Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
December 29th, 2009
08:26 AM ET

Would You Submit to a Full Body Scan?

Friday’s Northwest Airlines incident has people talking about a different type of airport x-ray called a full body scan. In addition to detecting regular weapons, this technology can spot liquid explosives, gels, and PETN (which the suspect in the Christmas-day incident allegedly used). The down-side of the technology: it gives airport screeners - but not other passengers–a very clear look at your body. Passengers can cover their private parts with a metal plate so that the operator can’t see, but the machine will still record the detail.

Privacy advocates call the full body scan a “virtual strip search”. Security advocates call it a life-saving measure.

What do you think?

Post your comments here. Heidi will read some of them during the 10am ET hour of Newsroom.


Filed under: Heidi Collins
soundoff (510 Responses)
  1. Tom (@tlw3)

    Personally, sure – but I also feel people should have every right to refuse. This would be construed as disturbingly invasive for many.

    December 29, 2009 at 8:29 am |
  2. SHEILA DRENNON

    absolutely!!! a body scan is no problem! i would sumbit 2 a body scan in a new york minute!!!

    December 29, 2009 at 8:31 am |
  3. Debra

    If it works, yes. If not, no.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:03 am |
  4. Darrell

    Yes. We are talking about life or death on plane flights these days. I have no problem with a full body scan.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:12 am |
  5. Claire Burns

    Hey Heidi, I have a great body so I don't mind having it scanned!!! Seriously though, I TOTALLY support full body scans. We have to work together with the security services to rid our country of this terrorist evil. Stay safe, is what I say.

    Best wishes
    Claire Burns in Fort Lauderdale

    December 29, 2009 at 9:39 am |
  6. Wendel from Ohio

    I support a full body scan. Just like going to the doctor and having him see your body.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  7. Dev

    I would like to know more information on if this kind of xray scan is safe for the body. I am concerned about people who travel a lot. x rays are known to cause cancer

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  8. N

    No Way! It is very invasive and takes away my privacy!!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  9. Joanne

    Yes, I would submit to a full body scan. It's not a big deal when you think that this may save your life.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  10. Sachin

    We strip for our yearly medicals! Nothing is perfect, but if steps taken to strive for perfection sound intrusive sometimes, they really are not. We are talking about not being blown up in mid air by a terrorist. No brainer really, we should do what is right and what will potentially save us. Go TSA!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  11. Shirley

    Yes, yes, yes. no exceptions.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  12. Jason, Co

    I do not mind people looking at me with a virtual strip search, that's no problem... I am more concerned of any health risks from these scans. Do they emit radiation or anything harmful? That is what I would base my decision on, and until i know I would not use them.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  13. Chad B

    Simple..No Scan, No Fly...

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  14. connie

    I am all for scaning.. If it makes flying safer..... Im am flying on Monday and I am totally petrified... but I wont cancel my trip.. I wont let others dictate what I will or wont do...so viva Las Vegas!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  15. Don

    If you don't want to get a body scan then take the train. I want myself, my family and everyone on board to be safe from terrorist. If this means a few seconds for a body scan then that's fine with me.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  16. Ellen

    No, I would not submit to a full body scan and neither should anyone else.
    It would do us well to remember the words of our wise forefather, Benjamin Franklin:
    Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  17. Noel Sanford

    Yes I would Heidi. If it means better security, I would gladly submit to it. I really don't see what the big concern is about a naked body. People need to get over it and realize that the body is beautiful, and we have a lot of crazy nuts out there that still want to hurt us.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  18. bob

    Shouldn't body scans be in other airports internationally? How about anyone on watch list. Why always average people? It's silly.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:40 am |
  19. Rick Sears

    Although I am not against any improvements in safety, it takes too long now to get through an airport. Add the body scans and you better get there(to the airport) a half a day early.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  20. John Thomas

    Of course this is a good idea. Airport and in flight security is a life and death matter, if it will find a chemical that is currently undetectable and could blow a hole in an airplane, it should be mandatory.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  21. Armand TADEM

    If body scan means X-rays, I would likely not accept it because the flight itself irradiates the body enough to increase the risk of cancer. They can use it to scan their terror watch list, fine! But not on the general population!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  22. Jason

    I am a business traveller and travel once in 2 weeks. I see now reason why I should have any issues with body scan. I would rather fly stress free then spend most of my time looking around during the flight for suspects and suspicious behaviors!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  23. Catherine Penner

    Absolutely use those body scans! Anyone unwilling to be scanned
    can turn around and take the bus!
    My son-in-law is a pilot and I treasure him and wish to protect not only the passengers but the crew members as well.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  24. Anonarchist

    spoilers: the colon scan is next.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  25. Marko

    Why don't we get everyone to take their clothes off and fly naked. We would never have to worry about bombs on board and it could make flying more interesting (or scary depending on who is sitting beside you).

    Seriously, as long as these scans are not posted on the Internet and make flying safer, I have no problem with it.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  26. Dwight

    If the scans or not dangerous to us I am ok with it.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  27. Greg Mc

    Heidi,

    If I'm traveling in the US, I'll just drive. I'll have no waiting in long lines, no worrying about people seeing me naked with this scan, and no wondering "am I going to be alive when I land"

    🙂

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  28. Gina Marie

    Heidi, Unfortunatly in this age of Terrorism,the old statement "A few bad apples" will make it more difficult for the everyday traveler, I would agree to a full body scan as this seems to be the price of safety these days.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  29. Bethany

    I agree that it is invasive, but it is a small price to pay for safety. Those who are against it will be the first to complain that they weren't protected. I would rather get personal with airline security than take a nose dive from 32,000 feet.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  30. Angela

    Not only no, but no, never will I submit to such degradation. I have simply stopped flying – sad, I LOVE to fly – but the terrorits have won. I will never subject myself to the stress our airports have become again.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  31. Len in Atlanta

    Heidi,

    Don't be misled. The scans that are done by those machines are much more intrusive than what you showed on the news. I have seen the actual images derived from those machines, and the scan shows EVERYTHING. It is a gross invasion of privacy and, depending on the person, can be very very embarrassing. Personally, I'd be much more inclined to allow them to use sniffer dogs and hand scanners, pat downs, or whatever. Whether or not one needs a boob job or a penile enhancement should not be the business of government, not even in the interests of safety.

    Len in Atlanta

    December 29, 2009 at 9:41 am |
  32. Patti Page

    Heidi,

    My greatest concern is the cancer risk of the x-rays. My husband flies every week and would be exposed to more than 100 of these x-rays per year.

    If there is no health risk then I am all for it.

    Patti Page

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  33. CeeAnn

    You don't want to submit to a full body scan to fly? NO PROBLEM. You can, of course, drive/take a boat/take a bus to get wherever on the planet you want to go. Those of us who don't want to get blown out of the sky will gladly be scanned. What is the big deal?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  34. Dawn Weld

    I don't mind the body scan, but is it for everyone going on the plane, if picked at random we are still not safe.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  35. James

    Absolutely Absurd. No increased measures of scanning or searching passengers will eliminate all risks. I firmly believe that this is just another measure put in place to strike fear into the heats and minds of people everywhere. It has become a social mantra of the USA. Be afraid, be very very afraid. (how else can you be controlled?) Land of the free? I think not.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  36. Harry

    What ever it takes!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  37. bob

    Better to have security get a quick black and white view of my underwear in a scanning device rather than a full color view while I'm laying on a slab in the morgue from a plane crash. Really.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  38. Edwin

    I am definetely all for body scans. I am a frequent traveler and I need to feel safe when traveling. People need to understand that we are at war and so many countries want to harm US.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  39. Lamont Cranston

    I would absolutely submit to the scan. And I think if people want to fly on a plane, they should submit to any security requirement made by the the government or airlines. This is soon 2010. Get over the modesty. It's not being published on facebook or billboards but for the safety of all. If you don't want to go by the best rules for all, find another mode of transportation.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  40. Mary George

    I think it is unfortunately necessary. It wouldn't bother me unless it took too long.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  41. Del "Abe" Jones

    Kinda stupid when people would rather take the chance of dying rather than let a stranger they will never see again see that they are made the same as every other human being. Dumb! Dumb!!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  42. Ronak Shah

    Absolutely 100%!

    If the only options are to submit to the scan for better security OR to refuse it and risk being blown mid-air, I think its pretty simple! Don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  43. Barry

    If these screens get people through airport security more efficiently and are more effective at detecting security breaches then I think it's a wonderful thing. I wouldn't have a problem submitting to it.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  44. dennis

    it is time to start profiling

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  45. Dave C

    To object to these scans is ludicrous and extremely selfish. Thinking that your right to privacy trumps the safety of over 200 individuals on your flight is narcissistic to say the least. Full body scans have to potential to rid air travel of terrorism. The answer is simple, yes.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  46. RJ Reynolds

    If a full body scan will potentially save 300 lives and a valuable aircraft, I am ready for it. Anyone that finds that unacceptable it too self centered for their own good or they may be a terrorist.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  47. Jayne

    Would you want your teenage daughter scanned by a pedophile? It appears that even a full body scan can miss powders and liquids sewn into clothing, so no, I won't be "stripped" for something that can be beat. Bomb sniffing dogs are much better at detecting explosives than the eyes of someone who can, for many reasons, miss dangerous substances.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  48. cam

    Amazing how people are willing to give up their rights for a threat that poses less danger than a drive to the grocery store.
    Didn't Americans once ridicule police states like the Iron Curtain.Those folk had their liberties taken.Americans want to give them away freely.
    This is one Canuk who will be avoiding American airspace like the plague.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  49. pandora everett

    We destroy thousands of animals every day, many of them German Shepherds, Beagles, Basset Hounds, Golden Retrievers and mixes. It has already been proven that Dogs can provide a valuable service as bomb and drug sniffers due to their heightened sense of smell. They can be trained easily and there is no shortage of pound dogs. Why dont we use dogs instead of spending so much money on other technology to keep our fliers safe in airports etc? The military is already using them in support of the war. Seems like an obvious win win for all parties involved! TSgt Tadefa-Everett, USAF Retired

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  50. Jim

    Why not mention the risks of the X-ray scanner? Ionizing radiation! Even ultraviolet (Sun, tanning salons) can cause skin cancer so why wouldn't more energetic X-rays not be as worrisome? Millimeter wave scanner is non-ionizing so should be OK

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  51. Craig Sharp

    A full body scan is indeed invasive. However, a passenger jet blown out of the sky is much more invasive. My only concern is that there is no way for a screener to download a scan and for it to show up on youtube....Talk about embarrassing!!!

    Craig Sharp
    Bay City, TX

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  52. russ granruth

    simple question. do you want to blow up at 35000 feet. if not, lets use the most accurate safety measures available. yes to whole body scanners. Russ Granruth

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  53. Lynne Stevenson

    I am obese and to submit to a body scan does not bother me one whit compared to the alternative of what and who may get on the airplane w/me. Modesty is a thing of the past when it comes to our safety. We go to doctors all the time and we think nothing of having to undress. We now need to grow up!!!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  54. Michelle

    If it keeps me from having to take my shoes off, yes!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  55. Ryan

    I agree to Debra, if it works, yes; I guess there should be two flights for each destination, those who take a body scan and those who refuse. For those opposed to body scan, it's fine, you don't take it; You will be sitting next to those who don't take scan, including Mr. Reid. Good luck.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  56. Paula from Florida

    Of course I'd submit to it, why not? I hate that we may need to spend the effort and money on it, but if it works, I say-go for it.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  57. Dr. Thomas Meitzler

    Hello Heidi,
    Really enjoy your show...always very informative.

