3 ms·

I'm pretty proud of the fact that I've never been through an airport scanner. People treat me crazy for it and I probably am. "It is perfectly safe, you get mor

I'm pretty proud of the fact that I've never been through an airport scanner. People treat me crazy for it and I probably am. "It is perfectly safe, you get more radiation from the plane ride." My issue is that I do not trust the operators of the machine. I do not trust the safety protocols in place. We constantly tool on the TSA and its security theater filled with incompetent people. So, why do we trust them to operate these machines? What if it malfunctions or isn't properly serviced? I was just at an airport, watched someone move a bit, and have to get immediately rescanned again. 2x the radiation, 2x the chances something goes wrong. The odds are against you. Why are we so complacent in their usage? The only way around this is to suffer humiliation. An invasive pat down where they make you wait an inordinate amount of time for someone to come along, slowly put on gloves, explain to you the same set of rules you've heard a million times, and then literally touch your entire body, including brushing up against your genitals. I have actually noticed some guards enjoying it more than others. In the end, I feel it is worth the 10 minutes of inconvenience and the humiliation (which I'm pretty immune to at this point in my life). I get to the airport early anyway. Somehow the people in the article have gotten it into their heads that the only solution to their issues are to move into the middle of nowhere. That said, I can understand their situation too and feel empathy for them.

BadHumans 2y ago
Why not just get TSA Precheck at this point?
- latchkey 2y ago
  I have that, along with global entry, and even had clear for a while. I didn't renew cause it wasn't in every airport and because it really wasn't any faster than precheck. Oh and on Spirit biz class, you even get to skip the line. None of that is a guarantee that they don't require you to go through the scanner. I just flew roundtrip last week, in both airports they were making everyone go through the scanner.
bawolff 2y ago
> So, why do we trust them to operate these machines Because their operation is just pushing a button. They are not responsible for the safety protocols, etc. That is somebody elses job. Like if you dont like the machines fine, but their safety (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the TSA agent.
- latchkey 2y ago
  > That is somebody elses job. Exactly my point. Your safety and exposure risk is held to the highest standard of "not my job." > "I was just at an airport, watched someone move a bit, and have to get immediately rescanned again." Do you blame the individual for moving or the agent for not being clear enough in the instructions?
  - bawolff 2y ago
    > Exactly my point. Your safety and exposure risk is held to the highest standard of "not my job." I mean, not their job in the sense that they cannot meaningfully affect it. They cannot make the scan be any more or less safe. If its safe, they cannot make it unsafe, if its unsafe, they cannot make it safe. They have no control over the safety of the scanner.
jl6 2y ago
You are probably more at risk due to spending extra time with TSA people than from the machine.
- latchkey 2y ago
  Risk of what? Again, the point here is that I'm being thoughtful about the measure of risk I'm taking in a particular situation as an example. In the same way that people choose to move to the middle of nowhere to avoid "signals."
  - jl6 2y ago
    If your hypothesis is that TSA agents are incompetent or careless or otherwise malign, then every extra moment you spend in their presence puts you at risk of the kind of things that such people might do. TSA agents have been known to assault people. Rare, but more common than injury caused by scanners.
    - latchkey 2y ago
      My "irrational" fear is the scanner, not the TSA agent.
      - nerdponx 2y ago
        It's only irrational if you don't fear all sources of radio wave emission by the same amount.
    - nerdponx 2y ago
      Or just get sick from close contact with another human being. Influenza and Covid-19 can be serious! Probably much greater risk there than from somehow accidentally getting boiled alive by radio waves from a scanner.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Walking through the airport around so many people, some of which are violent, than any problems with the scanners. That said I skip the high Rez face scans because those are just fkn creepy that they want that much information about my pores.
LorenPechtel 2y ago
Of course you get rescanned if you move--fundamentally the machine is doing a panoramic image. I'm sure you've seen photos on the internet of panoramas gone wildly wrong because something moved. The original version did use low power x-ray and people quite rightly raised a stink about that. Now it's backscatter in the radio frequencies--should be harmless. (Not that it's going to stop a well-concealed bomb. The machines see metal as "black"--but they also see the background where you aren't as "black". Thus they do not see metal that does not overlay your body. Say, something small attached to your clothes such that it's away from your body when you assume the position.) The machines are a lot better at catching smugglers than terrorists.
- latchkey 2y ago
  > The original version did use low power x-ray and people quite rightly raised a stink about that. Now it's backscatter in the radio frequencies--should be harmless. "trust me bro" science at its finest. Do we get to see the service interval on these machines to ensure that they are operating fine and have never had an issue? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3936792/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3936792/ "Based on what is known about the scanners, passengers should not fear going through the scans for health reasons, as the risks are truly trivial. ... it is premature to put a whole population through this with out more due diligence and independent testing" Even the papers on this stuff can't come to any sort of agreement. Easy enough to opt-out and just avoid the question entirely. I'm not bothered at all by the pat down.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    What failure mode could produce harmful energy? The circuit will be designed for the intended power levels and you'll let the smoke out long before you actually put out a dangerous energy level. Not to mention how could you have the energy levels way off yet the machine "work"--produce an image? (And, personally, I don't like the pat-down. I'd actually prefer an option to go back a version to the machines that actually displayed the image rather than had a computer process it for anomalies. The stupid computer always flags the pocket I carry my phone in--can't tell the difference between a little bit of sag and something there.)
sevensor 2y ago
You’re worried about the radiation dose from the scanners and not from the flight itself?
- latchkey 2y ago
  That isn't what I was saying, at all. It is the non-zero potential for a high radiation dose from a defective machine (or being forced through it multiple times), that I don't want to take the risk on.

