# Airport body scanner and pregnancy



## mauraa629 (Nov 10, 2009)

well, i'm going on a trip tomorrow and just thought of the body scanner at the airport. Waiting for a call back from my midwife but wanted to know if any of you know anything about this? Is it just like an x-ray, like should be avoided during pregnancy? I don't know what to expect from airport security, like if they will give me a hard time for not wanting to walk through the machine, or if they will understand and check me the old way.


----------



## Blanca78 (Jul 26, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mauraa629* 
well, i'm going on a trip tomorrow and just thought of the body scanner at the airport. Waiting for a call back from my midwife but wanted to know if any of you know anything about this? Is it just like an x-ray, like should be avoided during pregnancy? I don't know what to expect from airport security, like if they will give me a hard time for not wanting to walk through the machine, or if they will understand and check me the old way.

I think if you want to avoid it, you can opt to be patted down instead. It would make me wary, too, and I'm glad you reminded me because I have a flight coming up.


----------



## WifeofAnt (May 2, 2010)

Not all airports have them. Where are you flying out of? I know Austin and Detroit don't have them because I was just there like 2 months ago.

The machines that are x-ray based (not all are) use backscatter xray. I guess its different than a regular xray because it isn't meant to penetrate the skin. Even though they do use a form of xrays you are still going to get more harmful exposure from the sun while being 30,000 feet up in the plane. Its estimated that one scan equals about 2 minutes of flight time.
The machines that are not xray based use milimeter waves. Not something I know much about but supposedly less radiation than the typical cell phone gives off.

If you choose not to get scanned the alernative is a physical pat down. I had a 'random search' at Austin (yes TSA, that IS in fact a baby bump) and it only took like 10 seconds. Not really as big a deal as I thought it would be.


----------



## loonar (Feb 14, 2010)

Because the radiation from the scanner is no worse than the radiation from flying, I was not concerned about walking through one. But the TSA guy pulled me aside and had me skip it anyway (I was obviously pregnant). You can always opt for a pat-down if you're uncomfortable with it.


----------



## MaerynPearl (Jun 21, 2008)

I went through Ohare in June... all they had was the usual old metal detectors, no new body scanner yet.


----------



## outlier (Sep 29, 2008)

I went through an airport that had one of the new scanners at the beginning of 3rd tri. They won't give you a hard time if you opt out and go for the pat-down. Even if they do, you certainly don't owe them any kind of explanation. I think lots of people are opting out since it's such a new thing, plus there's the knowledge that some TSA employee somewhere would be basically looking at you naked.


----------



## Aliy (Jun 1, 2010)

wow... good thing i caught this thread.. i don't know if any of the airporta i'll be in will have anything like this but good to remember.... i fly at the end of the month


----------



## crayfishgirl (May 26, 2009)

Buffalo airport (a pretty dinky little regional airport) has them. I agree that there isn't much risk, but you can opt out and go through the regular machine if they still have it there (it was still in BUF, and they directed me through that because my DD was in the ergo...another lady asked for that as well with no explanation or questions) or a pat-down.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

i was them here in DC when i flew last week, but the line had both types old and new, they sent folks thru both of them, so i just went thru the old style. i dont know if i have any opion on their safety, but i didnt feel like thinking about it so i made sure i got in the line for the old style


----------



## the janet (Sep 28, 2009)

I noticed I was in the security line with one of those newfangled machines and just walked over to the regular metal detector. No one said anything. I'm pretty sure if you're visibly pregnant they just assume you're opting out to be on the safe side.


----------



## OrangeMoon (Sep 7, 2010)

Aren't these machines totally new though? I can just picture a study a few years from now like "Airport scanners 30,000 times stronger than previously thought." No way would I walk through one of those while pregnant. Even not pregnant I don't think I would. Lots of things when they come out are "proven" to be safe that are later shown not to be. Like x-rays during pregnancy were recommended way back when - things like that make me try and think for myself.


----------



## teeg1973 (Oct 15, 2008)

I just flew transatlantic this past week and none of the airports I was in had the new machines. The security person in Frankfurt pulled me aside so that I didn't have to walk through the even the old machines....none of the other airports (both Midway and Ohare and Indianapolis) gave me an option and I just went through them, but I am sure I probably could have asked for a pat down if I had wanted.

Go with your own comfort level!

Tracy


----------



## ILoveMyBabyBird (Sep 2, 2006)

I wouldn't do it, pregnant or not. I read a while back that many countries don't like kids under 16 go through them, so I'm not taking chances with a fetus.


----------



## DaisyMae08 (Oct 27, 2008)

I flew this summer early in my second trimester and the airport was using the body scanner and didn't have the old metal detector. I opted out and no one minded at all. I just had to go through the whole pat down process. I definitely wouldn't walk through one while pregnant.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I didn't realize they ever planned on using the whole body scanner for every person who went through security. How long does it take to scan and check each scan??


----------



## WifeofAnt (May 2, 2010)

I think maybe 5 seconds a person at most. Step in, raise your arms, get the okay (from the guy on the other side of the airport staring at the screen), and walk through.


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

I just flew through: Frankfurt, Chicago O'Hare and Denver. None of those airports have the new scanners, just plain old metal detectors. I would opt out of the new ones just to be safe.

@ Teeg: What, they didn't let me skip the metal thing in FRA! Admitted though, I don't look very pregnant at all, especially since I was wearing a dress and the stewardesses were surprised when I said hey I'm 22 weeks! I should have worn something tight to show off the bump, ha, will do so in 2 weeks on the way to SFO...


----------



## ILoveMyBabyBird (Sep 2, 2006)

not too sure about the source but they do provide links to their articles to back the story up.

Sounds like in addition to possible negative problems with exposure to the scanners, human rights are being violated as well.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/big-sis-...-backlash.html


----------



## mkat83 (Oct 10, 2010)

So, are the old style machines considered safe to walk through while pregnant, then?


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

Yes, the old metal detectors are considered safe. Though I have heard of pregnant women who were asked by TSA to not go through them. But I always have so far.


----------



## elonwy (May 13, 2009)

I have a friend who is a radiation safety expert (his job is to examine places and equipment to make sure people don't get exposed to bad stuff) and he explained : "The scanners barely penetrate the dead layer of skin. In this case the only exposure is to a single, rather radio-resistant organ: the skin. Skin dose limits, by contrast, are 50,000mrem/yr. Dose per scan is roughly .02mrem." and "The unborn are just fine. They get to use your skin." I was weirded out by them at first, but after he explained to me how they work I'm indifferent.


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

There is absolutely no way I would subject my unborn babe to completely untested technology like this. People freak out about dopplers which have been used for decades and we know about the technology used. There have been many many studies....

These scanners have not been studied.. we have no idea what they do. It is a new type of radiation that humans have not be subjected to on large scale studies yet. Im actually amazed more MDC mothers arent absolutely appauled by this.

If you opt out they touch you palm up on your mons pubis and labia majora!!!! Palm up. Intimately, like only my husband should. *If you opt your children out, you teach them to let authority figures touch them in completely inappropriate and private places.* They SQUEEZE your breasts, lifting them, feeling under them.. with pressure. When my husband opted out last week they reached UNDER the waistband of his boxers. They moved his testicles to each side, groping them and feeling underneath them. Ive heard of women who were made to remove their children's diapers because they were too bulky.