    I think we have no choice but to use full body, x-ray backscatter or millimeter wave scans and the use of profiling. The choice to passengers is simple; allow full body scans and profiling or don't fly. Some diplays can be designed to present 3D images to the user for even more realistic pictures.

    Seasons Grettings,
    Tom

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  58. Shell

    Yes, I would submit to a full body scan. Anything to increase safety of our airlines and our country is almost a necessity today. That being said, I also think a person should have the right to refuse and have some other type of search of possible.

    Shell, TN

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  59. Kevin Collins

    I am all for increased security at our Nations airports including full body scans. Ask the same lady/persons who are opposed to full body scans if they are opposed to someone on their flight trying to blow themselves up. Yes it is a minor inconvenience but if it protects the lives of people in the air, then I am all for it! People need to start looking at the whole picture and understand that we live in world in which many countries hate us and they will try to harm us an any and all costs!

    Kevin

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  60. Chris Malanka

    I would submit to the scan. The right of free travel is understood and widely accepted as one of the great American freedoms. Traveling on commercial aircraft however is a privilege and not a guaranteed right. Those who do not wish to contribute to the safe passage of travelers may consider another mode of travel.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  61. Marcia Scott Harrison

    I would not object to a full body scan. After all, in terms of "private" body parts, if you've see one you've seen them all.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  62. Chuck Ogborn

    Is it going to get me thru the airport faster and safer? Then I'm all for it, people need to get over what is seen on the display.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  63. Bob

    Yes I would be wiling to have a body search. Anyone who wouldn't
    should be able to take a flight with those who had a body search or those who refused the body search.

    How would they like to be sitting next to a bomber?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  64. Alice Grayson

    If full body scans are required, and prove to be revealing to anyone, I will no longer fly.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  65. Bruce

    If it actually works yes, put them in and make it mandatory. If they don't want to be scanned, then they can't fly.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  66. Joe

    This counrty is too liberal. We have to do whatever it takes to make us all safe. I just don't understand how people rather be dead than scanned. With all the so called intelligence we have, we seem to always find out information after the fact. WAKE UP AMERICA.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  67. Noelle

    I would feel slightly exploited. This method is highly invasive! I would not feel comfortable submitting to a full-body scan while some security gaurd is looking at the results. Indeed, it is like a strip search, and is like having to unwillingly show my almost entirely nude body to a stranger.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  68. Charlotte

    No, we had 8 years of playing into the fears of terrorists and the Bush Administration. Enough. You are more likely to die in a car accident then get hurt by terrorists. Stop feading into the fear.

    What is the point of flying at all if you have to get their three hours early for a short domestic flight? I think that is what these little men from these little countries want; for us to be afraid of their underpants.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  69. tina

    I'm worried about the radiation exposure from this technology. Look at what we are finding out about ct scans used in medicine! I think people need to be given all the safety data first.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  70. angus

    I have absolutely bo problem with a full body scan as long as all of the passengers have one as well
    why would anyone object to this kind of security if it increase the safety of your travel plans

    December 29, 2009 at 9:43 am |
  71. Mark

    If having a full body scan keeps you safe on a plane and saves lives, put it into use at all airports globally.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  72. Diana

    Definitely yes. A body scan is a great tool to combat terrorism and I would rather be safe than sorry.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  73. Romy

    Sure, I am ok with a body scan. I rather be checked and seen then torn apart in planes. I personally think they should have females security for a female passenger and a male for male so we will be more comfortable getting through security process.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  74. Walt Stanley

    Yes, and let's get back to profiling too.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  75. Patricia

    Heidi,

    There is no other definition for the full body scan; it is a strip search. No matter how people try to put another spin on the scan, it is what it is. As Americans we have a right to say no to such an invasion of our privacy. Is anything sacred anymore; so now I have to let strangers see me naked? We're slowly turning into a police state.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  76. Puck

    I was put into a booth a couple of months ago for a full scan. I was upset to be singled out as it was (I'm a 56 year old white women traveling with my daughter and grand daughter, how many of us blow up things for goodness sake?!), but then I realized I had just been exposed to extra x-rays, and I have determined that I will request a strip search if this happens again.

    It's not right to be exposed to more radiation like that when you are not a suspect. It was supposedly random, not for any real reason they exposed me like that. It's lame, it's silly and will not stop someone determined to blow up a plane to x-ray grandmothers. When grandmothers start blowing stuff up, then you can treat us like suspects. Until then, don't risk my health with more radiation exposure.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  77. Nancy Fogarty

    I've heard no discussion in your news casts of the medical harm caused by x-raying those who fly frequently. Many of you at CNN would be in this group as well as others who fly frequently. Can you provide information on the health risks of frequent scans for those who fly often.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  78. john lowe

    ABSOLUTELY! what ever we must do to protect the public must take priority over someones faer they might exspose an out of shape body. let them drive to thier destination if they do not wish to comply. my life is more important than their modesty.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  79. Bill

    I would submit to the scan. With that said, I am surprised that they did not make the scanner more abstract. You can distort the image while still providing the technician enough detail to get the bad guy. I have designed vision systems and I am convinced that this would not be very difficult at all and any reluctance to submit to the scan would be minimized.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  80. Wayne

    I would not consider it an invasion of my privacy. I feel you give up that right once you've made a decision to fly. I would however question the merits of this type of security and its effectivenebss. Given the latest attempy on "how" the explosive powder was hidden, it would seem that a scan would have challenges distinguishing this explosive from a body part.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  81. Ron

    I am in favor of the full body scan. It is the only way to detect non-metallic objects hidden on the body. I don't understand why some people are opposed to this and would rather take a chance on dieing because of a terrorist. I am opposed to the X-Ray type body scanner and feel a lot safer with the millimeter wave type which uses radio frequencies that are less than the output of a cell phone.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  82. Donald R. Krause

    Use of body scanners wouldn't bother me at all. I recently traveled from Detroit Metro to Dallas and was checked due to a total knee replacement.

    I'd rather have a lot of me exposed and be safe!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  83. Jim Goble

    It is unfortunate that honest individuals are subjected to something that only a few years ago we would have equated with Gestapo or KGB tactics.

    Having said that, I would have to say that a body scan of this type would have to be preferred over physical strip searches and handling of human bodies by government officials, as a condition of air travel. So I would have to say that the body scan idea is not good, but may be the least bad thing to do.

    And let's start dealing with the root causes of terrorism.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  84. Roxana

    For sure i would rather go threw a body scan then a strip search it would take away the uncomfortable situation if all i had to do was stand in front of a machine.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  85. Linda

    I would submit if that was the only way to fly, but I agree it is equivalent to a strip search and really, really don't like it. They don't even put each person through the air jets for explosives detection yet, so why the eagerness to rush straight to a strip search? Also, warnings about this guy were ignored and I haven't heard yet what procedures were followed in Amsterdam when he changed planes. Were they sufficient? This machine is just throwing money at an issue and invasion of privacy when there were other ways to catch this man that weren't used.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:44 am |
  86. Becky

    I personally don't have a problem with full body scans. But, if security outside the US isn't heightened, body scans for domestic flights inside the US seems redundant.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  87. Jim

    Body scan will not detect anything "inside" the body. Get ready for the cavity search if you really want to cover all the carry-on possibilities.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  88. Karen Vahling

    Would you rather be killed by a terrorist or get a body scan? Seems like a no-brainer!

    Scans could be viewed by the appropriate gender for safety.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  89. Aron

    I have no problem with it as long it's for our safety in the air. The people that oppose it are ignorant because it's for their own safety. If they read up some more on this matter and the information that is given than they should understand that you do not see anything accept the body out line and were the hidden objects are.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  90. Anita Schultz

    We'll be flying international, again, soon. I would submit to a full body scan. But, I would prefer to have my eyes scanned and go through a process where I would not have to endure this every time that I fly.

    I am a great grandmother. I am the one that American Airlines stops regularly at the gate for a further search of my purse, carry on and body.

    At Logan, Boston, the security patrol came to the gate area and did body pat downs and further searchs of "at random" people. Guess what! They searched ONLY those over 60! Now aren't we a threat?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  91. kathryn

    I would rather have a full body scan than for everybody, than 1 person getting thru with a bomb, it would make me feel much safer!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  92. Andrew Striker

    Heidi,

    Flying isn't a right we all have. It is a privilege. If we were going to stop people on the streets and force them to submit, I would say that its wrong myself, but that's not whats happening. If you don't want to be body scanned then DON'T FLY. You don't have the right to say "that's embarrassing for me" when hundred's (possibly thousands) of lives are at stake.
    The next time one of those people you interviewed has a problem with being scanned, ask them if they would rather have their plane blown up... Maybe that will put their simple minds in perspective.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  93. Mae

    If it 's going to keep us safer from terrorist attacks? Than yes I'm all for a full body scan on passengers.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  94. John

    I wouldn't want to get my body scanned because I like privacy and I wouldn't like if someone was searching my whole body, every single thing.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  95. Ernest Johnson

    Dear Heidi:

    Logically, this is pretty much a no-brainer. because when it comes between submitting to a full body scan, or losing my life; I choose LIFE.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  96. Jim

    If it helps keep all of us safer and foil these ridiculous terror plots, I'm all for it. Nobody should have the right to refuse, no matter who they are. Security before privacy in this matter- it's not as if your body is actually being touched, anyway.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  97. eleonora

    If we ever want to be effective in curbing terrorism we need to acknowledge that profiling is the only way .A 50 year old women is not a threat nor is a family with kids .A young Moslem male with a one way ticket ?? It is not rocket science.We have to face the facts or continue to have terrorists rule our lives.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  98. Julius Gonsalves

    For my safety and safety of others I support full body scan. But I am sure some way will be found out soon to dodge this system too. So I support the action against these terrorists, so that they think twice before terrorizing us.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  99. MaryM

    You have a choice. If you don't want to submit to a scan then don't fly-the need for safety of all outweigh your personal need . There are other options to travel.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  100. Mark

    U believe it ultimately comes down to how safe you want to feel when you fly. I would rather feel safer and give up some of my privacy than go on an airplane and worry about somebody trying to bring it down.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  101. Martial

    My question is what are the health risks of these scans, no one has asked this question...

