Scan Medical Insurance

At airports: Full Body Scan vs. Pat Down. Which do you prefer?

It's all for our security, but in my opinion I prefer the full body scan vs. someone touching me. What are your thoughts on this? How are both bad? So, some people would rather risk getting hurt or killed because they feel squeamish about the security measures? Shermer, paranoid much? No one that I know of is living in a cage.

Public Comments

1. I completely agree with you. I do not want people I do not know touching EVERYWHERE on my body. I trust a machine way more than people.
2. My body has had quite enough radiation for one lifetime, thank you.....but I really do not want some stranger stroking my body parts. For health reasons alone I would go the pat down route, and be pi**ed off abut it.
3. Pat down...scanning is even more of an invasion!
4. * The body scan is the way I would prefer. -I don't like my personal three feet personal zone violated and the pat down would cause for my three foot zone to be compromised.
5. both are bad...does the TSA by any chance hire gays?
6. Both are awful. I would much rather live a life of liberty even if I might be killed. Life in a cage is no life at all. Edit- Paranoid??? If any of us wants to fly we could be subject to a scan that shows our naked body. The alternative is aggressive searches that include touching of the breasts and genitals. I weep for our future if this does not bother most people.
7. You are so right! I would preser full body scan. I personally do not care of some stranger sees my body. what happens at the doctor? plus, I dont know any of them. big deal! it is more dangerous to get your identity stolen then it is to get a full body scan which is for security. I am very picky about people touching me...so get away from me!
8. Personally, I prefer a full body scan. It's just less awkward. There is a poll about this topic- go vote! http://travelated.com/body-scan-or-grope-session -- Rease Travel Adviser www.travelated.com -- Get Travelated and Get Going.
9. I thinkBenjamin Franklin said it best: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Niether options are really preferable. As someone who flies at least 5-6 flights every week for business, I am exposed to these security measures everyday and I do not feel any safer... I actually feel less safe due to the invasion of privacy. I feel the previous measures used five months ago were fine. The fourth amendment guarantees our right of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and I feel that having someone knowing the size and shape of my breasts or the folds of my labia (the examples of full body scans given out have been 'edited' due to their graphic nature. When I declined the scan (due to the probably health risks of accumulating radiation from the machine), the lady used the FRONT of the hand (not the back of the hand like they did before around your genitals/breasts) to touch me and actually ran her hand around the INSIDE of my pants!! I shouldn't have to choose between being forced to have someone look at my nude body or having someone put their hand down my pants everyday to do my job.
10. These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can’t detect powder explosives. There are many places a determined terrorists can hide explosives that won’t be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images. In order to avoid engaging in child pornography (b/c these machines offer detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 y of age to bypass them. So, a 17-year-old terrorist assistant can pack explosives in his own underwear. In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA. Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The TSA utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology." To generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons --high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue. The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at the National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication." In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health. "At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports TechnologyReview.com. "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe." And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices." (If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?) Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use. How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? Time and again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.....At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency. Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe? What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? Wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout? As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: "[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation." Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.