Hacker News Reader

Comment by po | Hacker News Reader

However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.

The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more of it is absorbed at the skin.

Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.

View on HN

> The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more of it is absorbed at the skin.

I have a genetic pre-disposition to skin cancer. The total radiation dose may be small, but the type of radiation (ionizing), and the fact that it is targeted at, and fully absorbed by the skin doesn't give me comfort. Should I be concerned?

That's a rhetorical question, because in reality we just don't know because no one has studied it. And that's scary. I've opted out ever since these things were introduced, and will continue to do so.

The power of ionizing radiation being absorbed entirely at the skin (not the entire body mass) is also my concern. Those figures of the radiation being equal to "just a few minutes of flying in the plane" are totally inaccurate.

I am also notably concerned about that ionizing radiation being absorbed by my open eyes and also down below.. not to be crude.

you are absolutely right. Talking about small exposure only is a typical marketing trick. The type/frequency of the radiation and absorbing site would make all the difference. They just abuse the general ignorance of the population. When i'm to fly, i'm all for groping. Just need to get a Prince Albert done.

http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573

http://thewashingtonfancy.com/2011/09/18/man-takes-viagra-we...

"A TSA spokesperson declined to comment on this specific case, but said that anyone ejaculating during a pat-down would be subject to arrest."

Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.

This usually isn't an issue, you can see your bags or have them set aside. The issue I have personally been running intro (I travel about 2x per month on average, meaning potentially 4 trips through these things) is that when you opt-out it seems like it is taking longer and longer for them to find a suitable pat-down attendant.

This could just be my own skepticism, but it certainly seems that the wait is getting longer and longer each time.

In my experience (I've opted-out 6 times now in the past 1.5 years), they let you take your baggage with you to the pat down area, and you never have to lose eye contact.

I've done it a few times now, and they have always had me identify my bag, shoes, etc on the belt before the pat down. Then they set the bags aside. They also insist that you don't touch it until you are finished with the patdown.

This is not always true.

I was at JFK Terminal 1 (International) and I got separated from my bags on the belt for an extended period of time. When I complained that my bags were at risk of being stolen or lost, the TSA agent said "You opted out. That's what happens."

Needless to say, I found a supervisor and complained. I'm also filing an official complaint. I have no problem being patted-down but I do have a problem with them trying to coerce me to do something I've expressly asked to be excluded from, and using my fear of property loss to get me to do it. That's WRONG.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com