Pilots Assoc urges airline pilots 2 opt out of naked body scanners

[revelarts]

Excellent!
the scanners don't make us safer it's showboat security.

Pilots Association urges airline pilots to opt out of TSA naked body scanners
http://www.naturalnews.com/030339_pilots_naked_body_scanners.html
In yet another significant blow to the TSA's naked body scanners, the president of the Allied Pilots Association (APA) issued a letter urging all pilots to opt out of the naked body scanners, also known as Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT).

"Backscatter AIT devices now being deployed produce ionizing radiation, which could be harmful to your health," wrote Allied Pilots Association president Dave Bates. He then went on to add:

"We are exposed to radiation every day on the job. For example, a typical Atlantic crossing during a solar flare can expose a pilot to radiation equivalent to 100 chest X-rays per hour. Requiring pilots to go through the AIT [naked body scanner] means additional radiation exposure. I share our pilots' concerns about this additional radiation exposure and plan to recommend that our pilots refrain from going through the AIT. We already experience significantly higher radiation exposure than most other occupations, and there is mounting evidence of higher-than-average cancer rates as a consequence."

He goes on to call for airline pilots to be exempted from security screening.

Air travelers get the same radiation
Air travelers subjecting themselves to the TSA naked body scanners are exposed to the same radiation as pilots who are scanned by those machines, of course. The ionizing radiation emitted by the body scanners is concentrated on the skin, says Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University's center for radiological research. And it could cause skin cancer in a small but significant number of people who may be susceptible to gene mutations (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...).

Although the amount of radiation emitted by these machines is considerably lower than the radiation received while flying at high altitude, this is "artificial radiation," and by that I mean it is radiation that's focused by a man-made machine rather than propagating as ambient background radiation. And when radiation is focused on a target subject through a man-made machine, things can go wrong. How many medical CT scanners have been found to be mis-calibrated, operating at radiation doses that were orders of magnitude higher than their safe levels? This happens every day in hospitals across the world today, and these CT scanners are operated by professionally-trained radiology experts! (http://www.naturalnews.com/028621_C...)

The APA doesn't want its pilots going through the TSA's naked body scanners precisely because these machines add a radiation burden to your body. And for what? For the illusion of airport security?

Do you realize what kind of intense background checks pilots have to go through in order to fly a passenger airliner? They are subjected to rigorous physical and psychological testing as well as criminal history background checks. Pilots are not a risk to air security. To treat them like terrorists at security checkpoints is a demeaning yet useless waste of taxpayer dollars.

Clearly, the whole point of subjecting pilots to these demeaning pat-downs is to remind them they all live in a police state. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actual security. (Have you ever heard of a PILOT hijacking a passenger airliner in the US?)

And of course that's the whole point of subjecting air travelers to naked body scanners, too: All the sheeple have to be reminded from time to time that they are under the control of government agents. Hence the "you're under arrest" position of the arms that travelers are told to assume when passing through the naked body scanners. This body position, with both hands held over your head, gets the public used to assuming the "I surrender" position when confronted with authority figures. It's really more of a training program to get the public indoctrinated for yet more police state tactics down the road.

Fortunately, more and more people are now opting out of the naked body scans. Sure, they get felt up by TSA agents who grope their crotches, breasts and buttocks (http://www.naturalnews.com/030100_n...), but at least they don't get subjected to yet another dose of ionizing radiation that can contribute to skin cancer.

Don't you find it fascinating, by the way, that the U.S. government tells everybody to avoid tanning salons because they claim "UV radiation promotes skin cancer," yet when it comes to airport security, they want to subject you to a far more harmful wavelength of radiation "for your safety" ? (X-Rays are far more harmful than ultraviolet light.)

I guess radiation is all okay as long as it serves the police state interests of the federal government.

Sources for this story include:
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/..."

[Kathianne]

Then they can choose the pat downs.

[SassyLady]

From what I've heard, the pat downs are becoming even more intrusive and invasive and the reason for this is to get people to cave into going through the scanners.

People who travel infrequently will not be as exposed to the radiation as the pilots who could be going through 2-3 a day...I wouldn't want to get a chest x-ray 2-3 times a day, every day ..... too much exposure. They get plenty of radiation exposure on every flight without going through the machines.

I think they have a valid point about going through the machines, but the patdowns need to be less invasive...especially for pilots. After all, if they wanted to take down a plane they don't need guns or explosives ... they can just crash it.