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  102. Janet and Arnie Entzel

    Yes we support the idea of body scans if it's an effective way to screen out terrorists by detecting what they are trying to hide.
    Janet and Arnie

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  103. Dan Dailey

    The current passenger screening process is degrading and ineffective in my judgment and is easily circumvented by people with harmful intentions. I would rather have an effective full body screen than the current ineffective process.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  104. Stephanie Bush

    Of course I would submit to a full body scan, this is a life saving measure for all. If scanning could prevent attacks on airlines, why would a person refuse this new measure. This is the world now and we all need to move on with what is needed to keep us safe and free from attacks whether on land or in the air.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  105. melvin davis

    I would submitt to a full body scan, its best to be safe...what companies build scanners and what are the stock prices as of today

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  106. frankie

    We are in a war, and our troops have been making the sacrifices of war. This is an extremely small sacrifice to ask of civilians. And from a practical point of view, I've got to remind myself that if millions of body scans are happening, no one will have the time to pay alot of attention to mine.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  107. Chris in Saint Petersburg

    The problem with using a full body scan is the same problem the TSA has already with any of the other scans they use and that is that they can not profile due to current laws and therefore the TSA end up scanning people like the eighty year old grandma or a teenager and not the type of persons whom we are currently at war with. The Government needs to stop waisting time and money scanning the wrong people and concentrate on the ones that we need to.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  108. luis gimenez

    it just makes sense to me to take the next step to protect the American people. Full body scans are necessary. I for one won't complain.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  109. Paula

    I am all for better screening at airports as well as limited carry on items. I just flew from Cancun to Charlotte and was shocked at how badly the security staff conducted the additional carry on baggage check at the gate. They simply opened my handbag and just moved things around but did not examine any items. What was the point? Also, the TSA has again over-reacted with BADLY THOUGHT OUT RULES......not being able to get up to go to the washroom for the last hour of the flight? What is that going to accomplish? When the flight crew advised we were nearing the one hour mark over 60 people got up to go to the lavatory which caused havoc blocking the aisles. Pure Stupidity. We were also told we were not allowed to go into our carry on in the last hour – not even to get a Tic Tac! If better screenings were done before the flight the passengers and flight crew would not be inconvenienced. I am all for the following: passengers should be allowed 10 small items carried on in a clear plastic bag and each item should be closely looked at before boarding (items could include wallet, passport, medication, reading material, ear plugs, sleep mask, eye glasses, cel phone etc.) NO MORE CARRY ON LUGGAGE whatsoever! Pack your purse in your suitcase and pick it up when you land! I am also all for thorough pat downs. Anyone who complains about these things should not fly! Our safety is at stake!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 am |
  110. BJ Arvin

    NO TO BODY SCAN!!!! Body scanning was NOT the problem with the underwear bomber! Poor reaction to his father's warning WAS! As much as Americans fear getting on a LIST because of saying or writing the 'wrong thing' in cell calls or e-mails, letting this guy slip through the cracks is as much a travesty as the WH party crashers. It makes the money we spend on DEFENSE look like a total waste!!

    I worry about the radiation from the machine, as I've had TOO many x-rays and MRI's on my body as it is.

    Why should American flyers suffer when the problem was in Amsterdam????

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  111. Nick Smith

    We'd all better put "diet" at the top of our New Year's Resolution list, because the electronic full body scan is coming soon to an airport near us.

    It's time that we put selfish and moral issues aside for the general public safety.

    If we can show our naked bodies to our doctors, then we can show them to the TSA screeners. If we have to, we can make the screeners sign a privacy oath.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  112. Pierre du Vair

    Absolutely, I would. Even if it ment electronic scans that show all parts of your body including genitals. In particular, men's genitals can hide materials. I think the problem withe electronic scans is that they show only front and back. Either they become sophisticated enough to scan telling a person to move, "Spread your legs" for example. Or would-be passengers should be required to go into a small room, undress completely and be seen by someone, a man for males, a woman for females. Terrorism is not on the decrease. It is on the increase.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  113. David Nordquist

    Concern for our civil rights is in proportion to our fear. The more we fear for our own safety the more intrusive steps we will allow. Enough
    planes go down , we'll want to fly naked! Dave

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  114. M. Caban

    Absolutely NOT ! First of all, what are all the side effects of getting scanned if you travel every week? Cancer? Second, there should be no need to have to "strip search" every traveler. You are trying to prevent one percent of issues, I don't think this level of search is necessary. I have no interest in getting strip searched every time I travel. What happened to people's privacy !

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  115. Jerry Rogers

    Yes, I would. The choice could be whether to live another day. The era of religious, ethnic, age, gender political sensitivity or correctness and/or delicacy has passed. It's time to face life as life is.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  116. Ivan

    Putting aside the morality of search, what about health issue, medical advise is no more than 3 – 4 tooth xrays per year, and that is low dosage
    as compare to full body scan. What about pregnet women? What about
    frequent flyers?
    Do we have to risk our health because we are so snobbish not to intrude
    on the right by profiling... Look at Israeli aviations, they have no problems
    because they know how to do the security...

    Ivan

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  117. Christopher

    I do not understand why SO much attention is paid to newer technologies. There is a tried and true method to search people for practically anything. You may ask what this is. I am speaking of special K9 units that are next to infalible. I believe that K9 units should sniff out EVERY single passenger. This mothod is cost effect and near flawless;and MUCH faster!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  118. Sandra Hochstedler

    NO! They have just recently found out that CT scanning can be harmful to people. Is anyone thinking of that aspect of it? What about diapers? Depends? You are rolling the dice when you fly these days–not to mention the sleeping, texting and surfing pilots driving your airplane!!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:47 am |
  119. JR

    I already got blown up once on 9-11. I think we should nuke these guys back to the stone age

    December 29, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  120. Phillip Johnson

    I understand the need for more security, but I just wonder if real testing has been done on the amount of unnecessary radiation given off by the low x-rays. So-called experts may say the x-rays used may be negligible, but they should take into account the natural radiation we already receive. How about those who are receiving Radiation Therapy, Chemo and other treatment or diagnostic procedures, or those who are pregnant?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  121. Don Bilinski

    I have no problem with more invasive body scans. We need to stop the explosives before they get on the jet, not worry about vanity.
    This new scan will make flights safer.
    We need to train and pay our gaurds at a professional level to maintain staying professional as they "invade" our privacy.
    We can be "scanned" by doctors and hospital staff in emergency, well terrorism is an emergency and we need to treat it as such.
    The terrorists are determined to succeed and we need to counter the threat with life saving scans. Don in Detroit.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  122. patty Ursomanno

    YES, i would take that scan and as for the ones that say why should I , WELL HOW ABOUT TO STOP A PLANE FROM BLOWING UP.but i have a better question, Why arent those in our government held responsible for allowing this guy to even bord the plan, it seem they are always saying they knew of the terrorist but than this happens, im sure if they were flying they would have checked the whole manafest to make sure, i think those that were resonsible should be fired. Too harsh well 300 peoples lives were put at risk over LAZYNESS...

    December 29, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  123. Leonard

    I have no objection to the body scan, however, when you have TSA representatives who are making just above minimum wage do you think the performance of the employees will be commensurate with customer expectations of safety? Better pay and better educated (minimum 4 year degree) employees will produce better results and thwart more would be terrorist/criminals. Leonard, Durham, N.C.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  124. donis

    well it think that its a good thing to be safe on your way to your destination but is it really necissary to be scanning your body parts like that?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  125. Elaine Speiser

    I am in favaor of additional security at airports, however does this scan use X-rays? Being cumulative, repeated X-rays can eventually lead to cancer. The travesty in all this is the government knew about the perpatrator and did nothing about it. That is where security needs to be increased.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  126. Dave

    These aren't nude photos, and is everyone a supermodel? Trust me, those working the monitors will not be entertained.

    By the way, how's everyone feeling about those enhanced interogation techiques now? If waterboarding provides intelligence that leads to intercepting someone trying to blow up a plane, is it still unacceptable? The Northwest passengers may have a slightly different perspective now.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:48 am |
  127. Lawrence

    Heidi, I don't care if everyone boarding a flight needs to be stripped to ensure total safety. Been en route itself is scary enough when you realize you are about 34,000ft above see level...but its even more scarier Heidi if you think the guy next to you is wearing explosive device or even plans to blow off the plane. I believe in future all luggage will probably take different flight whereas passengers board another flight. Those who don't want t o be screened totally are free to take the bus or drive to their destinations....and yea over the ocean? take the ship and let's board our planes with total security....my opinion!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  128. Robert Barnett

    Would I submit to a full body scan? If the airlines demand that I do or I will not fly, then yes I would! The last time I flew I forgot to take my pocket knife out of my pocket. I let them keep it rather than pay more than it was worth to send it home. The point is, I felt very stupid. With so much security at the airports I take a knife thru the checkpoint? At that same time that I flew last, I felt suspicious of certain people on the plane. Nothing happened to make me feel that way. I was judging people on how they "looked". Not good. But if judging by looks is not right and does not work in so far as security at airports, then I say we need to do whatever it takes to make sure that hundreds of people are indeed as safe as they can be flying on any airline! Anyone that does not feel this way must be very self centered and uncareing of public safely.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  129. marta

    main concern is airport sucurity,.i, understand, but no one is saying anything about health issues associated with the full body scanner......

    December 29, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  130. Thomas

    I have no problem with body scanning before boarding planes as long as they are deleted after the search is completed. They wouldn't want mine for any other reason, but if it was Heidi's it could be sold and placed on the internet. This process would have to be closely monitored. Female security person should do scans on female passengers and male on male.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  131. Fran Topollski

    I am not so happy with the full body scan but if it deters terrorism ,why not use it .Airports should publish the results in the airport so that potential terrorists know that they will be detected.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  132. Derrick B

    As a business traveler who spends more time in airplanes than he spends in his own car, I'm all for any safety measure that will keep me safe as I travel the country and the world. I'd rather be inconvenienced for 2 minutes than have another nut job try to blow up another plane or take hundreds of innocent lives.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:49 am |
  133. Shelley Snider

    Someone getting on my plane with a deadly device is a bigger invasion of my privacy than any security scan, but I won't feel totally safe until every airport in the world is using them on every person getting on a flight. Right now that is unlikely to happen.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  134. Tara

    Although you can use a metal plate to cover your private parts, how will this device determine if I have a sanitary napkin or tampon on, because it's that timeof the month, versus someone trying to smuggle on explosive. Does this mean I would have to go through further security screening? I'm all for the body scan, but not the humiliation.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  135. Karen Vahling

    Will a body scan x-ray what might be INSIDE a body cavity??