This is disgusting and unnessecary. 1 in 4 women have been victims of sexual assault. 1 in 5 women have been victims of molestation. To be forced to allow strangers to grope our bodies or see our naked bodies on a screen is horrible. I cannot tell you how triggering this is to me as a woman who has been a victim of both sexual assault and molestation. I know I will sob the whole time those people touch me and if I hadnt of booked a trip 4 months ago before any of this was happening I never would fly and subject myself and my 2.5 year old daughter to this! Now, if I cancel I literally lose almost 2 thousand dollars.. and I still havent decided if that is actually better then traumatizing my daughter and myself this way.

What a way to start a vacation.

I really urge everyone to opt out of this. I also beg you to write your senators, congressmen, mayors and news agencies. This is too much and it needs to be stopped.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

have you seen this first hand? becasue i went thru a pat down just a few weeks ago and it was nothing like that AT ALL.

i agree that if that is indeed fact what they are doing it is wrong, but im just guessing here but that this is not what they are directed to do, if folks are going too far they need to be reported on the spot, if it is actually in writing to do this then i agree that needs to be changed, but untill i see in first person (and i fly a ton!) i am going to stay calm and assume something got out on wack in the story getting passed from person to person


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *~Adorkable~*
> 
> have you seen this first hand? becasue i went thru a pat down just a few weeks ago and it was nothing like that AT ALL.
> 
> i agree that if that is indeed fact what they are doing it is wrong, but im just guessing here but that this is not what they are directed to do, if folks are going too far they need to be reported on the spot, if it is actually in writing to do this then i agree that needs to be changed, but untill i see in first person (and i fly a ton!) i am going to stay calm and assume something got out on wack in the story getting passed from person to person


Well, my husband experienced it first hand on Nov 6th as I detailed above. The enhanced pat downs changed after that whole yemen/ bomb thing happened. I have a close friend who flew a couple days after from SEA to Vancouver that verified that yes they did feel her mons pubis with their palm and squeeze her breasts. If you do a search you will find several persons first person accounts there are also videos.

http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/

http://pncminnesota.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/rape-survivor-devasted-by-tsa-enhanced-pat-down/
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Pat-Down-Like-Sexual-Assault-Passenger-108147589.html

http://consumerist.com/2010/08/tsas-enhanced-pat-down-procedure-lets-their-fingers-do-the-searching.html - note palms of their hands and fingers will now be used..

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/station/as-seen-on/Woman_claims_new_TSA_Security_Protocol_amounts_to_legalized_groping_Los_Angeles-106802483.html

http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1276131

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/politics/local_politics/TSA_Screenings_New_Jersey_Legislation_111510

That was less then a few moments of a search.


----------



## Liora (Aug 11, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MamaChef*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


And they do this to CHILDREN as well??? There is no way I'd let someone touch my child in that way.


----------



## rach03 (Dec 30, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveMyBabyBird*
> 
> I wouldn't do it, pregnant or not. I read a while back that many countries don't like kids under 16 go through them, so I'm not taking chances with a fetus.


I agree. I read an article, and now I'll have to go find it, about backscatter radiation accumulating in the skin due to it not penetrating and diffusing through the body. The article said there may be a risk for skin and breast cancers. While that risk may be low, I feel like these machines are way too new for me or my kids to be a guinea pig. Luckily I do not have plans to fly in the near future, but when I do even if I'm not pregnant I will opt for the pat down. They can send me through the metal detector and pat me down, but I won't be going through the body scanner.


----------



## WifeofAnt (May 2, 2010)

Wow. I had a pat-down in August (random security check) and it was nothing like that. Are you sure that wasn't like a strip search?


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liora*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Liora,

I know!!!







Im seriously beside myself about this. My husband said he heard that as of this morning the head of the TSA said they would no longer be doing the advanced pat downs on children under 12. I have to find the links to verify this. I hope so. I think any pat down is ridiculous, but the thought of someone intimately touching my child between her legs sends me into such a rage I think Id be escorted out of there in hand cuffs. Im teaching my daughter to scream if anyone touches her inappropriately, we are focusing on this alot in the weeks before we fly, if we fly. Im planning on calling Hawaiian and asking for their refund policy in light of these new pat downs. If I can get them to refund our tickets there is just no way in heck we are flying.


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WifeofAnt*
> 
> Wow. I had a pat-down in August (random security check) and it was nothing like that. Are you sure that wasn't like a strip search?


No, it is the new enhanced pat downs. Do searches folks and educate yourself. Im not being a chicken little here. This is real and it is coming to an airport near you if it hasnt already.


----------



## jennifercp8 (Nov 10, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WifeofAnt*
> 
> Wow. I had a pat-down in August (random security check) and it was nothing like that. Are you sure that wasn't like a strip search?


The rules have changed since August. I even flew in the beginning of October, and it was nothing like it is now. This has just been implemented in the past couple of weeks.

Also, the head guy at TSA was on the Today show, and he is saying that children under the age of 12 are exempt from the pat-down.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

ok i think we can agree that this sounds beyond yucky, lets focus on what the thread was started for and get back to the new style body scanners, other things like this new pat down might be better served in its own thread so as not to hyjack this one.


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *~Adorkable~*
> 
> ok i think we can agree that this sounds beyond yucky, lets focus on what the thread was started for and get back to the new style body scanners, other things like this new pat down might be better served in its own thread so as not to hyjack this one.


I think both of these things are completely interlinked.


----------



## amaayeh (Jan 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MamaChef*
> 
> There is absolutely no way I would subject my unborn babe to completely untested technology like this. People freak out about dopplers which have been used for decades and we know about the technology used. There have been many many studies....
> 
> ...


This is exactly what I have been reading about online and exactly how I feel about it. I simply won't fly if they try to subject me or my children to that. It is UNACCEPTABLE and we are the ONLY country in the world to allow such behavior. Ridiculous and does NOTHING for our safety.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

an interesting article on the NPR.com site today about these scanners, i had no idea that there are two different types and one is not x-ray, i would love a more indepth decription of how they both work and why some folks think one is safer than the other.

here is the link Protests Mount Over Safety And Privacy Of Airport Scanners : Shots - Health News Blog : NPR

Quote:


> This could all be avoided, Brenner says, if the government relied entirely on the millimeter-wave scanners instead of the X-ray scanners.
> 
> By the way, you might be wondering: Can the average traveler standing in a security line tell the difference? Yes, a TSA spokesman says. The X-ray type is blue and has two walls. The millimeter-wave machine is grayish-white and is more cylindrical.


----------



## jennifercp8 (Nov 10, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MamaChef*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I agree. If you opt of out of the scan, you get the pat down. They aren't two different things.


----------



## WifeofAnt (May 2, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *~Adorkable~*
> 
> an interesting article on the NPR.com site today about these scanners, i had no idea that there are two different types and one is not x-ray, i would love a more indepth decription of how they both work and why some folks think one is safer than the other.


