Too Friendly Skies

Post Reply New Topic

Surprising, but I do not see it posted, though I can miss things, but here goes. I do not tune in to news, but myt wife who does has made us sand other Inner Circle people aware of newly upgraded HIGHLY invasive airline search procedures which give you the alternative of a Superman's eye clothes piercing scan or a search which is allegedly not full body cavity but does involve feeling under clothes and apparently patting genitals.

I can just imagine Aspies amd a lot of NT's of my acquaintance handling this - maxi stress out.

Here is a starter link, for those - like us - concerned:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/accent/tra ... 52932.html

We do not plan to fly anytime soon, but other Inner Circlers -one of whom would shrivel and die at this - will be flying soon.

Can anything be done?

This is the reason my mum and I drive back and forth from Texas to Ohio.

amtrak alll the way

If I had to fly somewhere, I would just get scanned and patted down with the security of knowing everyone else on that flight is getting scanned and patted down and the chance that flight is going to get where it is going landing safely on the runway will increase substantially. I would tolerate it for complete peace of mind. I hate the idea of getting stuck in the skies with a terrorist.

Same here. It seems invasive, and I'm not thrilled about it, but if that's what needs to be done to make sure everything is ok, then I'll go along with it.

The irony is that if I went through airport security in a thong I would get arrested.

I am genuinely concerned about this. My daughter and I fly alone about 4 times a year. In the past, she has become extremely upset at TSA checkpoints (one time when the agent told us "You'll never make your flight) and we were detained until I could "calm my child down enough to pass the checkpoint". I am concernd about what might happen if #1 they want me to go through the full body scanner without her (she would cling to me and be very anxious about one of them restraining her while I went in), #2 the health risks associated with scanning her #3 a full body pat down to her (she absolutely wouldn't comply with that- she has to be restrained at the doctor's office). I am in genuine fear about what might happen if any of those situations were to occur. Would we be allowed to leave the airport at that point? Would we be detained until she calmed down? This new screening will make it very difficult for us to fly at all-as it is I already have a quite difficult time getting her to comply with the non invasive screening (xray) procedures.

According to my wife, there is talk of letting children under a given age pass - but it is still pretty bad and I would not want to fly given what you describe. I COULD go through it though I would hate it [I have had to hold on tight at the doctor]. My wife and our neice - I don't know. My sister - warped NT - would just refuse.

Someone must know details and have an idea what can be done.

the xray scans are dangerous and the patdowns are a violation of ones body. last i checked more planes have crashed from maintenance issues than terrorist attacks. This is just some more crap to make you feel safe. What is keeping the terrorists from hidding stuff up where the sun dont shine.

I agree on both statements, except I guess I would be willing to accept the 2nd one as long as it makes everyone safer, still bothers me a lot tho.

Here is why I don't like X-Rays (will cope if it is absolutely necessary):

"X-rays are a relatively safe method of investigation and the radiation exposure is relatively low, depending upon the study. Experimental and epidemiological data, however, do not support the proposition that there is a threshold dose of radiation below which there is no increased risk of cancer. Diagnostic X-rays account for 14% of the total annual radiation exposure from man-made and natural sources worldwide. It is estimated that the additional radiation will increase a person's cumulative risk of getting cancer by age 75 by 0.6–1.8%. The amount of absorbed radiation depends upon the type of X-ray test and the body part involved."

Shadi

"Estimated" by who? Anyone can "estimate" anything they want, including journalists who write these things but don't really know diddly squat.

I think the argument against xrays on the basis of safety is a red herring, unless you fly like a thousand times a day. On a long flight, you get more radiation from cosmic rays because of the plane's altitude than you do from the security xrays.

Nonetheless, I don't like them either. Not because they're invasive and insulting, which they are, but because I think they're mostly a boondoggle designed to make us feel more secure than we really are. Perhaps there's an incremental amount of additional security to be gained, but does anyone doubt that a determined terrorist could defeat them anyway?

And has it occured to anyone that we expend an inordinate amount of security resources on airline flights? What about all the shopping malls and sports stadiums and dams and power plants and office buildings that are basically sitting ducks? Jeez, if you were a terrorist, wouldn't you go for the easiest targets?

We've had them in the UK for a while now, particularly in London airports like Heathrow. It's just another reason for me not to fly, so I haven't experienced them.