    December 29, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  136. derek

    Well, I personally believe that To get rid of terrorism one should not mind in going through a body scan. Well, X-rays are known to cause harm to a body, But as far as safety is concern one should not mind in going through the body scan.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  137. Chizoba Ezepue

    There is no substitute to life, once lost, its lost forever. If appearing nude to security operatives is going to save my life and that of others then I dont mind, its a lot easier to be seen nude than seen dead! I am a Nigerian and have been utterly disappointed by this Mutallab guy, our people are not known to fall for stupid brainwash like he did. We respect human life and treat murder as sacrilage. Let me make it clear to whoever cares to listen, there is a place called Hell and anyone who takes his own life under whatever circumstance, is going to Hell. This Mutallab guy didnt even grow up in Nigeria, so he is technically not a Nigerian, Nigerians are a lot smarter people who loves their lives.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  138. Pat Stefanski

    No i wouldn't submit to a body scan.What would be next ,a cavity search ?Once again the system failed like it did on 911.All the information was there and it failed to do what it was intented for.The terrorist win again even without the bomb not exploding.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  139. Diane

    Liberals want limited intrusion into your privacy yet they also want to prohibit the use honest profiling techniques. There is a profile for school shooters that we are all familiar with; it's just more politically correct. Timothy McVeigh did have a terrorist profile but not the same kind that members of large international terrorist networks have. As Obama says, let's all say aloud what we say in private.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  140. Andrew

    With the current state of security threats I would certainly submit to a full body scan in order to ensure the safety of the flight and for others.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  141. Bill

    Yes, definitely. We have to keep terrorists off our planes and out of our country. I see no problem with full body scans.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  142. Katie Murphy

    Definitely. A full body scan would provide the level of security and safety that nearly every American excpects when entering an aircraft. To dispute this screening would be refusing the right to one's own safety.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  143. William Stellin

    I would indeed submit to a full body scan. It is the best known way of determining if something is concealed.
    I have an artificial hip which sets off the metal detectors each and every time. I have never made it through without being hand screened and patted down. For years I have flown between Europe and the US. In Holland once, I was strip searched because the authorities wanted to see the scar for themselves. They even ran their finger down the scar to make sure it wasn't makeup. It didn't bother me one bit. The time spent being scanned would probably be a lot shorter than what we go through now, to say nothing of the inconvenience of having to take everything out of our pockets, belts and shoes off, etc.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:52 am |
  144. Doug

    We all heard about CAT scans radiation causing cancer....i'm a frequent flyer, Getting zapped all the time.... Can that be good for you ???

    worried

    December 29, 2009 at 9:52 am |
  145. Len in Atlanta

    For those who have expressed concern about the health risks from these scans, don't worry. The scans are magnetic, very similar to an MRI, and they pose not X-ray type risk from radiation.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:52 am |
  146. Randi

    I would do the Hokey-Pokey naked at the airport security station if it meant flights would be more safe. I think part of the problem is that we always hear about when airport security fails (in the form of a terror attack or attempt) but people so rarely hear about when airport security does not fail (like finding a passenger with dangerous items and prohibiting them from boarding the plane). Maybe the TSA could set up a website to highlight these kinds of occurrences so that people can see that the system works more than it fails, and that way travelers would know that the slight invasion of their privacy is not in vain.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:52 am |
  147. Eddy L. Charles

    I've studied anti-terrorism extensively in my military career and I've been involved with Homeland Security at the highest level in my State. I realize that Israel and El AL has it right...screening those who should and must be screened as opposed to the innocent Christians and and other American travellers who have no propensity for that kind of suicide. For crying out loud...why should so many US Government travellers and military personnel as well as elderly patriotic and otherwise innocent American travellers have to endure this humiliation just so our system can be politically correct. We know the profile of Al Qaeda recruits....(1) Muslim (2) Travel history to Middle East or South West Asia for training or otherwise. Where does a Christian or Seikh..Hindu or Buddist fit into this profile of wanting to die and take scores or hundreds of innocent people with them? Screen who must be screened. Leave the rest of us alone. But watch out for any nervous traveller who may be under duress.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:53 am |
  148. Andrew B.

    With the current state of security threats I would certainly submit to a full body scan in order to ensure the safety of the flight and for others. Sadly it's a life or death precaution.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:53 am |
  149. Kevin

    Why do we have to be subjected to these advanced security measures (body scans, taking off our shoes) when the system is working in the US? These breaches in security were outside the control of the TSA or any other US-based security entity...

    December 29, 2009 at 9:53 am |
  150. jacinta senghore

    Not only body scans but i think garments should be provided at airports and personal clothing left behind no hand luggages to be allowed. If that is what it's going to take for us to survive

    December 29, 2009 at 9:53 am |
  151. Gwendolyn Steward

    Without hesitation, I would submit to a full body scan. It is not only the surest way to determine what a traveler has in their possession, but I believe is the quickest in getting them to their next destination. With the rapid change in technology, the world has made extreme strides in the way we exchange information, process information, and conduct business. This goes without saying that we should proceed with the same pace concerning our security in transporting people from city to city, and country to country.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:53 am |
  152. Diane H Johnson

    I flew through BWI last week. I have artificial knees. I opted for the body scan machine because I thought it would be faster than the wand screening, but no! I was also given the full wand screen and pat down. I asked why both and the screener did not know the answer. I called for a supervisor to explain why I was subjected to both and he told me that he did not know either – he was just told that the second screening was still necessary. I complained because I felt that it was a waste of my time and too -too invasive! I vote for one or the other, not both!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:53 am |
  153. Ofer

    When are we going to stop reacting to terrorists' new ideas? By adding restrictions and changing our normal way of life we making each terrorist attack more successful than it really is. Terrorists methods will always change. The only thing that has never changed is the terrorist itself. If we change our security to identify the terrorist as opposed to the act, we can get back to our normal way of life and reduce the outcome of terrorist attacks and failed attempts. Think about it, this was the most successful terrorist attack with no casualties...

    Any person trying to commit an illegal activity shows similar behavior signs (terrorist, thief, drugs smuggler...) . Let's start using behavioral profiling and stop working with the terrorists

    December 29, 2009 at 9:53 am |
  154. Bobby S

    If people are concerned about their privacy, they should stay home. Nobody has any right to privacy outside of their homes in the world we live in today.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:54 am |
  155. Hunter

    Sure I would submit to a full body search. While I am protective of my individual rights I understand that I have to give some of those rights when I make the choice to board a commercial flight. Every person on the flight has the right to life and the expectation to be kept safe. I want my family to be kept safe, and I want to be kept safe too.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:54 am |
  156. rory

    Body scan,strip me naked-this is a no brainer ! Safety and peace of mind before personal privacy and "feeling" uncomfortable-damit people-we do prostate and mamograms ,don't we ? Profiling-I come From S.Africa and get extrs "attention " flying back to the USA-and I am gratefull that security is doing a thorough job-give them the tools to keep us all safe and alive !

    December 29, 2009 at 9:54 am |
  157. AlfaDog

    Vanity is not the issue here – When will we target the enemy? Hint: It's not Grandma from Iowa

    December 29, 2009 at 9:55 am |
  158. Tara Schoepke

    Forget about the privacy issue. What about the HEALTH RISKS of being exposed to x-rays every time you fly? CNN just did a segment on radiation from CT scans and cancer. Passengers will be exposed to increased cancer risks if they submit to these scans. Even if it's just a small dose each time, repeated exposure adds up. I will not fly if these scans become mandatory.

    Come on, America, let's swallow our pride and ask the Israelis for help. They're experts at targeting passenger BEHAVIOR rather than physical appearance and body searches, and they never have these incidents. Let's learn from them. It's long overdue.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:55 am |
  159. Derek Murphy

    Unfortunately, the only way to currently ensure aircraft security includes full-body scans, which just means terrorists will simply pre-position materials. Even a strip-search does nothing in that case.

    Airport security cannot be achieved as long as there are passengers – ask any Custtoms Agent if they have a perfect catch record.- all it does is annoy passengers and give an illussionn of authorities for once actually doing something..

    As to 'would I submit?' I avoid flying at all costts, whenever possible. If I HAD to fly, sure. But the next attack will be, as all the previous ones were, from an un-expected vector.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:55 am |
  160. longfinger

    Folks talking about privacy are the same people who will scream, government aint doing enough to keep the airways safe.
    Security personnel cant detect hidden powders/dangerous items without using a scan.
    What do we want? to have your privacy or to be attacked by these crazy terrorist. I know I will give up privacy to be safe, what about you?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:55 am |
  161. J Joseph

    I'm all for tighter airport security. But my my concern is with the x-rays. People who constantly travel for business will be exposed to more radiation than those who travel less. What kind of long term studies have been done on the effects of these scanners on the frequent travelers?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:56 am |
  162. Robert Barnett

    I agree totally with Christopher, use those K-9's! They can be trained to stiff out practically anything and in multiples I am told. Why has no-one thought or talked about this at a higher degree before now?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  163. Vickie

    Had full body scans been used in this case, this idiot criminal would not have been able to get on that plane. Yes, I'm for full body scans. Who cares what can be seen as long as travelers are safe. My only concern is for frequent travelers and radiation. Let's not forget that as soon as we institute full body scans, those bastard terrorists will come up with something else.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  164. Donn in Austin, Texas

    I already have been body scanned. I'm not worried about what security officials see–they'll only look once anyway because they have to :-).

    But what should frighten every single American is the fact that the same people who manage our Homeland "Security" are the same people who want to bring and manage universal health care to us all.

    Anyone who doesn't see the tragic irony in this just isn't paying attention.

    May God have mercy on our souls.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  165. carl

    Land of the free and home of the brave?
    From reading this comments it sounds more like most want a nanny state.
    Beware of states who want to be your mommy.Hitler and Stalin offered security too!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  166. Fran B. Reed

    Yes, but it would make no difference at all. Every time we
    devise some way to stop would=be bombers, they think of
    a new way to operate. All the airport security is a complete
    waste of time and money. All is make people say, "Oh, look the government is protecting us!!" Not possible. A terrorist could be a local person like Timothy McVay in Oklaholma. I
    The idea is to treat people with decency here and abroad , so
    they don't want to kill us. Now they want to keep passengers from
    using the rest room the last hour. Cruel. A bomb could be in the
    first hour. It's just for show. Besides, this would be bomber came
    on in Holland, and we have no control over foreign airports.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  167. Segun Osoba

    Virtual Strip Search or whatever name it is branded, a search is a search. It is a life-saving measure and i believe every individual should be ready to make that sacrifice for the safety of human lives. Ask those who have lost one loved one or the other in which security measures did not detect a possible danger, they will be too willing to do more than go through a Virtual Strip Search to see their loved ones again. I fully subscribe to this new measure cos nothing compares to human life and whatever measure that is available in protecting it should be employed with no delay.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  168. Sandra H

    If we would use some of the proactive pre-flight checks that the Israelis do, we could avoid all this reactive nonsense. As much as the radicals hate the Israelis, you don't see THEIR planes being blown up. Is it arrogance or pride that makes us refuse to adopt good ideas from other countries?

    December 29, 2009 at 9:57 am |
  169. Kelley

    Absolutely, I believe it is the first step in securing our airlines. This most recent incident proves we have not improved our airline security since 9/11. That was over eight (8) years ago; we are smarter than what this most recent incident proves to the world.
    We must take steps to secure our airports and airlines. Those that complain of privacy concerns will be the same to complain that nothing has been done if/when the next terrorist incident occurs. TSA employees continue to be underpaid, undertrained, and under-educated.
    Our security can be enhanced without reducing our individual liberty. We should be able to explore technology to improve our security. We've done this already with other industries (healthcare, etc.). We must take the necessary steps to allow the U.S. to continue to be a world leader.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  170. Barry

    I work on an airplane. Hmmm, lets see... get scanned or get blown up by a terrorist? come on people, I would think the scan would be worth it.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  171. Tony

    This is what terrorism is all about. Make us change our way of life. It will not end. They will keep coming back with other ways to attack us. This is why we have to keep on the attack on the military front and also on the political and economical fronts by working on helping to solve the middle east problem. For now scans are ok but it is not a long term solution.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  172. Fran B. Reed

    Sure, but it would do no good. All airport security is just for
    show, to make the people FEEL safe. A would-be bomber
    can always find a way. We have to treat other countries with
    equality, so they don't want to kill us.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  173. Michael Lilley

    I don't fly that much but if I did, I would not object to full body scan. If we want to remain safe on the planes that get us from any place in the world, what is wrong with a scan? We are at war with terrorism and to not use all the capabilities we have available to protect those who use any form of public transportation, is absurd. Persnonally, I don't want to give another terrorist the chance to take another life in the U.S. or anyplace else.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:00 am |
  174. Sue Jacobsen

    Who will control/oversee the radiation dosage the Xray delivers?
    What about those of us with pacemakers?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:01 am |
  175. Dora

    Heidi,,I think is so great that the AirLine Industry is planing in more 'Security' , that showes that they care for the Lives of their passangers . I feel is so silly to ask -why do we need 'full body scan'?-
    I will answer) SO we can land in one piece,so we can land safe..