Millimeter wave is supposed to be comparable to the radiation a cell phone gives off. Backscatter x-ray is a little stronger but still LESS radiation than the plane ride and only a small fraction of a 'regular' x-ray. Everyone seems to forget that you ARE subjecting yourself to small amounts of solar radiation by being 30,000 feet up. Most of the radiation you're going to receive flying is going to be *during the flight*, not before. If you're extremely paranoid about the radiation from a scan then you should probably take a train or bus instead.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

i agree they are linked since one can be the result of the other.

i was just getting back to the original question, of if they were safe or not.

with the new rules i do agree that its important to understand what opting out means as well.

just wondering if we are getting into another conversation that does not really have to do with safety during pregnancy which is what the tread was about


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Millimeter wave is right below twave.. what if a machine's calibration is off? What if you are in there for longer as they oogle your naked body? What if, what if, what if? We dont know... we do know this:

(from wikipedia)

Millimeter wave radiation and radio frequency radiation in general is not inherently carcinogenic (unlike X-rays and ultraviolet radiation), but exposure to lower frequencies of microwaves have demonstrated an increased risk of cancer and faster rates of tumor progression.[10]

A study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov and colleagues at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico[11] performed mathematical models how terahertz fields interact with double-stranded DNA, showing that, even though involved forces seem to be tiny, nonlinear resonances (although much less likely to form than less-powerful common resonances) could allow terahertz waves to "unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication".[12]



> and as for the xray backscatter.. read the wikipedia for yourself.. what if the machine malfunctions? Also, several scientists have said that the amount emitted is higher then the tsa is saying and yes it is focused on skin.. it is a focused ray, whereas cosmic radiation is diffused. I dont have my cellphone on my body most of the time. I know my husband doesnt wear his on his testes.. what does this do to sperm? So what if I only fly a couple times a year.. what about flight attendents and pilots? It reminds me of that poem about how they came for the x and I wasnt an x, so I did nothing... then they came for the y and I wasnt a y, I did nothing.. then they came for me and there was nobody to help me.


----------



## WifeofAnt (May 2, 2010)

What if the fuel system on the plane malfunctions? What if birds fly into the engines? What if the wheels don't come down properly on landing? What if lightning strikes the plane?

Yes, there is a risk walking into a scanner. There's also a risk in flying, driving, and doing everything else we do on a daily basis.


----------



## Kristynwy (Oct 5, 2010)

I just traveled from Denver to Portland,Or and I was able to opt out and be patted down instead. Denver had full body scanners, however my husband and daughter just went through the regular ones. Portland didn't have the full body scanners, I was patted down there too.

According to the CDC you do have the right to request to skip out on the scanners.

Airport security radiation exposure is minimal for pregnant women and has not been linked to an increase in adverse outcomes for unborn children to date. However, because of early reports of a possible association of radiation exposure during pregnancy and subsequent increased risk of childhood leukemia and cancer, a pregnant passenger may request a hand or wand search rather than being exposed to the radiation of the airport security machines.

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2010/chapter-8/traveling-while-pregnant.aspx


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WifeofAnt*
> 
> What if the fuel system on the plane malfunctions? What if birds fly into the engines? What if the wheels don't come down properly on landing? What if lightning strikes the plane?
> 
> Yes, there is a risk walking into a scanner. There's also a risk in flying, driving, and doing everything else we do on a daily basis.


Well, believing in God, those are things out of my control.. What is in my control is letting my government do things that that are unnessecary and treating it's citizenry like criminals with no proven benefit to my safety and possible detriment. We are the only country doing these ridiculous enhanced pat downs. Very few use these scanners.




"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin



I cringe at the world Im bringing my child into where violations like these are condoned by the masses.


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

Actually I got a pat down like the current ones in Frankfurt in 2006. Every passenger on my plane was subjected to it (FRA-NYC Kennedy airport). I don't know if there was a certain threat or something, it wasn't fun, but I needed to be on that plane, I also wasn't asked if I want this or not, it just happened to everyone. So I guess the US isn't the only country with enhanced pat-downs.

In Denver 2 weeks ago though I was able to discreetly switch lines to the normal metal detector. It was the line labeled as family line anyways (if you carry liquids and such, it's this green sign at airports)... Nobody said anything.


----------



## Liora (Aug 11, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WifeofAnt*
> 
> What if the fuel system on the plane malfunctions? What if birds fly into the engines? What if the wheels don't come down properly on landing? What if lightning strikes the plane?
> 
> Yes, there is a risk walking into a scanner. There's also a risk in flying, driving, and doing everything else we do on a daily basis.


This is the same argument used by people to get me to vaccinate my child. There are risks you can control and those you can't. When it is something in my control I'm going to opt for the safest, most natural option.


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Ive flown through frankfurt twice since 2008. Never seen this done as standard operating procedure as it is being done in the US. Never saw it done in frankfurt period. Through my job Ive flown through quite a few international airports all over the world and never seen this done as standard operating procedure anywhere. Im not saying that this doesnt happen one off, Im sure way worse things then this pat down have happened to passengers, like strip searches, etc.. but from all the news accounts Ive seen about this there is no other country that does it as a standard operating procedure.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nia82*
> 
> Actually I got a pat down like the current ones in Frankfurt in 2006. Every passenger on my plane was subjected to it (FRA-NYC Kennedy airport). I don't know if there was a certain threat or something, it wasn't fun, but I needed to be on that plane, I also wasn't asked if I want this or not, it just happened to everyone. So I guess the US isn't the only country with enhanced pat-downs.
> 
> In Denver 2 weeks ago though I was able to discreetly switch lines to the normal metal detector. It was the line labeled as family line anyways (if you carry liquids and such, it's this green sign at airports)... Nobody said anything.


Also, on the patdowns.. kids under 12 wont be subjected to enhanced pat downs, but they are still subjected to pat downs. Just FYI to anyone travelling with a child under 12 that is opting out.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *OrangeMoon*
> 
> Aren't these machines totally new though? I can just picture a study a few years from now like "Airport scanners 30,000 times stronger than previously thought." No way would I walk through one of those while pregnant. Even not pregnant I don't think I would. Lots of things when they come out are "proven" to be safe that are later shown not to be. Like x-rays during pregnancy were recommended way back when - things like that make me try and think for myself.


Exactly! Heck, I just heard of research in the past year that CT Scans have a lot more radiation than previously thought -and they've been around a LOT longer than these new scanners!

I read some articles about people being given a really hard time for trying to opt out of the new scanners - so don't be so sure you can always jump into the line with the regular old-style metal detectors without repercussions.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MamaChef*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Well, I'm an atheist, but I agree with your sentiment here & I love that Ben Franklin quote.

Birds flying into the engines isn't an applicable analogy here in the least. As Liora eloquently stated, "There are risks you can control and those you can't." Besides, this isn't just about risk - it's about CHOICE! The choice between technology of somewhat unknown safety, and a totally invasive pat down/groping is unacceptable.


