being healthy and if he does bad things to you, its malpractice time.

The TSA and their contractors, however, have total legal liability immunity and it's clear given what they are on a power trip and are doing very bad things to 100s of millions of completely innocent people. They sneer and snicker at the misery they are inflicting on people on purpose and they enjoy it.

The motivational factors between your doctor and the TSA are very different. Your doctor has motivations that are generally sincere/honest and usually to your benefit (not always), but the situation with the TSA? The motivations there are much much different.

There is a real and substantial risk to pregnant women in those scanners. Babies undergo very fast (stressed) cellular replication. Small alterations in bio-chemical processes, DNA mutagenesis or anything minor like this can cascade down the line much faster than in an adult and have huge long-term effects on a baby.

For the TSA to be telling people the machines are "safe" for children and pregnant women is utter insanity and it tells you exactly how much you can't trust ANYTHING they say because what they are saying is directly conflicted with the laws of physics and biochemistry.

I'm an aerospace engineer with a more macro understanding of physics and certainly not at the particle level. I understand the basics of why these machines are dangerous and how clear and present the danger is concerning these machines. Voluntarily subjecting one's self to ionizing radiation in any form beyond what's naturally occuring is reckless and the U.S. government's action of duping, soft-pedaling, and coericing its citizens to submit to ionizing radiation is somewhere between negligent and criminal.

FYI, I hadn't noticed the difference in penetration between clothed areas and the skull until you pointed it out.

Thanks for boiling down the basic issue to a common level of understanding. This is so basic that I'm surprised it hasn't been published by an independent review body. Perhaps that's the point: the particle physics are SO basic that it's not worth the time of experts, except as a patriotic duty, to publish such as paper. I can fully comprehend why the TSA would want to suppress this type of discussion.

That's a given. It's just not worth it. Besides, I have no shame. The pat-downs are more humiliating for the guy doing it than me. :D

Is there a link available for that? I would love to share it with people who think these machines are no big deal.