    December 29, 2009 at 10:02 am |
  176. Karry

    I'm all for the full body scan if it will deter terrorist activity on airlines. I am also aware of the privacy issues this may cause, but if it is a matter of security vs. privacy then I all for security.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:04 am |
  177. Dana Renton

    Sure I would. I would prefer to do less than a full body, but hey,. we're talking abouot the possible difference between life and death. I'm shocked that many don't want to be inconveinenced. It appears that times have changed so much; we want things how we want them, when we want them, and with no pain or inconvenience to the person. With an attitude like this, our citizens are truly going to NOT INCONVENEINCE THEMSELVES and send this country into self-destruction. Too many selfish, "spoiled brat" attitudes.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:06 am |
  178. Lucy Armstrong

    I don't have a problem with the body scan as too intrusive. I worry about how much radiation it will deliver to one's body in the process. Constantly irradiating a frequently flyer for example, even if just a little, is excessive health risk. In fact, any extra radiation is dangerous and should be avoided. This exposure will increase your risk of DNA changes and cancer.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:06 am |
  179. Fran B. Reed

    Sure, but all the airport security in the world doesn't protect
    us. It's just for show, so people FEEL protected.
    A would be bomber can always find a way.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:07 am |
  180. Rick

    Please...
    As Americans we tend to be so prudish. Full body scans? Descriptive photographs? We're talking about safety here. Get over it!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:12 am |
  181. CoolGayDad

    Flying is a privilege, it is not a right. If you don't want to submit to a full body scan you are free to drive or take the bus. It is just that simple.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:12 am |
  182. Justan

    I live in Utah, and have been subjected "randomly" to the full body scan, on the way to North Carolina. It's humiliating and I believe it to be invasive. It is NOT necessary. I object to it.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:12 am |
  183. Larry

    I definitely think they should do full body scans. I rather give up some of my privacy than my life. No question about it.

    Larry

    December 29, 2009 at 10:12 am |
  184. Sumedh

    Are privacy advocates ready to take responsibility of all human lives traveling on air? If not, let's not worry about them. If the technology can help in anyway in making the travel any safer.... IT'S WORTH IT!!!!!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:13 am |
  185. Leo

    I am opposed to such an embarassing measure. I think it's wrong for airlines to violate any reasonable expectation of privacy to obtain a little temporary safety.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:13 am |
  186. dorothy

    golly, heidi, do you suppose we could get a print-out when we go through these scans? Maybe it could serve a double purpose as a type of diagnostic tool; take the print out with you to the bone doctor, save on an mri???
    happy new year 🙂

    December 29, 2009 at 10:13 am |
  187. Jeff

    I travel quite frequently and wouldn't mind the body scans. For those that do, feel free to stand in 2-3 hour long pat down lanes at the regular checkpoint. Why should your insecurities reduce my air security?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:13 am |
  188. David Echeverry

    I would. There is nothing wrong with being safe. I don't care if the person behind the screen sees me naked... That person is not going to see what he/she has not seen before.... Or if they have not seen it before, it is time for them to learn.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  189. Blake A. Van Valkenburgh

    Flying is privilege not a right. Don't want to be subjected to screening that may save your life...don't fly. No one says you have to. You can drive, take a bus, boat or walk.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  190. Adele Butterfield

    I was scanned in Albuquerque a few days ago and I could have cared less. Zipping through the scan is a lot better than being wanded to death.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  191. Jan

    When are we in the U.S. going to stop being so politically correct and start profiling? I would submit to a full-body scan in order to be safe, but that is not the answer. The answer is to stop allowing 20-something Muslim men and women from the Middle East to travel to our country. Politically correct? No. Safety of the American people? Absolutely!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  192. Aaron

    Personally as a guy, it wouldn't even bother me that much if they did see me naked, heck, I might even have fun with it, smile take a pose. I'm pretty sure no one would want to see me naked though. As for women, I could understand they wouldn't like this so much. BUT it doesn't really show you naked. Even if it did, just think of it like going to the doctor, its for safety reasons. I have a feeling though, that with the "internet" and all, it could open a whole new world of pornography. Just trying to bring a humorous perspective to this.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  193. Sierra Kirkpatrick

    Heidi,
    I absolutely agree with this concept. Some people might feel uncomfortable, however in the long run we are saving lives and i feel as though thats the most important part!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  194. Jonathan Ashton

    A screener seeing an outline of my junk is nothing compared to safety. If it keeps people safe in the air, I don't see a problem.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  195. Keith Ropchock

    If we could avoid some of the other inefficient search methods, I would say absolutely. Why are americans so afraid of someone else seeing outlines of their bodies?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  196. Nate

    I would comply to a body scan, but I see how many people would see this as intrusive.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  197. Mr. Gayle

    To Disagree with the new step in today safety would only be foolish. The fact that our country has so much say so , is the reason that we've been put in positions such as 9/11 today. Just let the government work!!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  198. Catherine Rogers

    I may not like a full body scan; however, it is now necessary for the safety of our nation.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  199. Craig

    Yes!! Anyone who has a problem with this needs to wake up and smell the roses or take a bus - this is a great tool for TSA to ensure safety of flight!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  200. Ralph C. Whitley Sr. A Decorated Veteran

    If full body scan would detect moisture/fecal matter briefs containing explosive materials the scans would have saved the first bomber attempt. I would always submit to any form of security check, visual or hands on to be safe but remember PILOTS AND CREW plus aircraft ground crews never are checked.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:14 am |
  201. Mike Toole

    Yes, I think body scans are a good idea. Anything that is quick and improves safety works for me.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  202. Stacie R

    What about the witness reports that this guy was escorted to the gate by a guy in a suit and that he carried no passport?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  203. David

    Sure! You lose privacy when you go to the doctor's office. What's the difference? It's for your own good ~ unfortunately it is a necessary evil in today's world.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  204. Rebekah Norman

    I would submit to a full body scan. With the apparent holes in homeland security, whatever it takes for me to have a safe flight to my vacation destination and back home, I am all for it!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  205. Susan D.

    Well this is a no-brainer to me. I'd much rather be on a flight where all the passengers went through the full body scan than on one where it wasn't available. It's not a privacy issue to me, it's all about safety.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  206. Frank Kovesi

    You know what? I'd much rather submit my body to a body scan then to a bomb that would subject my body to get torn into pieces! Bring the scanners on! Now!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:16 am |
  207. Gail Miller

    OK with me. Put everyone who objects on one flight, and those who accept on another.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:16 am |
  208. Joyce Frary

    Heidi;
    Under no conditions would I feel comfortable having a full body scan.
    As a 62 year old woman I am fully aware that my figure is not perfect.
    But as a rather shy yung woman I would have been extremely
    embarassed having a revealing full body scan. I agree that this
    scanning has become important. But I will never fly any where again
    and my husband feels the same way.
    Joyce
    London, Ky

    December 29, 2009 at 10:16 am |
  209. Leslie

    I would glady go through a full body scan to increase safety for everyone. The x-ray dose is likely less than one is exposed to by simply being in an airplace so should be no worries for anyone. Safety should take the lead over worries about a bit of privacy. Of course, I would hope that there would be far more security with international flights. Rather looks like something got lost in the process about this young man and how he got so far...

    December 29, 2009 at 10:16 am |
  210. Keith

    The line between civil liberties and the government's interest in safety are growing closer and closer with the nature of the threats we face today. If body scans were required at any other place (subway, bus terminal), I would not submit to them because I feel that would breach my private interests as a citizen. However, airports are places where the adverse actions of one individual could potentially affect hundreds and maybe thousands of people. The Supreme Court has long ruled that people have a diminished expectation of privacy at airports, and these body scanners are no different. One downside to the technology is that it will increase screening time and delay passengers, but that is the price travelers pay when flying. I'd sacrifice another 20-30 minutes of my time if it gave me peace of mind.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:16 am |
  211. Rob

    We have no choice.

    It reminds me of losing playground priviledges in elementary school because of one clown in the classroom. The innocent always pay the price!

    What is more comcerning is Napalitano's remarks and just another sign proving we (1) have no clue and (2) do not know how to handle any major events.

    This is another black mark on this administration.

    No pun intended.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:16 am |
  212. Carolyn M.

    Body scan? Certainly, IF I had to fly. It's a matter of priorities to me: so which is more important: My modesty or my continuation of life? Easy for me to decide!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  213. John Douros

    Why not have a real picture the same size the monitor shows rather than an artists drawing, that way people can see how much "detail" is shown.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  214. Charlotte

    Yes, I definitely would submit to a full body scan. In today's world of terrorism, more extreme measures are needed to protect the public and our transportation system. Those people who have a problem with the full body scan need to find an alternate mode of transportation. Safety always trumps modesty!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  215. Carol Hosler

    I think it's inaccurate to call it a virtual strip search. This process would carry none of the the face-to-face embarrassment of an actual strip search. And I can't imagine that an employee looking at these images all day long would be getting any jollies out of it. If it makes us safer, I have no problem with it.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  216. Mike

    It's time TSA starts to profile, You cannot stop contraban from entering a prison which is much more secure than an airport terminal. Profiling is the answer.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  217. Bob Frederick

    I am a long-time member of the ACLU and a strong believer in the right to privacy. However, flying is not a RIGHT, it is a privilege. If you don't want to be inconvenienced by intensive security measures at the airport, take the bus.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:17 am |
  218. Pete Bostwick

    Full body scans? You bet. Are they "virtual strip searches?" Sort of, but not the kind of result that would satisfy anyone's prurient interest, especially given the volume of traffic through one of these scanners. Also, the scan operator does not have visual or physical contact with the traveler being scanned, so people should be happy to have this level of security with so little actual invasion of privacy.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  219. David

    Full body scans are a band aid, perhaps necessary, but insufficient to fix the problem. We need to develop a more holistic approach to security, including profiling to identify high risk passengers. Ethnicity does not alone make anyone guilty of anything, but is undeniably a risk factor for terrorist attacks. The Israelis use this kind of approach, and haven't had a terrorist attack on a commercial airliner in many years.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  220. Barbara

    I love to fly, especially to international destinations. I would definitely be open to having the full body scans and would like to see them in airports around the world.