----------



## OrangeMoon (Sep 7, 2010)

Ugh, ironically we recently had some personal experience with this :-( This thread has new meaning to me now, lol. So, for Halloween we were flying from NYC to Detroit Michigan to be with my family. And I had G with me, and the person that tells you what line to get in told me to get into one, and my husband Kent into the other. I'm pregnant but don't really have problems going through the metal scanner so I did. But Kent was told to go through this x-ray thing, and he said he didn't want to. So he went through the metal detector, but JUST by refusing to go through the x-ray scanner, he had to go through more rigorous testing. All the details are a little fuzzy for me now because the whole thing was so upsetting. So at this time they tested the clothes he was wearing and patted him down, and what are the odds of this, he somehow tested positive for explosives (?????). My husband is one of the greatest guys you'll ever meet and a medical doctor. He told the airport people he is a doctor and regularly handles peoples medications, which the ppl said can be why he tested positive but because of this all of our luggage had to be opened up in front of everyone at the airport and searched for explosives. My husband is a doctor who works every day to save peoples lives and help them. How many ppl who want to take explosives on a plane are MD's and have their pregnant wife and toddler with them? I said this to the airport ppl but they didn't care. So because of this they said they had to do a "thorough pat down" but wouldn't tell me what exactly this meant despite asking multiple times which is one of the things that upset me the most. So these guys take him into this private room, and my toddler FREAKS OUT, and is crying and screaming at the door :-( When Kent got out he wouldn't tell me the details because he was so upset about the whole thing but later he told me they completely groped his balls. Like push things side to side, feel under. I asked him if it was palm up just now and he said he doesn't remember. I think that this is infringing on peoples RIGHTS and it makes me so upset. Why should men and women and children be sexually groped just to get on an airplane? I wish I remembered the links but this guy talked about all these things airlines could do that would make things safer that don't involve infringing on peoples rights and making the whole process EXTREMELY unpleasant. Anyone know who I'm talking about? I just think airlines really have people by the balls (literally and figuratively now unfortunately) because when ppl go on vacation, you've taken a lot of time packing, planning, paying for hotels at your destination, you've taken off from work. How many ppl will turn down their much awaited Hawaiian vacation because they are going to get thoroughly patted down? I don't think a lot of ppl and it really makes me nervous. If you turned it down and thus couldn't get on your flight, I really wouldn't be surprised if the airline still wouldn't refund your ticket. The whole thing is just awful and it really makes me wish there were more trains in this country like there are in Europe. I am still so upset about what happened. I was patted down with G on another trip and I found it upsetting enough. Having my boobs and crotch groped??? Um, NO WAY! I felt so bad for my husband, him getting his balls groped while his toddler son screams for him and is crying, hitting the door. Can you imagine?!!?

And when I was watching one of the guys digging into our luggage, the supervisor who was standing with us called over to him and said "test your gloves first!". So the guy pulled his hands out of our luggage and THEN tested his hands for whatever. He didn't even follow protocol. Was HE the one who tested my husband for explosives? Because maybe it was residue from something else and he didn't change his damn gloves. I said to the supervisor "We haven't had the time to go on a date in two years, you think we have the time to dabble in explosives?" ugh.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MegBoz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## atnightingale (Mar 10, 2008)

I opted out three weeks ago in Indianapolis. This was one of the Millimeter Wave Scanners not the backscatter. I was only 8 weeks, so not visibly pregnant. They made a big deal and made several attempts to pressure me to go through and kept trying to educate me during the pat down. They also told me 1 outright lie and 1 irrelevant (though probably unintentional) mistruth. I was pretty annoyed.


----------



## mkat83 (Oct 10, 2010)

I'm going to be flying in May, and will likely be pregnant then, and I hadn't thought of this issue until DH was watching online the videos from that guy who just recently recorded his experience when he refused the body scan and refused the thorough pat-down. DH said to me, "I definitely don't want you walking through one of those when you are pregnant." I said, well, I can just be searched, but it seems that the NEW pat-down procedures are a lot different than the "old" ones.

I did a quick search online to see just what airports have the body scanner to see if we will be in any of them on our trip (one is







I just flew out of that airport recently and didn't even notice it, though-- New Orleans). Here is the most recent list I found-- says it was updated as of 11/15/10:

http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/11/15/165132/48/travel/An+Updated+List+of+the+80%2B+Airports+with+Full-Body+Scanners


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1138014-complete-list-airports-whole-body-imaging-advanced-imaging-technology-scanner.html

This list is being constantly updated and it tells you what kind of machines are at each security checkpoint.


----------



## Stayseeliz (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm joining the discussion late but I heard a radio interview about this today. John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute said pregnant women should absolutely NOT walk through the scanners. He said there is 20x the amount of radiation with those machines compared to a dental x-ray. Yikes. He also said if you refuse and have to do the pat-down make sure to asked to be seated AWAY from the scanners to avoid any radiation exposure there. Scary stuff.


----------



## Jayray (Oct 13, 2008)

There is a difference between the x-rays used for dental x-rays and the x-rays used in the scanners. The x-rays in the scanners don't penetrate the skin (significantly), whereas the dental x-rays do. This is part of the reason why the scanners are "safer."

If it influences anyone, my husband is a nuclear physicist and he told me he'd rather me go through the scanner than be groped by a stranger.


----------



## Liora (Aug 11, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jayray*
> 
> If it influences anyone, my husband is a nuclear physicist and he told me he'd rather me go through the scanner than be groped by a stranger.


lol. but isn't it sad if that is your only two choices? I think the terrorists are winning.


----------



## OrangeMoon (Sep 7, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liora*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


****LIKE****


----------



## Karamom (Mar 26, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liora*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 also **LIKE** lol

I am in agreement with mamachef. This whole issue outrages me! The infringement on our rights is horrific.

ETA: I just realized that there is an actual like button in this new format!


----------



## Stayseeliz (Jul 16, 2004)

There are several organizations suing the TSA over the infringement of our rights. There are other ways to up safety without these kind of tactics.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Karamom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolina Kel (Jul 1, 2009)

I personally don't plan on going through the new scanning machines if I can help it... although the thought of getting to third base with someone from TSA without dinner, a drink and a movie is definitely making me think it's time for Amtrak or a road-trip instead.

*On a funnier note...*

My husband is going to be flying soon. He's going to be wearing a larger friend's utilikilt that needs a belt to stay on. And yes, he'll be going true regimental style... which means when they ask for his belt, he's going to be giving TSA a lot more than they asked for 

And yes... the terrorists are definitely winning on this one.


----------



## OrangeMoon (Sep 7, 2010)

The thing that really pisses me off about this whole thing is when they first introduced these scanners, the general message was "We are introducing these new scanners to try and improve safety, if you don't want to go through it then that's fine, you can go in the metal detector line, it just might be a lot longer". But NOW if you say you don't want to go through this new scanner you are treated as a terrorist suspect and subjected to sexual acts you don't want to be involved in, that is SO f*cked up! I wish I lived in europe, why has America stopped making and improving trains for transportation? I would take that in a second until all this craziness is over. And I'm really glad they are being sued! They deserve it!


----------



## dayiscoming2006 (Jun 12, 2007)

I agree with those saying they wouldn't go through the scanner because of the lack of solid evidence that they are absolutely safe and because I don't want anyone seeing me naked other than hubby. I also would not agree to a grope search. So, I better just stay out of the airport or I might end up in jail or something. If anyone touched my kids I would probably be thrown in jail too. So, well, like I said, I'll stay away for now. I just flew in May and didn't have any issues. This is just ridiculous.


----------



## reelgeek (Oct 26, 2010)

Here is a link to a letter from a group of UCSF doctors about their concern about the backscatter x-ray machines in the SFO airport. Lists the concerns and people they feel are generally at risk.

http://j.mp/cancer-ray


----------



## Goddess3_2005 (Oct 20, 2004)

Steer clearof them, my father is a physician and he told me there is evidence that they disrupt the DNA and would be very dangerous to a pregnant woman. We opted to drive for our trip.


----------



## L&K'smommie (Aug 23, 2007)

Ugh. I'm really disheartened by hearing all this. I'm flying next month and will be flying out of an airport with these scanners...I hope they still have the old ones too. I'm flying with my 20 month old alone and had planned not to go through the new machines...but now when forced with the machine or the new pat-down...I don't know. This whole thing makes me want to puke. My dh all ready told me that if they go to far with the pat down to take pictures, take down names, etc. Ugh...I just don't know now. And I have no option but to fly with where I live...it would take more than a week of driving to get anywhere in the continental US.

And I wholeheartedly agree with Mamachef and I love your quote!


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

I've been thinking about this. There has been so much in the media about it the last 2 weeks or so. And I am glad to have an idea what to expect in advance.