[Gaffer]

From what I've heard, the pat downs are becoming even more intrusive and invasive and the reason for this is to get people to cave into going through the scanners.

People who travel infrequently will not be as exposed to the radiation as the pilots who could be going through 2-3 a day...I wouldn't want to get a chest x-ray 2-3 times a day, every day ..... too much exposure. They get plenty of radiation exposure on every flight without going through the machines.

I think they have a valid point about going through the machines, but the patdowns need to be less invasive...especially for pilots. After all, if they wanted to take down a plane they don't need guns or explosives ... they can just crash it.

Like that muslim pilot did 11 years ago.

Patting down a pilot is just incredibly stupid.

[revelarts]

From what I've heard, the pat downs are becoming even more intrusive and invasive and the reason for this is to get people to cave into going through the scanners.

P...

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/lifestyle/travel/flight-attendants-union-upset-over-new-pat-down-procedures

PHOENIX - A flight attendants union with 2,000 members is upset over what it calls "invasive pat-downs" recently implemented by the TSA.

"We're getting calls daily about peoples' experiences, our members are concerned," said Deborah Volpe, Vice President of the Association of Flight Attendants Local 66.

Volpe confirmed that the union is offering advice to its flight attendants, who mostly work for Tempe-based USAirways, involving the security moves.

According to a union email obtained by ABC15, it tells flight attendants if they opt out of using the body scanner through security and are required to undergo a pat-down to ask the pat-down be conducted in a private area with a witness.

"We don't want them in uniform going through this enhanced screening where their private areas are being touched in public," said Volpe. "They actually make contact with the genital area.".....

[SassyLady]

Just listened to a woman who is a talk radio host talk about her experience. She was "randomly" chosen to go through the scanner (other host said she is smoking hot and there was probably nothing random about it). She said she was not comfortable with it. The TSA attendant then loudly yelled OPT OUT and pulled the woman aside and said she had to do a pat down. The woman starting asking questions as she was being patted down and the TSA attendant got pissed and called over several other TSA people and she was handcuffed to the chair while they yelled at her. She asked to see the floor supervisor and that person came out and was told she refused scanner, and didn't want to be patted down (the woman said because she had heard they touch your privates parts and squeeze the breasts). The super then left and the next thing that happened was about 12 cops showed up to escort the woman out of the terminal.

Oh, and the original offensive TSA attendant .... while she was yelling at the woman in front of all the other passengers going through the line ..... tore her airline ticket in half and threw it away. This lasted for over an hour.

Guess what ... she was escorted to the airline ticket gate and they offered to issue her a ticket for the next day and said that perhaps she wouldn't be chosen to go through scanner.

She is pretty upset.

Listen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGvsAgpfig

[Kathianne]

From what I've heard, the pat downs are becoming even more intrusive and invasive and the reason for this is to get people to cave into going through the scanners.

People who travel infrequently will not be as exposed to the radiation as the pilots who could be going through 2-3 a day...I wouldn't want to get a chest x-ray 2-3 times a day, every day ..... too much exposure. They get plenty of radiation exposure on every flight without going through the machines.

I think they have a valid point about going through the machines, but the patdowns need to be less invasive...especially for pilots. After all, if they wanted to take down a plane they don't need guns or explosives ... they can just crash it.

My point exactly. I would choose the scan, but if a pilot or attendant, I'd choose the patdowns. Perhaps another standard might be found for employees, until one hired is a terrorist?

[Noir]

People who travel infrequently will not be as exposed to the radiation as the pilots who could be going through 2-3 a day...I wouldn't want to get a chest x-ray 2-3 times a day, every day ..... too much exposure. They get plenty of radiation exposure on every flight without going through the machines.

They're not that powerful, they're about 2000 times less powerful than a hospital X-ray and 20,000 times less powerful that a CAT scan.

To keep the numbers simple say a pilot had 3 scans a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, thatd be 750 scans in a year. Or about a full chest Xray every two and a half years. Hardly anything to write home about.

[darin]

I will never choose the scanner, and if a screener puts his hands near my junk, I'll resist his assault.

[Noir]

I will never choose the scanner, and if a screener puts his hands near my junk, I'll resist his assault.

And you'll be arrested.

[SassyLady]

And you'll be arrested.

Noir, read dmp's sig....

and I agree with it.


They're not that powerful, they're about 2000 times less powerful than a hospital X-ray and 20,000 times less powerful that a CAT scan.

