http://www.optoutday.com/

I'm opting out after seeing the nature of exposure in these scanners!I wouldn't want to cause the poor operator to faint and possibly sue me for damages :(

While my jury may still be out on this one, the ideas presented in this link don't help me decide at all. The entire "Why" section is pure speculation without any documentation. Bob

The head of the pilot union at US Airways is advising his members not to go through the body scanners, the same recommendation that the Allied Pilots Association president at American Airlines had given his members.Good enough for me.http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/union-president-tells-us-airwa.html

While my jury may still be out on this one, the ideas presented in this link don't help me decide at all. The entire "Why" section is pure speculation without any documentation. Bob

Well, yeah, that website is a bit of a "light" one. I suppose if this issue is completely new to you, here are some other places it is a topic that maybe you will find the discussion a bit more substantive. Or you can probably just google the topic.http://fedupflyers.org/http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/http://lefttochance.com/aiport-x-ray-full-body-scanner-images-of-hot-girl/http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dscxn/airline_pilots_rejects_tsa_tyranny_expressjet/http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1291536&srvc=business&position=4

The issue is not new to me. Because I live in the Denver area, I will be subject to this scan. The Epic site was the most interesting. The rest were not of much use to me. But even the Epic site has problems. Many of the links I was interested in went to the same article, or to other articles that repeated what was already stated. I believe this technology should be used, closely evaluated, and thrown out if proven inefectual. The health and religous issues seem to be ones brought up to raise emotions, but I think are of little substance. Given the choice, I will probably go through the scanner and get on with my day.Thanks for going to the trouble of providing the links.Bob

The issue is not new to me. Because I live in the Denver area, I will be subject to this scan. The Epic site was the most interesting. The rest were not of much use to me. But even the Epic site has problems. Many of the links I was interested in went to the same article, or to other articles that repeated what was already stated. I believe this technology should be used, closely evaluated, and thrown out if proven inefectual. The health and religous issues seem to be ones brought up to raise emotions, but I think are of little substance. Given the choice, I will probably go through the scanner and get on with my day.Thanks for going to the trouble of providing the links.Bob

Everybody says "I" for some reason. What about "your?" Would you want "your" wife subject to this? Would you want "your" grandson or granddaughter subjected to this? And if pushing "your" whatever through this gives you pause, then is this a path that this country really should take?

Everybody says "I" for some reason. What about "your?" Would you want "your" wife subject to this? Would you want "your" grandson or granddaughter subjected to this? And if pushing "your" whatever through this gives you pause, then is this a path that this country really should take?

You forgot "my 13 year old daughter"(which I have). "I" can't answer for her, or my wife. Everyone has to look at the facts, and decide for themselves. In this case the facts on either side are anything but clear. I may or may not like the idea of a scan, but I don't know why "I" would avoid a scan only to go through a far more intrusive and time consuming body search.Bob

You forgot "my 13 year old daughter"(which I have). "I" can't answer for her, or my wife. Everyone has to look at the facts, and decide for themselves. In this case the facts on either side are anything but clear. I may or may not like the idea of a scan, but I don't know why "I" would avoid a scan only to go through a far more intrusive and time consuming body search.Bob

So because the facts seem unclear, it is better that you just go along with it? What if this group of people end up being shown to be right in a few years of testing and after your daughter has been irradiated numerous times? http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf I'm not a lawyer, but it has been my understanding that strip searches are only allowed if there is probable cause that somebody who has already been arrested for a crime is hiding something. Where did that requirment go?

So because the facts seem unclear, it is better that you just go along with it? What if this group of people end up being shown to be right in a few years of testing and after your daughter has been irradiated numerous times? http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf I'm not a lawyer, but it has been my understanding that strip searches are only allowed if there is probable cause that somebody who has already been arrested for a crime is hiding something. Where did that requirment go?

Well, I suppose we both can play the "what if" card all day and not get anywhere. Look, I don't really like the idea of any kind of search. I think it's a sad world that has come to this. But I just can't get that excited about it. I am willing to keep an open mind, however.Bob

Next time you need an x-ray... ask them how much radiation you're going to be exposed to. They can't tell you. However, notice they leave the room. In fact, notice that they give you large lead 'shields' to lay over your privates. If radiation were safe... do you really think medical personnel would have a completely separate room for firing the x-ray machine? After all, a lead-lined outfit should protect them, right?As someone who has had extensive training regarding radiation (I was stationed on submarines), I can assure you... any statement of 'safe exposure' is a bold-faced lie.

Ed,How much radiation are we exposed to just walking outside everyday?

Next time you need an x-ray... ask them how much radiation you're going to be exposed to. They can't tell you. However, notice they leave the room. In fact, notice that they give you large lead 'shields' to lay over your privates. If radiation were safe... do you really think medical personnel would have a completely separate room for firing the x-ray machine? After all, a lead-lined outfit should protect them, right?As someone who has had extensive training regarding radiation (I was stationed on submarines), I can assure you... any statement of 'safe exposure' is a bold-faced lie.

All true, Ed, but...In the sixties I had a chest X-ray done. A large tumor was found. I don't think there was any other test at that time that could have found that tumor. That X-ray no doubt saved my life.

All true, Ed, but...In the sixties I had a chest X-ray done. A large tumor was found. I don't think there was any other test at that time that could have found that tumor. That X-ray no doubt saved my life.

No one is doubting that X-rays have their benefits in modern medicine. The point is that frequent travelers, especially pilots who are already subjected to higher amounts of radiation in the cockpit, don't want to be scanned by "safe radiation" several times a week.

Ed,How much radiation are we exposed to just walking outside everyday?

Less than the amount you get from an x-ray. The critical component is this: they can't tell you how much radiation you get from an x-ray. They don't know.