BadHumans 2y ago

Why not just get TSA Precheck at this point?

latchkey 2y ago
I have that, along with global entry, and even had clear for a while. I didn't renew cause it wasn't in every airport and because it really wasn't any faster than precheck. Oh and on Spirit biz class, you even get to skip the line. None of that is a guarantee that they don't require you to go through the scanner. I just flew roundtrip last week, in both airports they were making everyone go through the scanner.

bawolff 2y ago

> So, why do we trust them to operate these machines Because their operation is just pushing a button. They are not responsible for the safety protocols, etc. That is somebody elses job. Like if you dont like the machines fine, but their safety (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the TSA agent.

latchkey 2y ago
> That is somebody elses job. Exactly my point. Your safety and exposure risk is held to the highest standard of "not my job." > "I was just at an airport, watched someone move a bit, and have to get immediately rescanned again." Do you blame the individual for moving or the agent for not being clear enough in the instructions?
- bawolff 2y ago
  > Exactly my point. Your safety and exposure risk is held to the highest standard of "not my job." I mean, not their job in the sense that they cannot meaningfully affect it. They cannot make the scan be any more or less safe. If its safe, they cannot make it unsafe, if its unsafe, they cannot make it safe. They have no control over the safety of the scanner.

jl6 2y ago

You are probably more at risk due to spending extra time with TSA people than from the machine.

latchkey 2y ago
Risk of what? Again, the point here is that I'm being thoughtful about the measure of risk I'm taking in a particular situation as an example. In the same way that people choose to move to the middle of nowhere to avoid "signals."
- jl6 2y ago
  If your hypothesis is that TSA agents are incompetent or careless or otherwise malign, then every extra moment you spend in their presence puts you at risk of the kind of things that such people might do. TSA agents have been known to assault people. Rare, but more common than injury caused by scanners.
  - latchkey 2y ago
    My "irrational" fear is the scanner, not the TSA agent.
    - nerdponx 2y ago
      It's only irrational if you don't fear all sources of radio wave emission by the same amount.
  - nerdponx 2y ago
    Or just get sick from close contact with another human being. Influenza and Covid-19 can be serious! Probably much greater risk there than from somehow accidentally getting boiled alive by radio waves from a scanner.
EasyMark 2y ago
Walking through the airport around so many people, some of which are violent, than any problems with the scanners. That said I skip the high Rez face scans because those are just fkn creepy that they want that much information about my pores.

LorenPechtel 2y ago

Of course you get rescanned if you move--fundamentally the machine is doing a panoramic image. I'm sure you've seen photos on the internet of panoramas gone wildly wrong because something moved. The original version did use low power x-ray and people quite rightly raised a stink about that. Now it's backscatter in the radio frequencies--should be harmless. (Not that it's going to stop a well-concealed bomb. The machines see metal as "black"--but they also see the background where you aren't as "black". Thus they do not see metal that does not overlay your body. Say, something small attached to your clothes such that it's away from your body when you assume the position.) The machines are a lot better at catching smugglers than terrorists.

latchkey 2y ago
> The original version did use low power x-ray and people quite rightly raised a stink about that. Now it's backscatter in the radio frequencies--should be harmless. "trust me bro" science at its finest. Do we get to see the service interval on these machines to ensure that they are operating fine and have never had an issue? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3936792/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3936792/ "Based on what is known about the scanners, passengers should not fear going through the scans for health reasons, as the risks are truly trivial. ... it is premature to put a whole population through this with out more due diligence and independent testing" Even the papers on this stuff can't come to any sort of agreement. Easy enough to opt-out and just avoid the question entirely. I'm not bothered at all by the pat down.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  What failure mode could produce harmful energy? The circuit will be designed for the intended power levels and you'll let the smoke out long before you actually put out a dangerous energy level. Not to mention how could you have the energy levels way off yet the machine "work"--produce an image? (And, personally, I don't like the pat-down. I'd actually prefer an option to go back a version to the machines that actually displayed the image rather than had a computer process it for anomalies. The stupid computer always flags the pocket I carry my phone in--can't tell the difference between a little bit of sag and something there.)

sevensor 2y ago

You’re worried about the radiation dose from the scanners and not from the flight itself?

latchkey 2y ago
That isn't what I was saying, at all. It is the non-zero potential for a high radiation dose from a defective machine (or being forced through it multiple times), that I don't want to take the risk on.