    As with many others who have posted, I am interested in who will oversee these scans and what health hazzards are posed.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  221. Steve H

    Would you rather die now, courtesy of the terrorists, or later due to the hitherto unknown effects of all that radiation? Why not just medically sedate all passengers and revive them on arrival at the destination?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  222. Luis Picon

    I am all for the scans. It is not an invasion as it does not display anything personal on publicly view screens and it contributes to the safety of passengers. People complain when events like this attempted bombing happen, but they don't want the security measures that prevent them. As a soldier in America today, its the same ambiguity we see from the people about the military. Make up your minds. Either complain about it as you walk through security, but know you're safe or get ready to mourn because you didn't want to be inconvenienced with arriving a little earlier.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  223. Jennifer

    I feel this definitely is an evasion of privacy. I feel totally safe with the security that is in effect now. The TSA just needs to make sure their employees follow ALL of the requirements. Some people have had cosmetic surgery and being screened will of course show all implants, etc which is a total private matter between a person and their doctor.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  224. Jamesa

    I think it is funny how you are pushing this as unintrucive, when you can not even show the full scan on tv. You showed a man and only the torso of that man. If you can not show the image of the full scan on tv it is a bad idea and a huge invasion of my privacy.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  225. sieben13

    ABSOLUTELY, I fly frequently and WHATEVER the airlines deem necessary to assure my SAFETY is ABSOLUTELY fine with me. Personally I would like to see the elimination of carry on luggage

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  226. Martin

    I wonder how much of this stuff is real security! We still have gaping holes in the entire process: how did this guy get on a plane after our allies had already noted him as a threat, his father had reported him, the US Embassy has flagged him so he could not renew his visa.
    Although I have no problem submitting to the scan myself, it will not make me feel any safer to fly.
    Security needs to be addressed on cargo, the processes by which people are tracked, and with inter-department communications with the people who are charged with ensuring our security. And we need to stop being so politically correct, and get serious about tracking anyone who desires to commit terrorist attacks.
    I believe that as long as the government is involved, the process will be less than effective, and riddled with corruption just as most other big government initiatives.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  227. A. Valdez

    Absolutely. I am a flight attendant. Now is the time to stop piecing our security. We must act instead of react. It is my hope that all security measure be put in place immediately. When people make negative comments to me about the hassles of security, I think back to those passengers and crew on September 11 who crashed in Pennsylvania that knew for at least 40 minutes they were going to die. I don't care if they search me, I don't care if they search YOU. I care about my safety, the safety of my crew and the safety of all passengers. How many times must this happen before we get it??

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  228. C Poirier

    I travel 50 to 70% for work with nearly 4 connections per week with 6 to 8 international trips per year. Use of x-ray technology is very concerning as x-rays are know to cause cancer. This is also an invention of personal privacy. I would like to see extensive studies done to know the impact of these x-rays on a body.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  229. Kathy O'Rourke

    If people don't want to do body searches they should get in their cars and start driving. After working in Saudi Arabia in the 1980's and having to go through physical body searches, I think this is one heck of a lot better and a heck of a lot safer.
    Flying is a privledge and we need to do all that we can do to keep ourselves as safe as possible.
    Why don't we get more sky marshall's in the air? We are trying to create jobs... what better use of human resources than to put more protection on the planes and not have to rely on the bravery of our citizenry?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  230. jayjay

    I am in full support of the full body scan. No matter what and under any circumstance. People should be able to feel safe flying. I do fly a lot and now anybody I see going to the bathroom staying more then 4 mins scares me to death. Also all this muslim always scare me whenever they are on flight with me. What is this world turning to? That people will be fearing others just because of their belief.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  231. Tony de Sercey

    Security measures like these are required. However, questions should be asked in relation to the adaptability of the enemy to these new technologies and the cost of implementation. Is our perceived safety worth the economic and social costs with such security practices?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  232. Mary James

    I have a knee replacement and have to be practically stripped search..I hate it. BUT..if it means whether I fly or not, this is good. The lady that didn't like the idea of a full body scan, well, then she doesn't get on the plane. It's as simple as that. Why not use dogs until all the body scans are in place?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  233. George Williams

    I have no problem with the airport scanners....

    But as an elderly man with bladder problems
    there is no way, that I could not go to the
    restroom over the span of one hour...

    I would have to wear a baby diaper and the
    diaper may show up on the scanner....

    December 29, 2009 at 10:19 am |
  234. Mary Hickey

    My main concern is with the safety of these scans, which I haven't heard anyone say anything about. They are a type of Xray. Shouldn't we be concerned – especially frequent flyers? Even if they are supposedly safe, what if the machine isn't functioning correctly–what are the possible dangers?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  235. David Ridgeway

    What I don't want to submit to is the lack of security that will result by not having the body scan.

    Enough loudmouth, business types who don't want to wait inline or think they might be 30 minutes late for a cross-country appointment will have this new requirement amended until it is practically meaningless.

    The metal plate "fig leaves" make the scans practically meaningless anyway.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  236. Darrius

    I don't mind having a full body search because I am not a terrorist. However, this latest terrorist boarded a flight bound for the U.S. in Amsterdam. Why are we not talking about the poor security at this airport in Amsterdam? Who cares about security checks in the U.S. when these terrorist board flights overseas....

    December 29, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  237. Paul

    Would I submit? In a word: NO!

    The voyeurs among the TSA screeners are sure going to have a fun time if this is implemented. There is no way the goverment is would be able to control this behavior.

    I'm reminded of a famous Mae West quote, which I will paraphrase:

    "Is that a bomb in your shorts, or are you just happy to see me?"

    December 29, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  238. Bill

    I think that as long as there are limits to what we are willing to search, there will be incidents like this. There will always be people who are willing to exploit the shortcomings of any systems. Since Richard Reid, we have to take our shoes off when going through security. We all know that there is not going to be an underwear check now, talk about violation of privacy. A scan is a simple way for people to go through security without dropping belts, shoes, jackets, etc.....I would rather stand in front of a machine than spend an additional 15-20 minutes basically redressing myself after going through security. To be perfectly honest, if you don't like it, don't fly.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  239. Anne

    Safety for all should be the most important factor.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  240. Glyn

    I'm sure that all oppossed to the subjection of a full body scan and the invasion of privacy would have a sudden change of heart should they ever be in flight and seeing a terrorist stand up and attempt to set off a bomb!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  241. Elias B

    To me, this issue has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with safety and security. If you're getting on a plane, you stop being the only person involved in the matter. Everyone deserves safety, and this is another step in improving detection of security breaches. It may slow down airport flow, and as with anything, it will get off to a clunky start. After a while, people will get used to it, and I foresee this becoming a seamless and unnoticeable (but necessary) staple in airports in the future. Walk through a scanner and be on your merry way. This should have been a focus all along.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  242. darrien

    Yes, Yes Scan all people.
    America welcome to the 21st century. These system show be installed as soon as you walk into the airport.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  243. Kristin

    I will not submit to the "full body scan" aka "Nude-O-Scope." There is no control over what happens to the images, inadequate data on the radiation effect, and the scans do not detect explosives, which is the major concern. Focus on this methodology, as well as other useless techniques (Kabuki Security) detracts from true security.

    The scans cannot see inside body cavities or detect items concealed under skin folds or folds of fat, and quite often, cannot detect items hidden in the genitalia. A large size of explosives is not needed to take down the lane, and the quantities needed could easily be hidden in these locations.

    I think greater use of explosive detection is indicated when screening passengers, as well as screening of all cargo which sits a few inches below passengers' feet. All TSA and airport employees should be screened when they enter/leave the secure area, as should vendors and their supplies.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  244. Davita

    I agree with the full body scan but only if it is done to everyone not just selected passengers. Terrorist no longer fit a certain profile. We have people of all nationalities teaming up with Al Quada so in order to better secure our airlines assume that everyone is a terrorists and scan us all.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:21 am |
  245. John

    Yes, I would submit to a full-body scan. It's the only way we will be safe on aircraft.

    The problem I see with it is that they let you optionally place a metal plate over your genitals. Think about that for a minute. The most recent terrorist on Christmas on the Amsterdam to Detroit flight had the PETN sewn into his underwear right over his genitals. Even if he had gone through a full-body scan, he could have placed the metal plate over his genitals, hiding the bomb.

    We need to use the full-body scan for all passengers, flight crew and ground maintenance personnel WITHOUT the metal plates. It will just be seen as something you must do if you want to go by plane.

    For those that strongly object to a full-body scan due to some Puritanical fear of another person seeing the outline of your body, they can travel by train, car or boat.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  246. Tim

    I want security like everyone else but I wonder why, over and over again, the public has to suffer another inconvenience yet, those who are in charge of security, ie, those that allowed this kid to get on board without passport and despite his own father's warnings-they face no quality control, no accountability - apparently no motive to take our safety seriously. We see exposé after exposé showing that airport security is lax, officials who aren't accountable and a public that accepts all of this. The unavoidable conclusion is that it is going to take a catastrophe, an outrage, some unimaginable horror before the public demands better services and a better life for everyone.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  247. lance newman

    I think that any resource the officials need to use to see exactly what you have on your person when getting aboard an aircraft is a much needed practice and people should realize that all this is for public safety

    December 29, 2009 at 10:22 am |
  248. Kristi

    what if you are pregnant? I'm not sure what is involved in a body scan but I know you should limit xrays. do/will they allow pregnant women to not be scanned?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  249. Peter

    Resources should be targeted to scrutinize those most likely to commit terrorism: Muslims.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  250. Surya Shah

    No Madam Heidi, no body scan or rstricting the fluids etc are required. What is required is (i) Examining why and who allowed Malik to continue in Armed Forces and dismissing the lot (ii) How President's Party was allowed to be crashed penalize those who were looking after the so called security (iii) How was the Detroit flight guy was allowed to baord the flight, Dismiss those who approved the passenger list (iv) Punish those who do not know who visited Malik on the day before the Fort masscare and what was his visit for
    PLEASE DO NOT RESTRICT THE PUBLIC AND DEALY FLIGHTS WITH RUBBISH CALLED BODY SCANS.
    Instead, dismiss those or impose severe penalty such as lowering the ranks for the Homeland Security officers, FBI and CIA and other organizations who have wasted nation's wealth sitting and drinking

    December 29, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  251. Tom

    Its actually a tetra wave scanner. And recent research has shown that a tetra wave scanner has the potential to cause very harmful effect on DNA. For those that would submit to the scanner. Flying is still safer than driving the car to the supermarket.

    When the terrorists find a way around that will you submit to flying in a set of orange paper overalls with no-carry on luggage at all? How about flying sedated so you wake up at the other end of the flight?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  252. Craig Whisenhunt

    Any society that would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both.

    ~ Ben Franklin

    (I dare you to air this one.)

    December 29, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  253. Sandra

    Why do people complain about how long it would take to get a body scan?? If you have to get there earlier, then do it!! I would hope you value your life more than the time it takes to have a scan done!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  254. Meg

    Absolutely we should submit to scans! After traveling in Asia, where men and women go through separate security lines and every person gets pat down, I came home to the U.S. and was surprised at the stark contrast. It is imperative that the U.S. beef up our security checks if we want to ensure safety of air travelers. Besides, wouldn't be all rather submit to a virtual full body search than an actual one?

    My only concern is being embarassed about wearing a sanitary napkin or tampon that could be misread as explosive underpants. But a bigger concern would be the man or woman wearing the real explosive underpants that gets to pass through security because they tell the security person that it is for incontinence or menstruation. So I guess we need to hear more about how they would differentiate between explosive and nonexplosive padded undies.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:24 am |
  255. East Texan

    If they are going to these extra efforts, they need to also search contents of checked baggae. Who is to say that a LARGE amount of PETN would not be hidden in checked baggge, then remotely detonated from a passenger in the cabin, or a timer.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  256. Mike Kraus

    If you're so concerned that a stranger will see your body, then go on a diet. After all, that's what this is really about for so many Americans. I can't believe that people are worried about such a petty thing when there's a chance your next flight could be your last. Get over your neuroses and worry about your safety instead.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  257. Wes

    I fly nearly 250,000 miles a year – and have been waiting for this scanner. The limitations of where TSA can pat someone down allows for very obvious security gaps (like down the front of your pants, like the Nigerian scumbag). We cannot let the ACLU and others who are mis-informed about this technology threaten our security.

