justincredible;566529 wrote:I'll pay that $10 every time.

You know Justin... It probably is worth at least ... I'd say meh... 12 dollars. If were gonna go out with a bang, we might as well go out with a "bang."

NWIndianNation01;565608 wrote:I really don't understand all the hoopla over this. All they are trying to do is keep us safe. If you don't like it then don't fly. I don't feel that either the x-ray or the tap down is an invasion of my privacy. People just like to complain...nuff said. Get over it people.

However, the Alan Cox Radio show was talking about a GREAT idea...at least for the bomb portion of flying safety. They need to invent a bomb proof chamber that everyone has to step into. Once in, a signal is emitted that would instantly make any bomb explode. I bet after the first one, there wouldn't be anymore bombs brought on planes. Plus they talked about paying the cleaning person some ridiculous amount...imagine cleaning that up...fun stuff.

yeah thats hilarious, detonating a bomb while on a search. im sure the thousands dead at the airport would be laughing hysterically.

meanwhile, in reality, alot of people realize that the TSA does little to nothing, besides wasting money on nonsense like this. people are given the illusion that they are safe, and they begin to sacrifice rights to keep feeling that way.

NWIndianNation01;565608 wrote:I really don't understand all the hoopla over this. All they are trying to do is keep us safe. If you don't like it then don't fly. I don't feel that either the x-ray or the tap down is an invasion of my privacy. People just like to complain...nuff said. Get over it people.

However, the Alan Cox Radio show was talking about a GREAT idea...at least for the bomb portion of flying safety. They need to invent a bomb proof chamber that everyone has to step into. Once in, a signal is emitted that would instantly make any bomb explode. I bet after the first one, there wouldn't be anymore bombs brought on planes. Plus they talked about paying the cleaning person some ridiculous amount...imagine cleaning that up...fun stuff.

I don't remember if this point was raised before, but I have a question for the "don't like it, don't fly" people. If the TSA was truly concerned about keeping people safe, wouldn't they have the security screening right as people come inside the airport instead of letting anyone walk around as long as they don't try to go to the gate areas?

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone ever imagine a terrorist going to the airport and getting in the security line during a very busy time, like maybe Thanksgiving/Christmas and detonating a bomb inside the airport? Why would they try to get on a plane anymore?

Huh, you'd think with all the supposed smart people in the government and the TSA that want to keep us safe would have thought about this issue before. Oh, well I guess if you don't like it, stay home and don't get blown up.

Just passed through security at Detroit, no pat down or xray. So are they only doing this in select cities?

Since I fly in uniform, I never have to do these crazy pat downs, let alone take my boots off. I take my belt and dog tags off, walk through the metal detector, and go to my gate. Sucks that it's such a hassle for you guys.

justincredible;564785 wrote:http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2010/11/18/radiation-experts-concerned-with-tsa-airport-security-scanners.html

"These scans are safe for all passengers and are similar to the radiation they're exposed to at high altitudes on an airplane." People are exposed to radiation all the time on the ground, but they get a larger dose when they're traveling 30,000 feet above ground, where the atmosphere is thinner and the sun's rays stronger.

Glory Days;571805 wrote:"These scans are safe for all passengers and are similar to the radiation they're exposed to at high altitudes on an airplane." People are exposed to radiation all the time on the ground, but they get a larger dose when they're traveling 30,000 feet above ground, where the atmosphere is thinner and the sun's rays stronger.

Is that the TSAs statement? I could give two shits what they have to say.

Yeah, the TSA has a vested interest in us not thinking that these scanners cause cancer.

justincredible;571849 wrote:Is that the TSAs statement? I could give two shits what they have to say.

nope, you can find that pretty much anywhere. its nothing new, but of course, no one cared before. but now they can see the physical object(the scanner), and its the end of the world

http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/NEED-radiation.html
"A single, long international flight will expose you to a week's worth of natural background radiation."

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q444.html

"Of course, most people who fly 75,000 miles a year or more do so because of their professional responsibilities as business travelers. It is my contention that the almost 450,000 individuals in the United States who fall into that category should be classified formally as occupationally exposed workers and that they should receive appropriate education about their exposures, particularly if they may be, or are about to become, pregnant. In addition to the general cosmic-ray "background" discussed above, there are rare solar particle events ("solar storms") that can significantly elevate the dose rates at airliner altitudes."

http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html

"The amount of cosmic radiation you are exposed to while flying depends on your altitude and latitude (distance from the Earth’s equator) and solar activity. For a typical cross-country flight in a commercial airplane, you are likely to receive 2 to 5 millirem (mrem) of radiation, less than half the radiation dose you receive from a chest x-ray. People in the United States receive an average of 360 mrem of radiation per year from natural and man-made radiation sources, which includes cosmic radiation exposure during commercial flights."

I Wear Pants;571865 wrote:Yeah, the TSA has a vested interest in us not thinking that these scanners cause cancer.

You dont think some scientist claiming they do cause cancer doesnt have an interest either? dude would have his name everywhere meaning big money for him/her.

I'm all for the scans, next time i flying will be the most action i've had in a long, long time.

tk421;566623 wrote:Maybe it's just me, but does anyone ever imagine a terrorist going to the airport and getting in the security line during a very busy time, like maybe Thanksgiving/Christmas and detonating a bomb inside the airport? Why would they try to get on a plane anymore?

Hell a terrorist could just walk into a grocery store, mall, university, stadium (I know they have patdowns for games but they're a lot weaker) and set off a bomb. I see your point, that if a terrorist really wanted to kill, why does he need a plane? But if you want to take it one step further, why does an airport need to be involved at all? I guess you cant always have 100% protection, but they really want to ensure none of these lunatics ever get their hands on a plane again.

The whole thing, IMO (and I know I'm in the minority here) is that it's being blown out of proportion. These type of guidelines are never popular and there will always be a large crowd of people waiting to protest and argue and complain. But to me, if you look at all the devastation, poverty, disease, genocide, etc. throughout the world, and the worst of our problems is heightened security at the airport, then I think life is pretty good.