To keep the numbers simple say a pilot had 3 scans a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, thatd be 750 scans in a year. Or about a full chest Xray every two and a half years. Hardly anything to write home about.

What you failed to note, is that isn't the only radiation exposure a pilot gets on the job. Do some more reading.

[Mr. P]

Errrrrrrr..I just won't fly anymore..haven't for yrs.for various reasons but you don't wanna know why..it would scare the shit outta you.

[revelarts]

I hate it when you do that P.

I flew for the 1st time in about 9 yrs last year. I'll probably fly agian not sure when though.

p.m. it to me,
I've read and heard plenty of scary stuff i don't repeat.


They're not that powerful, they're about 2000 times less powerful than a hospital X-ray and 20,000 times less powerful that a CAT scan.

To keep the numbers simple say a pilot had 3 scans a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, thatd be 750 scans in a year. Or about a full chest Xray every two and a half years. Hardly anything to write home about.

NOir,
your so trusting of science and technology, and the associate benign authorities that it's a bit unnerving sometimes to read your post.

[Noir]

What you failed to note, is that isn't the only radiation exposure a pilot gets on the job. Do some more reading.

Well yeah, but they're going to be exposed to the other radiation no matter what. The question is will one extra chest X-rays worth every two and a half years make a difference, I would think not. And if it does then what dies that mean for a pilot who has to have CAT scans done!


NOir,
your so trusting of science and technology, and the associate benign authorities that it's a bit unnerving sometimes to read your post.

Do you think they're lying about the strength of the X-rays?

[DragonStryk72]

I'd almost say the precautions were okay... except that they're not making us any safer. In fact, they're just playing into blatant paranoia in order to 'Look like they're doing something'. Do you know why the terrorists on 9/11 used tiny little knives? Because our security was already good enough to stop everything else.

The only thing we could have done differently to prevent it? Have an armed federal marshal on board during flights, and that was one of the first things they did. To make it even better, they have the marshal dress casual so that nobody knows which passenger is it. At that point, we should have stopped, but our "leaders" were only too happy to go with the fear-mongering response, building America into a fear society.

[SassyLady]

Well yeah, but they're going to be exposed to the other radiation no matter what. The question is will one extra chest X-rays worth every two and a half years make a difference, I would think not. And if it does then what dies that mean for a pilot who has to have CAT scans done!

That's the point!!! He/she will be exposed to radiation during the course of their job on a daily, regular basis.....why add another, unneeded dose just because someone comes along and says ..."hey, it's no big deal".

I have an idea for you Noir. Why don't you volunteer to walk through it five times a day for a couple of years, let them study the effect on your body and then we'll decide if it's harmless.


Do you think they're lying about the strength of the X-rays?

I don't think they know the long term effect, combined with what the pilots are already being exposed to.

[Noir]

That's the point!!! He/she will be exposed to radiation during the course of their job on a daily, regular basis.....why add another, unneeded dose just because someone comes along and says ..."hey, it's no big deal".

I have an idea for you Noir. Why don't you volunteer to walk through it five times a day for a couple of years, let them study the effect on your body and then we'll decide if it's harmless.

What would you pay me for it?
I've had 7 chest X-rays in the past four years, they are equal in radiation to about 14,000 scans. at 5 a week every week that's a good 2,800 weeks, or about 50ish years worth of Airport scanner radiation. Sounds good to me.

Also, chest X-rays are nit as harmful as people are lead to believe, a standard X-ray only adds a few days of radiation that we would be normally exposed to via background radiation anyways.

[SassyLady]

What would you pay me for it?
I've had 7 chest X-rays in the past four years, they are equal in radiation to about 14,000 scans. at 5 a week every week that's a good 2,800 weeks, or about 50ish years worth of Airport scanner radiation. Sounds good to me.

Also, chest X-rays are nit as harmful as people are lead to believe, a standard X-ray only adds a few days of radiation that we would be normally exposed to via background radiation anyways.

Wow....sorry you've had so many x-rays kiddo. Hope you are OK.

The point I'm making is that it should be the pilot's decision what they are exposing their bodies to ... not an arbitrary TSA attendant's choice.

And, no, I wouldn't pay anyone to expose their bodies to radiation.

[Noir]

Wow....sorry you've had so many x-rays kiddo. Hope you are OK.

The point I'm making is that it should be the pilot's decision what they are exposing their bodies to ... not an arbitrary TSA attendant's choice.

And, no, I wouldn't pay anyone to expose their bodies to radiation.