We are flying next month with our 3yo. He isn't very verbal. I've heard complaints that the TSA workers were asking small children, even babies, security questions. My child will not understand or be able to answer.

For the new machines, the person has to stand in a variety of positions when instructed. Yeah right! First of all, I can't imagine him walking into the machine alone. So how is he going to stop in the right place and follow the instructions?

For the pat down, I can imagine DS freaking out if a stranger is handling him. It could become a very traumatic experience, based on how the TSA workers react.

If there are the old machines, we figure DH will carry him through. And then if the pat downs appear to be not very thorough, I will probably choose that.


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

I wouldn't go through them NOT pregnant and absolutely refuse to go through them pregnant. There simply hasn't been enough research or studies done to prove that their safe. Remember, in the 50s they did X-Rays on all pregnant women to make sure their pelvises were big enough to give birth and then later found out that this increased the chances of getting cancer, so even if it's called "safe" at the time, doesn't mean it actually is.

I feel for my sister, though. She and her 1 year old are going to be heading out here to help me when my second child is born. She is absolutely dreading the idea of having to fly and is terrified they'll take her daughter away from her ( http://www.mybottlesup.com/2009/10/tsa-agents-took-my-son/) or feel her up or something like that. She's thinking of taking the train even though it'd be at least 40 hours compared with 6 or 7 flying.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

http://lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html

Written by a guy about what happened when his pregnant wife got groped at the airport.


----------



## noahs.mom06 (Jan 2, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Geist*
> 
> I wouldn't go through them NOT pregnant and absolutely refuse to go through them pregnant. There simply hasn't been enough research or studies done to prove that their safe. Remember, in the 50s they did X-Rays on all pregnant women to make sure their pelvises were big enough to give birth and then later found out that this increased the chances of getting cancer, so even if it's called "safe" at the time, doesn't mean it actually is.
> 
> I feel for my sister, though. She and her 1 year old are going to be heading out here to help me when my second child is born. She is absolutely dreading the idea of having to fly and is terrified they'll take her daughter away from her ( http://www.mybottlesup.com/2009/10/tsa-agents-took-my-son/) or feel her up or something like that. She's thinking of taking the train even though it'd be at least 40 hours compared with 6 or 7 flying.


They gave my MIL an x-ray in 1979 to find out if DH was breech and would fit through their pelvis!

I won't go through one of these scanners, and I wouldn't let my kids go through one, and I've told DH I don't want him to go through one, either! I'm wondering how things will change for us... since DD is "immune compromised", the TSA supervisor practically holds our hands through security. I wonder if it will be different now. We are actually driving to Boston (from CO) next month for her check-up, to avoid flying...


----------



## macandcheese (Jun 22, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Lilya*
> 
> http://lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html
> 
> Written by a guy about what happened when his pregnant wife got groped at the airport.


That makes me sick.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Lilya*
> 
> http://lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html
> 
> Written by a guy about what happened when his pregnant wife got groped at the airport.


messed up sad story, did you notice BTW that this was from 2002, right after 9/11. does not change how wrong the whole thing is, just interesting how times have not changed and the same fights are here still and again


----------



## TrishWSU (Oct 19, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amaayeh*
> 
> This is exactly what I have been reading about online and exactly how I feel about it. I simply won't fly if they try to subject me or my children to that. It is UNACCEPTABLE and we are the ONLY country in the world to allow such behavior. Ridiculous and does NOTHING for our safety.


You get searched like this every time you go through the Baghdad International Airport, after you get your bags screened and searched 4 times. The US isn't the only country to do it.

Personally, I wouldn't go through the scanner while pregnant.


----------



## OrangeMoon (Sep 7, 2010)

Just found this on my poor husbands facebook. As sad as it is funny:

http://gallery.pictopia.com/pensacola/e/?photo_name=DP-11190308-AR-L-AR&thumbnail_url=http%3A%2F%2Fcmsimg.pensacolanewsjournal.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcsi.dll%2Fbilde%3FSite%3DDP%26Date%3D20101119%26Category%3DOPINION%26ArtNo%3D11190308%26Ref%3DAR&title=Editorial%3A+Dignity+for+security%3F

My husband has said post grope that he would have gone through the x-ray than been felt up like that :-(


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OrangeMoon*
> 
> Just found this on my poor husbands facebook. As sad as it is funny:
> 
> ...


That's basically the goal: Here's a quote from a TSA worker (I had read another article about this last week but I can't find it this time.

"It is a terror tactic by TSA to get you to walk through the more thorough body scanner. I can't defend TSA on this one. I have talked to the TSA officers and it is no more effective than the old pat down procedure. They tested it out with trainers and each other. It is purely a terror tactic by TSA."

from: http://www.aetherczar.com/?p=2195

Quote:


> You get searched like this every time you go through the Baghdad International Airport, after you get your bags screened and searched 4 times. The US isn't the only country to do it.


Yes, but the US is the only country that isn't a war-zone or being occupied by a foreign power. We rank 33 on the list of terrorist threats. All threats on airplanes since 9/11 have been neutralized by the passengers who no longer being told to just sit there and do whatever the hijacker/terrorist/dude tells them. This is completely unnecessary and completely violates our human rights.


----------



## puddle (Aug 30, 2007)

This video blows my mind. A former assistant TSA administrator admits that these searches violate the 4th amendment, but says they're going to do it anyway. (Because it's worth it to keep our children safe.) Good thing for him that the constitution isn't the law anymore I guess.

As far as the original post, I'm with those who absolutely wouldn't risk the scanners while pregnant. I've read all the arguments about why it's supposedly safe, but I'm just not okay with myself or my unborn being a guinea pig.


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/11/full-body-scan-of-american-corruption.html

This link has a lot of good information about how the two different body scanners work and the radiation/cancer concerns. Scroll down about halfway through the blog post for the safety information. Definitely don't want to go through one pregnant...


----------



## OrangeMoon (Sep 7, 2010)

Young boy strip searched in public by TSA:


----------



## gummibears (Jun 7, 2010)

A friend told me there was a special report on TV about travel and pregnancy and they said NO scanners when pregnant. I travel via train so I can avoid it, but if I were flying I'd refuse it.


----------



## Banana731 (Aug 4, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elonwy*
> 
> I have a friend who is a radiation safety expert (his job is to examine places and equipment to make sure people don't get exposed to bad stuff) and he explained : "The scanners barely penetrate the dead layer of skin. In this case the only exposure is to a single, rather radio-resistant organ: the skin. Skin dose limits, by contrast, are 50,000mrem/yr. Dose per scan is roughly .02mrem." and "The unborn are just fine. They get to use your skin." I was weirded out by them at first, but after he explained to me how they work I'm indifferent.


http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/how_it_works.shtm

E- Ask your friend why you can see BONE in the backscatter picture, then?

That's totally creepy!


----------



## Monzie (Jul 6, 2007)

I just flew last weekend and there are no new scanners at the Dallas-Ft Worth airport or in Madison, WI. I was treated to a pat-down in Belize City, though....one of several I've had the pleasure of experiencing in the past couple of years. Although it is slightly embarrassing and annoying (especially when my impatient husband has to stand there juggling our 3 year old and all our stuff), I have never been "groped" or treated with anything but business-like efficiency. And I have never been asked to remove any articles of clothing aside from my shoes.


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Monzie*
> 
> I just flew last weekend and there are no new scanners at the Dallas-Ft Worth airport or in Madison, WI. I was treated to a pat-down in Belize City, though....one of several I've had the pleasure of experiencing in the past couple of years. Although it is slightly embarrassing and annoying (especially when my impatient husband has to stand there juggling our 3 year old and all our stuff), I have never been "groped" or treated with anything but business-like efficiency. And I have never been asked to remove any articles of clothing aside from my shoes.