    And our economy – if a few airlines start dropping from the sky, our unemployment rate will double as global trade comes to a screeching halt.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  258. Alan in Arkansas

    The scan technology isnt as good as the puffer or a dog. Had either been used the recent problem would have been avoided. The TSA cannot spot obvious materials in tests why should we feel better with this scan. This only keeps honest people honest. No one scans TSA on arrival to work and it is still easy to work through field employees. Planes will never be completely safe.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  259. Joe in Atlanta

    I wouldn't mind having a full body scan or having to walk through a "sniffer"; however, I don't believe this would mitigate the risk we face. Without additional security in foreign airports, our efforts in the US will not have the impact intended. Why do we allow travelers to enter the US when they are suspected of terrorist links and are coming from airports with inadequate security? Denied entry to a majority of those seeking entry would force countries to increase their security efforts. Furthermore, we must get over the "profile" issue, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...let's not call it a pig.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:25 am |
  260. John M.

    Yes, we should consider taking the train. The media, CNN included, are getting into full panic mode over air travel and are acting like there is no other way to get from Point A to Point B. If the trip is less than eight hours by car, why not take the train? The terrorists are having a field day watching us panicked sheep worry about body scans and shell out more money for the joy of being hassled.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  261. Gene Meier

    Full Body Scans? Heck ya! I want to work for TSA now. Seriously though, who will scan those who are scanning us?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  262. Marie K.

    Heidi,

    What about a woman that might be using a female product, will that warrant an internal.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  263. Faranak

    I would certainly want to be safe, but body search should be the last resolution.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  264. gilbert wade - florida

    It only makes for safer flights . I travel a lot and if I need to get there earlier it would be worth it.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  265. Brian - Woodruff, SC

    I fly all the time and if it will keep this country safe and secure then by all means, I will go through any type of screaning to make that possible. I honestly hope it gets alot more strict.........!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  266. Chris

    Give people a choice. They can do the body scan which would be faster OR if they choose – they can do a "pat-down search" with chemical swabs. Those are the only 2 choices -if you do not want to do either – then you can not fly. Plain and simple!!!!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  267. Mary

    The Nigerian terrorist was on a watch list that was ignored and the solution is for me to submit to a body scan?! What's wrong with this picture?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  268. Steve C

    Absolutely YES., we need the scanning process.
    Ask people just before they board a plane the following question: "Would you rather a) face a higher risk of being blown out of the sky to avoid the virtual scan, or b) face a lower risk of being blown up and submit to a virtual body scan?" Then see where the people line up.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  269. Frank

    Heidi,

    Full body scans won't work, the terrorist prior to flight 253 placed his in his anal cavity. Will the machine detect that?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  270. David

    I would not have an issue with body scans. It should be required at all airports. If you catch one person, it will gave just possibly saved hundreds of lives.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  271. Samuel Edwards

    Safety first. Yes I am for body scan if there is no health risk, if it is legal
    FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  272. Amy

    I think a lot of people are making a lot of money on scanning machines, small bottles, etc. I think the terrorists have totally won by forcing us to invest a high percentage of our GDP in something that's not especially valuable to the economy as a whole.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  273. Kelly

    Body scans, Good; Exploding planes, Bad!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  274. john

    wow what you read seemed pretty one sided . i cant imagine nobodys against it. BIG BROTHER

    December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  275. Larry Sandahl

    All of the airline situations involve international flights yet our government is focusing on domestic flights in the U.S. I would suggest that the Homeland Security department start to control this threat by first cancelling all foreign visas and then rereview the applications to screen out questionable people. Then, initiate full body scans on people at the international in-bound airports only. The next step would be to initiate full body scans on U.S. flights at domestic airports.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  276. jerry kelly

    Probably a waste of time and money. Explosives would then be hidden inside the body by terrorists. Either swallowed or concealed in body orifices.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  277. David Carlson

    Note to privacy operatives: Your right to privacy ends at my right to continue living

    December 29, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  278. joel

    The biggest problem will be that half of the world will refuse a body scan on religious or modesty reasons. for example, you cannot force a religious Muslim man to have his wife scanned, so you will need an interviewing method. the world should be asking El Al who has never had an in-air incident for what methods OTHER than body scans are effective.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  279. David Burt

    I appreciate the convenience and thoroughness associated with use of the total body scan. Because I have a medical appliance in one of my knees, I can forego the delays associated with the traditional pat-down.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  280. Dan

    Body scans are a good idea, but is this actually going to prevent terrorists from bringing some type of explosive device? As we saw from this recent act, it was not caught. But from seeing what the explination of this scan does, it just shows an outline. What can that do to help? If the scan is going to be useful, it needs to show more than an outline. Maybe not down to the features of the body, but maybe something that can show objects that can not be seen.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  281. Buddy Thornton

    Absolutely, I am in favor of anything that will improve air safety.
    Those prudes who object to full body scans because of privacy concerns should not be allowed on commercial flights.
    However, my question would be: How soon can other countries install these for international flights?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:28 am |
  282. Linda

    I have an artificial knee and am searched every time I go to the airport. Given that I will always be pulled over for some kind of body search I would much rather that was done with a machine than having a person touching me. I had the machine option on a Jet Blue flight once and chose it in a heartbeat. I understand the need for security intellectually but emotionally I feel physically assaulted every time I am patted down. There are a lot of people like me who are always searched and find it humiliating. These days I never fly if driving is a viable option.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  283. Warren

    Body scans are just the new reality. Overall safety is more important than your modesty. Even if they could, no one really wants to see you naked anyway. Don't flatter yourself.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  284. Christine

    The current incident was a mistake of a foreign airport security system, not ours, so why do we always pay the price? Airport security is imperative, full body scans are not the only nor the quickest solution to implement. Other countries have immigration and customs control on entry AND exit of their country, why is it the USA only controls these factors upon entry?? Control exit too – Now that’s a security measure I will back up 100%.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  285. Jack

    Better a body scan then a body bag

    December 29, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  286. Caitlyn

    So an airport screener sees under my clothes to check for bombs, big deal. Besides, how many times in my life am I ever going to see that person again? It's about better safety and if that's what it takes than so be it.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:29 am |
  287. David

    Good spin wrong question. No technology in the world will make air travel safer if the government can't coordinate what a terrorist's name on a list means to safety....

    David

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  288. Brenda

    I absolutely agree that Airport Security needs to be bumped up, and if a Full Body Scan is the way to protect us in flight, then EVERYONE should be scanned. I believe technology will protect us from any harmful radiation . (would like to see the news report on the safety of the scan) And the people doing the scan will be trained on the proper use of the equipment. It should NOT be a 'random' check, EVERYONE flying should be scanned. It is NOT a 'discriminatory' act, rather a 'safety' act. IF you DON"T want the scan, then you don't fly. I also believe trains and buses and any other mode of public transportation should adopt this 'body scan' security as well. And I don't think it will be too time consuming. Besides which, so what if it takes a few minutes. ISN"T a few minutes of a safety measaure worth it. I would like to see our governments step it up and help make it happen sooner rather than later. I hope to hear that it is IN PLACE very soon so i can fly without being ill at ease on a plane.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  289. Joe

    I'm all for it. This would be a big step in safety. Your carry-on bags are scanned, so should you. I don't see a privacy issue at all.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  290. Charlie

    This is another example of TSA going overboard. In this case, a man who was already on a watch list was able to by-pass already stringent measures in the EU. Anyone who is determined to do harm will find a way to circumvent any procedures in place. All we are doing is making more difficult for honest travelers to move freely. Ben Franklin said it best, "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  291. Ayodeji Samson

    Its a very great idea. i don't see why anyone who truly love them self, care for the lives of others and knows what as been going on in the past couple of years about different terrorist attack would reject these.
    U don't want ur body scan then bye a private plane.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  292. AJ

    I think it is an invasion of privacy, but will do it if it will ensure our safety. But will it??? I would be worried about the long term medical implication going through the machine often and that the image will somehow find its way on the internet.
    All I have to say, is it better stop air-terrorism if we are at the stage of people looking at us practically naked before boarding a flight!
    Will they be able to detect tumors??

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  293. Vince Grande

    Privacy,do you want privacy or sit next to a bomb laden passenger on your next flight?How can anyone with an ounce of common sense question full body scanning when any nut can sew pouches of explosive in their underwear ,get thru security and blow up a plane?Perhaps people who question this should experience a close call then may think differently.This is not the age to be a "doubting Thomas"

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  294. Darion Edwards

    In my opinion itself i believe the body scan should be used
    but i am also for not using it because YOU ALSO HAVE CHILDREN AND INFANTS FLYING IF THEY CAN BE EXCUSED THEN I AM ALL FOR IT! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  295. Jayson from Ohio

    Yes a body scan is necessary. How would you feel if the person sitting next to you in a plane has a bomb strapped to him. I'm able to wait longer to have body scans than rather die in the air.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:30 am |
  296. Kevin Le

    Heidi, I agree to full body scan but my concern is how could we put these scanners on all airports around the world; airports that have flight into US. Are we doing a little backward by scanning only people who will depart from US airports. P.S. Really enjoy your news segment everyday.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  297. Pat Fitzsimmons

    Before they think about full body scans they should do a full body scan on someone wearing the device the would be bomber was wearing to see if it would have picked that up. It seeems we always over react to these situations and throw money at a problem unnecessarily. We need to go back to the pre Clinton years when we had an effectice FBI and CIA to handle these problems. Thank you.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:31 am |
  298. Luther Lee

    Heidi, even though it might be invasive it is it is better than allowing an explosive device on an airliner.remember Heidi the cost of freedom isn' t free far from it .

    December 29, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  299. Peter

    It is plain and simple...We came into this world Naked...The question is....Do you want to cut down on the risk of being Blown Out of The SKI ? Those of you against Xray screening...Do us all a favor and keep your insecure vanity at home.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  300. JAMES

    the plan is to make you as uncomfortable as possible, then you will easily agree to a computer chip implant which would speed you through the boarding lines, sort of like on the expressway. Finally Big Brother with GPS can locate you no matter where you are, even if you don't have a driver's license or use a credit card.
    Just saying, i could be wrong.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  301. Teri

    Here's a question...would a body scan have caught what this person was carrying in his underwear? I think this idea is very intrusive and an overreaction. Wouldn't it be better to use the security we already have in place? There were warnings about him that should have been followed up.

    Whenever something happens, we overreact and a little more of our freedom is taken away. If this happens...I will not fly.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  302. Craig

    As a frequent flyer, I go through airport security 3-times per week. My concern is with the safety of our health. While I appreciate everything TSA does to ensure our safety, I really think this is going too far. Medical x-ray systems in Virginia, hospitals and clinics are required to have regular inspections by a licensed physicist to ensure the systems are operating within safety limits. Will the airport xray scanners be required to have the same inspections? Is it really safe for me to receive 3-xrays per week, every week?? Get some more dogs. If a dog can sniff out cancer in our bodies, I think they would do a great job sniffing our crotches as we pass though security, and without the radiation.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  303. stephen

    In everything we do, safety should be paramount. The safety of the travelling public is not negotiable and on the basis of this, i will subject myself to whateever security measure that is put in place by the aviation authorities.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  304. Isaac B Robinson

    Hello Heidi. I am a Flight attendant out of Phoenix Az. We had the body scanner here in Phoenix, then it was gone I also have a hip and shoulder replacement.I have had the opportunity to utilize the full body scan.I am definately satisfied with the scanner as it serves two major functions for me.One my safety is paramount. To me it is non evasive , as I have nothing to hide. If it will prevent what happened on Christmas day, then so be it. I would rather have the body scan than having screeners putting their hands all over me,. That is an invasion oh my privacy.Isaac Robinson/ Phoenix

    December 29, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  305. Sara Voigt

    Heidi, we need to know more about how this body scans work, the amount of radiation and their safety.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  306. Tina

    I travel weekly, and am concerned about the time and effects of the scan. I would rather see a "do fly list" where frequent travelers are subject to indepth screening beforehand and able to pass through a less invasive security line when arriving at the airport...along the lines of the FlyClear program which used retinal and fingerprint scans to verify the identity of the pre-screened participants.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  307. jess

    I would like to know health risks – as well, will this make it *more* difficult for travel for people with piercings, or tumors/abnormal growths because they don't look "virtually normal."