Yeah, my chest is a mess >,>
Buuut I'm still alive so alls good =D

But what the scan involves is being blown well outa proporton. Like I said, a standard chest x-ray adds at most a few days worth or radiation that you will get (whether you want it or not) from background radiation. And these scans have 2000 times less radiation than a chest X-ray, it's all but negligible. But people see the word Xray, think radiation, cancer and so forth and before you know it senseable numbers and reasonable explanations are thrown out the window.

[SassyLady]

Yeah, my chest is a mess >,>
Buuut I'm still alive so alls good =D

But what the scan involves is being blown well outa proporton. Like I said, a standard chest x-ray adds at most a few days worth or radiation that you will get (whether you want it or not) from background radiation. And these scans have 2000 times less radiation than a chest X-ray, it's all but negligible. But people see the word Xray, think radiation, cancer and so forth and before you know it senseable numbers and reasonable explanations are thrown out the window.

Hey, I get a mammo every year and have since I was about 35....so I get my fair share of exposure.

Let me ask you this...why do the technicians that take the xray hide behind something when it's being given if there isn't that much exposure?

[Noir]

Hey, I get a mammo every year and have since I was about 35....so I get my fair share of exposure.

Let me ask you this...why do the technicians that take the xray hide behind something when it's being given if there isn't that much exposure?

...they dont.

http://www.topnews.in/files/airport-body-scans_0.jpg

[Trigg]

Hey, I get a mammo every year and have since I was about 35....so I get my fair share of exposure.

Let me ask you this...why do the technicians that take the xray hide behind something when it's being given if there isn't that much exposure?

If your asking about hospital workers and not TSA agents. The reason the xray techs stand behind glass and out of the room is because they wear badges that measure radiation levels. If they get to much they are layed off for awhile.


I'd be interrested to know wher Noir is getting his info about the scanners, since any search into google gives me just as many articles about the dangers of the scanners as it does about the safety

[Noir]

I'd be interrested to know wher Noir is getting his info about the scanners, since any search into google gives me just as many articles about the dangers of the scanners as it does about the safety

They're from an ABCnews report I saw lastinght, I'll see if there's a text version on their site.

[SassyLady]

If your asking about hospital workers and not TSA agents. The reason the xray techs stand behind glass and out of the room is because they wear badges that measure radiation levels. If they get to much they are layed off for awhile.


I'd be interrested to know wher Noir is getting his info about the scanners, since any search into google gives me just as many articles about the dangers of the scanners as it does about the safety

I was talking about the xray techs at the hospital where I go ... should have been more clear. I've never had an xray (even at the dentist) where the tech didn't step out of the room or stand behind something.

I, too, have not found anything to debunk the health concerns realted to the scanners.

[Noir]

I was talking about the xray techs at the hospital where I go ... should have been more clear. I've never had an xray (even at the dentist) where the tech didn't step out of the room or stand behind something.

I, too, have not found anything to debunk the health concerns realted to the scanners.

Well is that not even more of a clue that these scanners are all but harmless when the technician operating the machine is standing right beside it with no protective clothing or barriers?

[Nukeman]

Hey, I get a mammo every year and have since I was about 35....so I get my fair share of exposure.

Let me ask you this...why do the technicians that take the xray hide behind something when it's being given if there isn't that much exposure?


I was talking about the xray techs at the hospital where I go ... should have been more clear. I've never had an xray (even at the dentist) where the tech didn't step out of the room or stand behind something.

I, too, have not found anything to debunk the health concerns realted to the scanners.Ok lets start here. The reason the x-ray technologist (not technician) stands behind the leaded glass or leaded protection shield is due to cumulative doses.

I don't understand how the TSA gets away with utilizing ionizing radiation with untrained personel. these folks using these scanners are NOT PROPERLY trained in radiation safety.

We wll start with the appropriate guidlines for radiation safety..

1. ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Acheivable)

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/occupational-health/rg/8-37/

Alara is the standard by which all radiation producing machines are measured and the ONLY way to do this is by personel monitoring. If the TSA and the FAA are NOT monitoring the piolots and Stewardess than they have NO idea to the extent that these folks are being irradiated. You can do calculations and speculate till the cows come home, but until you actually measure the exposure it is pure speculation.

Here are some regs for the general public..