Just FYI for others

Term A/B/E have no scanners, but all the other ones at DFW do. I have two friends who have flown out of DFW in the last few days and they did have scanners.


----------



## mamaki (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm flying at Christmas and I plan to say no to the body scanner... I guess I'll be getting the wonderful pat down....

I just found this article, has some details about how the TSA is comparing different types of radiation to the new scanners. http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/a-few-words-about-unknown-risks-of-the-tsas-new-airport-scanners/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=ZRecommends


----------



## k9sarchik (Nov 11, 2006)

I wouldn't go through the scanners if I was pregnant or not. They say Ultrasounds are safe, but I've read a study stating otherwise. They say vaccines are safe, but I've heard from doctors that they are not. Why would anyone trust our government? The government doesn't trust you or your children.

"It's magical thinking: If we defend against what the terrorists did last time, we'll somehow defend against what they do one time. Of course this doesn't work. We take away guns and bombs, so the terrorists use box cutters. We take away box cutters and corkscrews, and the terrorists hide explosives in their shoes. We screen shoes, they use liquids. We limit liquids, they sew PETN into their underwear. We implement full-body scanners, and they're going to do something else. This is a stupid game; we should stop playing it."

http://www.schneier.com/essay-303.html

The terrorists are already experimenting with body cavity explosives. They are already putting them into dogs. So all these scanners and pat downs are 100% useless to the next attack. So those that go through the scanners and get groped is all for nothing.


----------



## mkat83 (Oct 10, 2010)

Woman singled out for wearing Glad Rag:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333432/Humiliated-Female-passenger-subjected-patdown-sanitary-towel-showed-body-scanner.html


----------



## globe-trotter (Feb 11, 2009)

I fly a ton and I'm avoiding them like the plague! LOL If you can see your bones in the pictures (which you can) then it has to be enough radiation for me to not want scanned (pregnant or not). I know corpus christi, TX/Houston, TX/Chicago-O' Hare/ Mobile, AL and Atlanta, GA. None in **********, AL though. Now since the larger airports have multiple security sections you may not see them and they still use the old scanners also. These are the airports I have been in this month.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *globe-trotter*
> 
> LOL If you can see your bones in the pictures (which you can) then it has to be enough radiation for me to not want scanned (pregnant or not).


i agree that the re is a lot to wonder about with the new scans, but this statement above is makes no sense if you can see your bones with them then why is the issue that some folks have with them is that they see the skin a little too well! bones would not feel like such an private intrusion and it cant be both ways!?


----------



## spargel (Jun 2, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *~Adorkable~*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I think her point was not regarding the personal intrusion, but the fact that if there are enough x-rays to see your bones, there may well be enough to potentially hurt a fetus.

I personally think it's just a crock. I live overseas and have traveled extensively, on numerous occasions throughout Europe and flew through Egypt four times over the past year. Noone does what we do - it's ridiculous and it's certainly not safer - just reactive. Now that the terrorists are stashing stuff in body cavities, does that mean that we're going to have to have full body cavity searches as well? The new scanners won't detect that.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

and what i was saying is they dont look at bones, they look at skin. and i dont see how they could look at both, its not how things like that work, so i was confused

and if they could see bones they could see body cavities, and they cant as you mention


----------



## k9sarchik (Nov 11, 2006)

This is an interesting blog post from someone with a scientific perspective who is highly against these machines. http://myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-x-ray-backscatter-body-scanner.html


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *~Adorkable~*
> 
> and what i was saying is they dont look at bones, they look at skin. and i dont see how they could look at both, its not how things like that work, so i was confused
> 
> and if they could see bones they could see body cavities, and they cant as you mention


Well look at the TSA link she posted.. it sure does look like the backscatter is seeing spines, clavicles, sternums.. etc

Since they use backscatter to look for bone fragments in factory farmed chicken, you definitely can detect bone with it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXV-48DXPVY-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1562645398&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9419f73b45717f9f1e6506415a3c1042&searchtype=a

T

he question is are the ones at airports as high as the ones they use for things like that.. the pictures sure look like they are

http://nealkrawetz.net/blog/index.php?/archives/407-Hands-All-Over.html

http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/safety/content/article/113619/1521147

k9sarchik, I was going to post that article too. It is a very researched very well written and supported article. The statistics on the doses to children are staggering and the fact that the tests that they did run and have published to the public were with one of the xray emitting devices OFF while it is on in everyday use and everyone that walks through a backscatter scanner is exposed to it, is ridiculous.


----------



## nikie23 (Dec 1, 2010)

I'm a medical physicist; my job is to do quality assurance checks to ensure the safety of radiation machines in hospitals so that patients don't get overdosed. I have three concerns about the backscatter xray scanners:

1) Nobody is doing QAs. Seriously, nobody. The dose is low, but if the machine malfunctions nobody will know, and if the TSO operating it doesn't know what they're doing and holds down the button too long, you could easily get a lot more radiation than the TSA-spun press releases say.

2) In most states it's actually illegal to dose people with ionizing radiation for non-medical reasons, and/or if the radiation hasn't been prescribed by a doctor.

3) Low-dose x-rays have been shown to cause cellular damage that actually lingers longer than that from higher doses. Long story short, the low-dose damage doesn't trigger the cell's repair mechanism, so your body doesn't know there's a problem and thus doesn't fix it.

I'm 10 weeks pregnant, and I'll be traveling for Christmas out of an airport that has the xray scanners (they announced that they'd been put in 2 days after we bought non-refundable tickets, or I would've saved the money and planned on driving). I'll be hoping that I get left alone to go through the magnetometer, but if I get "randomly selected" (my bump could be a bomb, after all) I'll be bypassing the scanner and yelling "Opt out!!" with the TSO trying to shame me into complying.


----------



## Liora (Aug 11, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nikie23*
> 
> I'm a medical physicist; my job is to do quality assurance checks to ensure the safety of radiation machines in hospitals so that patients don't get overdosed. I have three concerns about the backscatter xray scanners:
> 
> ...


Thanks for this! I'm concerned too about TSOs running these things. When you go to the dr. there is a professional there and those machines are tested frequently.

I've never cared how low they say the dose is because radiation is cumulative - so add up all the x-rays, dental x-rays, and all the flights, and they can't possibly say when I've reached a threshold. This is also the reason I don't want to start my 2 year old on radiation accumulation so young. Much radiation is unavoidable so I'm not subjecting her to the avoidable kind.

Then again, NO ONE is groping my kid. Luckily I can say I'm not going to fly but that isn't really the answer. What if I had family over seas? It isn't fair to have to choose between health, sexual assault, or being without family.

I know I"m preaching to the choir here!


----------



## Jayray (Oct 13, 2008)

Just to give an update for anyone who's interested, I just flew through Raleigh-Durham and Boston Logan. Both places had the new scanners and were sending most people through them. However, when they saw I was pregnant, they sent me through the old metal detectors. No pat down. I also saw them sending moms with small children through the old metal detectors. I didn't see anyone getting patted down.


----------



## elonwy (May 13, 2009)

Banana- I sent him the link and asked him to 'splain, I'll let you know.

Am I weird in that when reading more about the pat-downs I became more concerned about my possible severe allergic reaction to the latex gloves they wear than anything else? It's just the thought of flying with a violent rash just really isn't cool, ya know?


