3 ms·
There seems to be debate about whether or not this day is good or bad. But it is pretty simple if the scanners are good the day is bad, if the scanners are bad
by seles 16y ago
There seems to be debate about whether or not this day is good or bad. But it is pretty simple if the scanners are good the day is bad, if the scanners are bad then the day is good.
This is the real issue, but there has probably been alot of debate about this already? What made you take your current stance?
I went though the body scanner this Monday in Cincinnati, well aware of the fact that they can see your penis etc (and it was cold that day...). It didn't bother me that much, but it was much more time consuming than going through the old metal detectors, and I don't like the fact that this could be harmful (but I haven't researched how credible this is).
- barrkel 16y agoWe have to draw the line somewhere; if not here, they'll push the line further, and further. The TSA has no motive to do a cost-benefit analysis: the force pushing them forward is risk, no matter how small, but the only force pushing back against them is how much budget they can get out of the American taxpayer. The saliency of terrorism fears overpowers analytic reason in too many people. A quick search indicates there are over 87,000 flights daily in the US alone; that puts the number at over a quarter billion flights without a successful terrorist incident in the absence of these scanners.