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1301.html


Subpart D--Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public
Source: 56 FR 23398, May 21, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

§ 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public.
(a) Each licensee shall conduct operations so that —

(1) The total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year, exclusive of the dose contributions from background radiation, from any administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under § 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, and from the licensee’s disposal of radioactive material into sanitary sewerage in accordance with § 20.2003, and

(2) The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with § 35.75, does not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 millisievert) in any one hour.

(b) If the licensee permits members of the public to have access to controlled areas, the limits for members of the public continue to apply to those individuals.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a licensee may permit visitors to an individual who cannot be released, under § 35.75, to receive a radiation dose greater than 0.1 rem (1 mSv) if—

(1) The radiation dose received does not exceed 0.5 rem (5 mSv); and

(2) The authorized user, as defined in 10 CFR Part 35, has determined before the visit that it is appropriate.

(d) A licensee or license applicant may apply for prior NRC authorization to operate up to an annual dose limit for an individual member of the public of 0.5 rem (5 mSv). The licensee or license applicant shall include the following information in this application:

(1) Demonstration of the need for and the expected duration of operations in excess of the limit in paragraph (a) of this section;

(2) The licensee's program to assess and control dose within the 0.5 rem (5 mSv) annual limit; and

(3) The procedures to be followed to maintain the dose as low as is reasonably achievable.

(e) In addition to the requirements of this part, a licensee subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR part 190 shall comply with those standards.

(f) The Commission may impose additional restrictions on radiation levels in unrestricted areas and on the total quantity of radionuclides that a licensee may release in effluents in order to restrict the collective dose.

[56 FR 23398, May 21, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 48625, Sept. 20, 1995; 62 FR 4133, Jan. 29, 1997; 67 FR 20370, Apr. 24, 2002; 67 FR 62872, Oct. 9, 2002]











Subpart C--Occupational Dose Limits
Source: 56 FR 23396, May 21, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

§ 20.1201 Occupational dose limits for adults.
(a) The licensee shall control the occupational dose to individual adults, except for planned special exposures under § 20.1206, to the following dose limits.

(1) An annual limit, which is the more limiting of--

(i) The total effective dose equivalent being equal to 5 rems (0.05 Sv); or
(ii) The sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye being equal to 50 rems (0.5 Sv).

(2) The annual limits to the lens of the eye, to the skin of the whole body, and to the skin of the extremities, which are:

(i) A lens dose equivalent of 15 rems (0.15 Sv), and

(ii) A shallow-dose equivalent of 50 rem (0.5 Sv) to the skin of the whole body or to the skin of any extremity.

(b) Doses received in excess of the annual limits, including doses received during accidents, emergencies, and planned special exposures, must be subtracted from the limits for planned special exposures that the individual may receive during the current year (see § 20.1206(e)(1)) and during the individual's lifetime (see § 20.1206(e)(2)).

(c) When the external exposure is determined by measurement with an external personal monitoring device, the deep-dose equivalent must be used in place of the effective dose equivalent, unless the effective dose equivalent is determined by a dosimetry method approved by the NRC. The assigned deep-dose equivalent must be for the part of the body receiving the highest exposure. The assigned shallow-dose equivalent must be the dose averaged over the contiguous 10 square centimeters of skin receiving the highest exposure. The deep-dose equivalent, lens-dose equivalent, and shallow-dose equivalent may be assessed from surveys or other radiation measurements for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the occupational dose limits, if the individual monitoring device was not in the region of highest potential exposure, or the results of individual monitoring are unavailable.

(d) Derived air concentration (DAC) and annual limit on intake (ALI) values are presented in table 1 of appendix B to part 20 and may be used to determine the individual's dose (see § 20.2106) and to demonstrate compliance with the occupational dose limits.

(e) In addition to the annual dose limits, the licensee shall limit the soluble uranium intake by an individual to 10 milligrams in a week in consideration of chemical toxicity (see footnote 3 of appendix B to part 20).

(f) The licensee shall reduce the dose that an individual may be allowed to receive in the current year by the amount of occupational dose received while employed by any other person (see § 20.2104(e)).

[56 FR 23396, May 21, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 20185, Apr. 25, 1995; 63 FR 39482, July 23, 1998; 67 FR 16304, Apr. 5, 2002; 72 FR 68059, Dec. 4, 2007]

Now with the regs I must add that the federal gov't has always made themselves EXEMPT from these regs.. So take it for what it is worth you andI have to adhere to a set of regs that protect us but the fed seems able to bypass these same regs.....

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlXPIgwSKIk?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LlXPIgwSKIk?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[Thunderknuckles]

All I can say on this is that I'm glad I'm a home body. The stuff they are doing in the name of security nowadays just freaks me out.