----------



## elonwy (May 13, 2009)

Banana - Here is my friends response, which makes a lot of sense to me actually.


In this picture showing skin contour, you mean? http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/backscatter_large.jpg

That one's easy to explain: Those Aren't Bones. That's someone with good calf muscles and little body fat there.


----------



## Jenne (May 21, 2004)

Um, did anyone else see the (sorry I don't have the source at my fingertips...) possible pat down issues of TSA employees not changing there gloves between patdowns and transmitting gonorhea, syphillis, lice, and other bacteria/virus from person to person...

EEEWWWWW....










Jenne


----------



## mkat83 (Oct 10, 2010)

It was mentioned in the same article I posted a few days ago about the lady who was singled out for wearing Glad Rags.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jenne*
> 
> Um, did anyone else see the (sorry I don't have the source at my fingertips...) possible pat down issues of TSA employees not changing there gloves between patdowns and transmitting gonorhea, syphillis, lice, and other bacteria/virus from person to person...
> 
> ...


----------



## mrsberman (May 7, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MamaChef*
> 
> If you opt out they touch you palm up on your mons pubis and labia majora!!!! Palm up. Intimately, like only my husband should. *If you opt your children out, you teach them to let authority figures touch them in completely inappropriate and private places.* They SQUEEZE your breasts, lifting them, feeling under them.. with pressure. When my husband opted out last week they reached UNDER the waistband of his boxers. They moved his testicles to each side, groping them and feeling underneath them. Ive heard of women who were made to remove their children's diapers because they were too bulky.


First off, I haven't had time to finish reading everything, so if someone has already said this, I apologize.

I have issues with this statement because I've read/heard these stories and don't know what rights we have as passenger to say that is not part of the protocol/procedure etc. What bothers me is there is nothing on TSA's website saying this is allowed or not allowed. I would put up a fight if someone tried to put their hands down my pants. On TSA's blog, Blogger Bob states that you are not supposed to be asked to remove your clothing (for the record DD's CD are clothing in my eyes) and if you are to contact a supervisor immediately, however under the religious clothing section of TSA's website it says that if your clothing is large enough to hide object "then you will undergo a combination of hand-wand screening and/or pat-down inspections that could include *any* portion of the body and head area that requires further examination." The word "any" bothers me. It's too vague and any agent can interpret this the wrong way and say I have permission to search your body... I have emailed TSA and used the talk to TSA option to ask what is and isn't allowed during a pat down. I used putting hands down the underwear as a specific example, but I have yet to receive a response. Also, TSA has not even responded to any media stories like this.

On a side note, DH and I travel a few times a year to visit family and I know from personal experience that TSA is inconsistent. SEA is the worst and I'm from that area. No hometown pride with that one! In the past five years I've flown out of Seattle, Providence TF Green, Boston, Newport News, Richmond, Ft. Lauderdale, Montego Bay (this doesn't really count) and both Chicago airports. Seattle always has their own set of rules and I find the agents there to be high on authority.


----------



## atnightingale (Mar 10, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *elonwy* 


> Am I weird in that when reading more about the pat-downs I became more concerned about my possible severe allergic reaction to the latex gloves they wear than anything else? It's just the thought of flying with a violent rash just really isn't cool, ya know?


Oddly enough, this may be the one thing you don't have to be worried about. None of the gloves I have seen in airports or pictured in stories have been latex. Most have been the blue nitrile, including those in the story about TSA not changing their gloves.


----------



## mrsberman (May 7, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jenne*
> 
> Um, did anyone else see the (sorry I don't have the source at my fingertips...) possible pat down issues of TSA employees not changing there gloves between patdowns and transmitting gonorhea, syphillis, lice, and other bacteria/virus from person to person...
> 
> ...


Interesting. Well if the pat downs are limited to above clothing only, I would think this is unlikely. However, if TSA is allowed to go under clothing (which I'm still trying to find out for sure) then this sounds very likely. Gloves are for their protection as well as ours. In the food service industry you are supposed to change your gloves if you touch something else (ex: opening a door, lid, grabbing a jar) before going back to what you were doing. In the medical field hands have to be washed and new gloves put on before going to the next person.


----------



## Banana731 (Aug 4, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elonwy*
> 
> Banana - Here is my friends response, which makes a lot of sense to me actually.





> In this picture showing skin contour, you mean? http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/backscatter_large.jpg
> 
> That one's easy to explain: Those Aren't Bones. That's someone with good calf muscles and little body fat there.


Who's skin is contoured like that! I mean, yeah, you can see muscle outline, but you can also see patella!







Did you look at the head? I mean, it's been a while since I took Anatomy Who has skin contour like that? Good calf muscles? How does that expain the shin bones? Sounds a little suspect...

I asked a doctor friend, we're getting a second opnion!


----------



## Tear78 (Nov 28, 2008)

They used the new scanners when I flew over Thanksgiving, and I opted out. It was REALLY no big deal. The pat down was above my clothing, and when they went over my butt and breasts they used the backs of their hands. I have honestly been patted down that thoroughly in Germany as part of standard safety protocol. Just thought that might make people feel a little better.


----------



## Banana731 (Aug 4, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jenne*
> 
> Um, did anyone else see the (sorry I don't have the source at my fingertips...) possible pat down issues of TSA employees not changing there gloves between patdowns and transmitting gonorhea, syphillis, lice, and other bacteria/virus from person to person...
> 
> ...


I did, I think it was in the 'glad rag' story. They stated that "some med experts were concerned..." I don't know how accurate it was, there was no quote from a specific person about spreading all those things. It talked about how people could accidentally transfer things like feces to the outside of their own pants, and then get a pat down which could put e.Coli, etc on the TSA employees gloves, and then get spread to the next person. I could see it, you don't wash your hands until after you button your pants up in airport bathroom. And you could definitely spread things like lice that way...

it's way ewwww, gloves shouldn't touch more than one person's body.


----------



## MamaChef (Aug 28, 2010)

I did want to clarify. Although they reached inside the waistband of his jeans and boxers, by a good inch or two below where the waistband ended...they groped his testicles from the outside.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrsberman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## mkat83 (Oct 10, 2010)

Regarding inconsistencies in TSA procedure, I recently heard a story on NPR Morning Edition where Steve Inskeep was interviewing an authority from the TSA. The man being interviewed said repeatedly that the TSA procedures are meant to be "unpredictable," but that they were not necessarily "random." It was a rather amusing play on words, I thought, and the man even slipped up and said "random" at one point and had to correct himself. Apparently they state that their practices are very defined, but that TSA employees are instructed to change things up purposely and use varying techniques to keep things "unpredictable" for the terrorists. While I guess that makes some sense, it seems like it is more confusing than anything. Who is to say some TSA agents aren't just making things up as they go along and taking advantage of their position?

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/22/131516405/tsa-official-unpredictability-is-part-of-security-process


----------



## Liora (Aug 11, 2010)

This "unpredictable" thing scares me because it writes them a blank check against law suits. Too vague for me.


----------



## OrangeMoon (Sep 7, 2010)

I think they were referring to if someone soils their pants, which they said happens, that if the tsa people go on to touch even just another persons clothing, it can result in transmission of icky things. Or like that guys pee bag that they popped, what if the tsa guy didn't change his gloves after that? As of now I think the issue people have is that there isn't a law saying that he has to.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrsberman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## OrangeMoon (Sep 7, 2010)

It is definitely kind of a bummer because we really want to go to florida for christmas so that G can play outside and I can get some MUCH needed vitamin D, but I really don't know what to do with all this stuff going on. And after the whole horrible experience with my husband, they took a picture of his license, so I worry that that put him/us into some database where he will always get pulled over now :-(


----------



## mrsberman (May 7, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Banana731*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Calf muscles are on the back, not the front of the body. I agree, I see patella there! Also, the man's face looks like the boney facial features you see in an ultra sound. These people must be anorexic and near death for them to have that little body fat.