[revelarts]

Pregnant woman groped possibly caused problem with pregnant

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

"This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees.

On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis.

At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the "inspection" that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined ("Anything could be in here, sir," I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me à la a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings.

After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, "I’m sorry...it’s...they touched my breasts...and..." That’s all I heard. I marched up to the woman who’d been examining her and shouted, "What did you do to her?" Later I found out that in addition to touching her swollen breasts – to protect the American citizenry – the employee had asked that she lift up her shirt. Not behind a screen, not off to the side – no, right there, directly in front of the hundred or so passengers standing in line. And for you women who’ve been pregnant and worn maternity pants, you know how ridiculous those things look. "I felt like a clown," my wife told me later. "On display for all these people, with the cotton panel on my pants and my stomach sticking out. When I sat down I just lost my composure and began to cry. That’s when you walked up."

Of course when I say she "told me later," it’s because she wasn’t able to tell me at the time, because as soon as I demanded to know what the federal employee had done to make her cry, I was swarmed by Portland police officers. Instantly. Three of them, cinching my arms, locking me in handcuffs, and telling me I was under arrest. Now my wife really began to cry. As they led me away and she ran alongside, I implored her to calm down, to think of the baby, promising her that everything would turn out all right. She faded into the distance and I was shoved into an elevator, a cop holding each arm. After making me face the corner, the head honcho told that I was under arrest and that I wouldn’t be flying that day – that I was in fact a "menace."

It took me a while to regain my composure. I felt like I was one of those guys in The Gulag Archipelago who, because the proceedings all seem so unreal, doesn’t fully realize that he is in fact being arrested in a public place in front of crowds of people for...for what? I didn’t know what the crime was. Didn’t matter. Once upstairs, the officers made me remove my shoes and my hat and tossed me into a cell. Yes, your airports have prison cells, just like your amusement parks, train stations, universities, and national forests. Let freedom reign.

After a short time I received a visit from the arresting officer. "Mr. Monahan," he started, "Are you on drugs?"

Was this even real? "No, I’m not on drugs."

"Should you be?"

"What do you mean?"

"Should you be on any type of medication?"

"No."

"Then why’d you react that way back there?"

You see the thinking? You see what passes for reasoning among your domestic shock troops these days? Only "whackos" get angry over seeing the woman they’ve been with for ten years in tears because someone has touched her breasts. That kind of reaction – love, protection – it’s mind-boggling! "Mr. Monahan, are you on drugs?" His snide words rang inside my head. This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife who’d been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother...and my anger is simply unfathomable to the guy standing in front of me, the guy who earns a living thanks to my taxes, the guy whose family I feed through my labor. What I did wasn’t normal. No, I reacted like a drug addict would’ve. I was so disgusted I felt like vomiting. But that was just the beginning.

An hour later, after I’d been gallantly assured by the officer that I wouldn’t be attending my friend’s wedding that day, I heard Mary’s voice outside my cell. The officer was speaking loudly, letting her know that he was planning on doing me a favor... which everyone knows is never a real favor. He wasn’t going to come over and help me work on my car or move some furniture. No, his "favor" was this: He’d decided not to charge me with a felony.

Think about that for a second. Rapes, car-jackings, murders, arsons – those are felonies. So is yelling in an airport now, apparently. I hadn’t realized, though I should have. Luckily, I was getting a favor, though. I was merely going to be slapped with a misdemeanor.
. ..."


Have they got the boarder closed yet?

Flying Pasties .com ?!!?
As seen on the Today Show

http://www.youtube.com/user/flyingpasties

protect you privates from the scanners...

[Trigg]

As a back up to what nukeman posted it is easy to test how much radiation a pilot would get from these scanners simply give them the badges that an x-ray tech wears everyday.

a pocket dosimeter would give them a reading right away.



hubby just brought up and excellent point. Why test the pilot? Why would he have a bomb on him anyway? Isn't the plane a big enough bomb anyway???????????

[DragonStryk72]

As a back up to what nukeman posted it is easy to test how much radiation a pilot would get from these scanners simply give them the badges that an x-ray tech wears everyday.

a pocket dosimeter would give them a reading right away.



hubby just brought up and excellent point. Why test the pilot? Why would he have a bomb on him anyway? Isn't the plane a big enough bomb anyway???????????

OMG, You're right!!!! They have gels and liquidsinside of them!!!!

lol