Mama Chef: Thanks for the clarification. There was recently a story in the Tacoma News Tribune editorial section where a woman said the same thing happened to her under her panties. Basically she was felt from side to side and she said she felt violated. I still find it hard to believe that would be allowed, but who knows anymore.

The glad rag story makes me wonder about cloth in general. Are mama cloth users and cloth diapered babies going to be screened more than the average person when they go through the scanners because the person on the other end finds it to be unusual?


----------



## mamaki (Aug 23, 2010)

Some great tips for traveling with kids, especially in light of the body scanner issue. http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/749599/01f275e321/ARCHIVE


----------



## Owen'nZoe (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nia82*
> 
> Actually I got a pat down like the current ones in Frankfurt in 2006. Every passenger on my plane was subjected to it (FRA-NYC Kennedy airport). I don't know if there was a certain threat or something, it wasn't fun, but I needed to be on that plane, I also wasn't asked if I want this or not, it just happened to everyone. So I guess the US isn't the only country with enhanced pat-downs.


Just wanted to mention that just because you were in a foreign airport does not mean that the US did not dictate the enhanced pat-downs. When we fly between the US and the Middle East, the airports along the way use a separate security protocol for flights to a US airport. I've been told that they must follow the US security protocols, or the flights are not allowed into the US.


----------



## rockyflatsgear (Jul 29, 2011)

Dear, mkat83, women are particularly sensitive to radiation breast tissue, ovary and your baby in first two trimesters.

First backscatter x-rays have somewhat limited penetrating power however still deliver a significant dose to skin, breast and ovaries.

New high power scanners being installed in jails and some airports are VERY dangerous to all, particularly expecting mothers and children.

Hope this helps. Jeff






http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/How-penetrating-are-airport-back-scatter-x-rays.html


----------



## Abraisme (Mar 8, 2009)

I just flew last week (while looking obviously pregnant) and they didn't require me to go through the xray machine. I didn't get patted down either.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Im interested in hearing from Mamas who have flown in the past couple of months. We are flying from Kentucky to Chicago to Orlando. We will have to go through security checkpoints at Louisville and Orlando. Both of these airports have the full body scanners and we fully intend to opt out and insist that all three of us stay together for personal body searches. Has anyone had any problems in the recent months?


----------



## mkat83 (Oct 10, 2010)

I flew out of Louisville in May, and I did not see the full body scanners. My husband was very worried about me going through them. I was very pregnant at the time (baby was born 3 weeks ago). We flew back from New Orleans, and they did have the full body scanners. It was sort of in between two lines, and we just picked the line we got into. When we got to the front of the line we could see that everyone who was being sent through the full body scanner was from the other line, so by chance we picked the line that was not being sent through the full scanner. As we were waiting in line they had a video playing with info about the scanner telling us that there was no danger, even to a pregnant women..... My husband was fully prepared to make a scene if I had been asked to go through it, but that didn't happen!

DH also flew out of L'ville again in June, and he said he didn't see full body scanners then, either.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Hmm, okay. They are listed as having them at one of the websites I looked at. I know Orlando has them, because the website showed pictures. Im not visibly pregnant, but regardless they cant make me go through them can they?


----------



## LivingSky (Aug 13, 2010)

I was not visibly pregnant when I went through two airports (Calgary Alberta, and San Francisco) that had the scanners (I was about 10 weeks along at that point). Both times they tried to send me through the full body scanners and I refused. I just said that I was pregnant and my doctor had recommended I not go through the scanners, and they did not give me any trouble at all. I did get the full body pat down but I did not find it at all intrusive. My husband also opted out of the scanners and one attendant did give him a bit of a hard time, but nothing too bad.


----------



## Jayray (Oct 13, 2008)

We just traveled through BWI. They had the full body scanners, but weren't using any of them at the time we went through security. They were sending everyone through the old metal detectors. I was so thankful not to have to worry about it!!!


----------



## mammamo (Nov 15, 2007)

I flew last week out of Columbus and home via Seattle. Both places had the new scanners and sent you through metal detector, and if the metal detector went off then they sent through the scanner..me nor my husband and children set the metal detector off and noone got scanned or patted down. My hubby did go out to smoke at a long layover in Milwaukee and they didn't use the old metal detectors at all and everyone gets scanned or patted down,


----------



## Weevil (Jan 30, 2009)

I recently flew with my husband and baby. Seemed like everyone was being sent through the scanners but when they got to us they let us go without being scanned. This has happened several times - they see us with a baby and don't put us through the scanner. I also flew once when I was just barely visibly pregnant, but not overly obviously so, and they tried to get me to go through the scanner. I pointed to my stomach and they just took me aside for a non-invasive pat-down. They can't force you to go through, you have the option for the pat down instead (just ask).


----------



## MommyMatsumoto (Feb 9, 2010)

My husband and I don't go through the scanners (even when I'm NOT pregnant). You do not have to do it and they can't make you, but they will pat you down instead if that's what they're doing that day.


----------



## dds07 (Apr 20, 2008)

You always have the option to "opt out" of the scan- they just do a full body pat down instead. No one has ever given me a hard time.


----------



## Lolle (Nov 20, 2009)

I "opted out" of the backscatter scan at Boston Logan at 8 weeks.....and while their verbal response was understanding, they made me wait RIGHT NEXT TO THE X-RAY FOR BAGS for 15 minutes while they got an attendant to give me the pat-down (they knew I was refusing because of a pregnancy). Any time I tried to move away from the machine, they'd steer me back to my "spot" with a look that said I was a half-foot away from a lockdown. I was practically in tears, and I'm not a crier. Needless to say, when they selected me for it AGAIN at 12 weeks, I just went through the damn thing. I'm still kinda furious. I'll be flying out of other airports as much as I can from now on, and I highly recommend avoiding the prizewinners at Logan. :-(


----------



## maryamrose (Aug 13, 2011)

I'm 8 weeks and I flew last week. The security gate we went through at Sacramento Int'l didn't have them. Indianapolis had them, though, and I opted out. The pat-down wasn't intrusive at all and the TSA person even asked ahead of time if any part of my body is sore, tender, or painful (my breasts). I'm sure that it depends on who you get at which airport, and how pregnant you look.


----------



## RosieL (Feb 8, 2011)

Thanks for this bump.


----------



## rockyflatsgear (Jul 29, 2011)

Hi,

Regarding scanner x-rays, the luggage equipment leaks radiation machines have been found out of calibration or with shielding missing. Additionally, scanners are open to the room to the area scattering x-rays in all directions. *The security area is radioactive should be avoided by people in general children, expecting mothers and people with the BRCA (breast cancer) gene, in particular.*

Claims that the x-rays don't penetrate are just false, simple inspection of the bone shadows confirms this. The machines use 50-120KVp x-rays same as dental and CT-scanners. The skin dose is 10-50x greater (depending on image resolution) than what is published. This is a risk news for fathers, children and mothers.

Learn more about radiation how the scanners work and protection options. We have a free presidential report on ionizing radiation and pregnancy. Congratulations! Hope this help you. Jeff



http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/How-penetrating-are-airport-back-scatter-x-rays.html


----------