    I would not be opposed to a "fast lane" for security – a line of people who *choose* to do this – but this should not be manditory. I do not participate in western medicine practices – I do not want any additional amount of radiation going through me. If this was forced on me, I would fly considerably less than the monthly trips I take.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  308. Mike R

    What is needed is more bomb sniffing dogs and machines. this substance could go through a body scan a thousand times and not be detected if conceled properly, it is a simple white powder. Bomb detection equipment not body scan. the minute you body scan they change how they carry the stuff. It could have been in a sealed box of sugar and you would not know it was not sugar with a body scan it could go right through the xray machine in carry on luggage.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  309. TKINWA

    I feel sorry for the person performing the scan. Talk about having to see way more than you ever wanted to!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:33 am |
  310. Bobby Burton

    Dear Heidi,

    Speaking for myself and friends flying has become a hassle. What angers me is the belief that every freedom we voluntarily relinquish in favor of personal safety is a gain for the people we fear. The further we go along this path serves to further exacerbate the harms done to the United States by the events of 9/11.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  311. Chris

    Heidi,

    I would rather have my "privates" be displayed on a scanner than, to be viewed in a morgue!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  312. Bob

    I see no reason not to submit to a body scan. Your ID is not recorded. Those that have something to hide and refuse the scan ... that would be a red flag. Those that have a privacy and/or vanity issue – get over it! Safety is primary.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  313. John Boeglin (bow-glen)

    Sure! I won't mind them looking, I just feel for the TSA employees like my brother-in-law having to look at all our fellow fat American bodies!! It's not like we aren't bombarded daily by Radio station waves, Broadcast Television waves, Satellite and Cell Phone waves; all by the Billions & Billions, not to mention UV & Cosmic rays!! If you worry about those, step in front of a bus.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  314. J M Kennedy

    Yes, everyone should be willing to submit to the full body scan if it iimproves safety in flight. All this hype about being seen naked is ridiculous, as you pointed out. Only an outline is seen and that should be repeated every time the scan is mentioned on TV. Let us see what a scanner could see, and then let those willing to risk all our lives forbidding scans try ground transportation.

    When I think of what people are willing to watch on TV and in movies, I find it laughable to think anyone would be shocked by this technology.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:34 am |
  315. Sandi McDaniel

    I would submit to a full body scan and feel that every airport in the USA should have them. People have used and will use again commercial aircraft to harm the US and its citizens. We have forgotten what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. I have said for years that every network should replay clips of the twin tower coming down, the field in PA and the Pentagon on fire. It can and will happen again if we are not overly careful.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  316. teshome

    Hi Heidi, I agree with the body scans as far as it makes us safe.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:35 am |
  317. Stacey

    Let me see.... scan or blow-up...scan or blow-up. Duh!!!....Scan. What is the complaint? Travelers should be glad there are such security measures in place. If they don't want to get scanned, there are other methods of travel. Soon, travelers will be complaining about the delays they face or the invasion of privacy with random DUI checks.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:36 am |
  318. Jim

    While I wouldn't object to a body scan, I can't escape the feeling that it's all security theater as opposed to actual protection. I was at DFW this morning and a man parked his car at the curb in front of the terminal and left it there for nearly 20 minutes. What if that hadn't been a man droppig off his daughter and had instead been a vehicle borne bomb? Just 30 feet away was the security checkpoint where nearly a hundred people stood waiting to be screened.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:37 am |
  319. Donna

    I would embrace a full body scan, anything to keep me safe while traveling. For those that think the scans are an invasion of your privacy, please dont fly, just walk or take the train or bus. Do not jeopardize my saftey with your whining about privacy. At some point you have to use some common sense, full body scan or getting scraped up off the pavement if some nut gets a bomb on board a plane. Simple.

    I am all for full body scans!!!!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:37 am |
  320. Kelly

    everyone is ready to submit to a full body scan. Totally unnecessary! Perhaps if the ticket manager hadn't let this man on the plane (seeing as he had no passport and was "assisted" in getting on the plane by a well dressed man of indian or pakistani descent) this whole thing wouldnt have happened. Its being widely reported now that American passenger, Kurt Haskell and his wife witnessed the entire event. Google for their names. Please people, dont be so willing to give up your liberty for "security". If the people we PAY To protect us were actually doing their jobs that we PAY them to do, this entire event wouldnt have happened! "Those who are willing to give up their liberty in exchange for security deserve neither" ~Benjamin Franklin

    December 29, 2009 at 10:38 am |
  321. Rick Guilbeau, Birmingham, AL

    If we continue to add new security measures with each new terrorist attempt like a farmer hurrying to close the barn door after the last cow has escaped, we will ultimately bring commercial travel to a stand still. The terrorist will ultimately win, not by their failed attacks, but though our own belated reactions.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:38 am |
  322. Karen

    Forget about being politically correct - we need to profile. If your name sounds like Muhammad or you are wearing a veil, you should be pulled aside for extra screening. I am tired of seeing little old ladies in wheelchairs getting extra screening. That is dumb profiling.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:39 am |
  323. Don

    Another security check...fine, but It would be interesting to hear from airports already using this scanner and experiences from travelers. Is it mandatory or voluntary?

    December 29, 2009 at 10:40 am |
  324. Cate

    Body scan will do some good .But what good will it be in situations like this,when people are willing to scarifies their life's in the process.What if they insert it?America, let's change minds.You destroy a tree by cutting the roots not the brunches.We still don,t get it! The bomb didn't not go off because of a father's prayers (and cries) for the life and soul of his son.It takes a village and then the whole world.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  325. Melodie

    I strongly agree with the Full Body Scans. Although I do not travel on planes often, I have family and friends that do whenever the chance arises. I would like to know that they will be safe on their journey and on the way back as well. Personally, I don't believe there are any benefits in the Full Body Scan if people should be allowed to refuse it. Some may think that this is an extreme measure to take before boarding a plane, but I for one believe that it is, as of now, the best way to protect ourselves.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  326. william smith sr.

    Full Body Scans are good, but it would make more since and be less costly to just have those that want to fly, to change into a type of flight suits at the airport.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  327. Pat Fitzsimmons

    Do whatever the Isralies do. They don't seem to have any problems with security.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  328. Elsie Ross

    People have a choice in travel. If they decide to fly then they
    should expect to be 'inconvienced'. Airlines are trying to protect
    their passengers. Unfortunately when the fear is gone so will the patience!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:43 am |
  329. Dan Nelson Lafayette,IN

    Yes they should be at all airports and if someone does have an explosive they should be tried immediately and executed asap! Just what should happen to the Christmas day bomber! If they want to be called what they think is a martyr which actually is giving your life for another then so be it! If that bomber is given anymore time to live it is too much time for him to receive God's judgment and punishment!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:43 am |
  330. KVR

    I'm all for full body scans! They should make everyone who boards each plane go through this process. For those who oppose, I bet they wouldn’t if they had experienced what happened on Christmas.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:44 am |
  331. Stormy

    This is absurd, and being construed as a matter of modesty as a distraction. Look at all of the security measures we've been subject to for the last 8 years, that are clearly a complete waste of time, and utter joke. After jumping through all the hoops we've got one more waiting in the wings to be implemented. This isn't about "safety" if it was 8 year olds wouldn't be on No Fly Lists, while "terror suspects" are allowed to get on a flight faster and easier than I am! This is nothing more than the stripping away of American's freedoms ... the ones we still have left anyway.

    Terrorism's goal is to change behavior. I'd say they're winning, at this point. Out of manufactured fear we're clinging to security measures that are criminally flawed, and useless.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:44 am |
  332. Nancy Neill

    Yes; I think that that is a small price to pay inorder to protect the United States from Teraism.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:44 am |
  333. Bunk

    if full scan or strip seach will make everybody safe, that is great.!! We are born stripped and safe.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:45 am |
  334. Rapier Dawson

    I would be happy to have a body scan if I could avoid removing my belt and shoes. Would a scan work through a winter coat? That would be a big step forward, in my opinion.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:48 am |
  335. Sue

    People need to understand that we are trying to combat these terrorists by putting additional measures in place. I doublt anyone likes to wait in lines or be inconvenienced...but if someone has a problem with the unfortunate but necessary measures...they shouldn't fly. Get over it people!

    December 29, 2009 at 10:51 am |
  336. Bill McNeil

    If the government agencies involved with airline (and our) safety would have done their jobs, we would not even be thinking about beefing up our security AGAIN. I'm sure there will not be any reprocussons on anyone in authority in any agencies that dropped the ball and almost costs lives. We were VERY lucky this time, now if we could only get them to do their jobs from now on. But I'm afraid we will continue to need more luck.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  337. Ty Johnson

    I don't have a problem with a full body scan in the airports, I think it will be effective some what. However I dont think the problem starts there. I think the problem starts off with the Airlines Ticket Counter Agents. How did this terriost guy get on?? Why wasnt he stopped at check-in??? I think the safety of the passsengers and employees should be the Airlines top priority, but I'm pretty sure safety is not the Airlines priority. Working for a major Airline carrier I see alot of things. There have been plenty of incidents that I have witnessed. Incidents that should of been ruled out as a security breaches (passengers board the wrong flt, agents and managers booking passengers on flights when bags are checked to another, etc..)..In the world today, Airline's Employees and Management face a number of task during the work day which can be overwhelming at times and sometimes security issues are overlooked. It seems as if On Time Performance seems to be the Airlines top priority and not safety..I think the Government should evaluate Airlines procedures and staff more consistently and not just when there's an incident that cannot be covered up.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:55 am |
  338. BradT

    I am in no way opposed to increased security. I am not happy with the reactive mode that our Homeland Security is currently in. Why not poll and work with terror experts and be ahead of the 8-ball instead of increasing security after each attempt. Its a shame that people must become a number before real measures are put into place.

    I am currently inflight to Atlanta and did not notice any increased measures when departing this morning.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  339. Harold Pickinpaugh

    yes....of course. I think if want to fly or feel its necessary to fly...then you need to make the flight secure.

    December 29, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  340. Marshall B.

    I'm so hacked off at Americans and their acceptance of the "norm" in travel, the concern over terrorist rights at our expense. We are so concerned about the human rights of suspected terrorist at Guantanamo bay. Well look where that got us. I am sure that every one we interrogated (and I am sure it wasn't in a nice manner) then released will be HEAVILY recruited by terrorist. With good reason. They are pissed off at the US. We bred some future terrorist there, didn't we. If the US gov intelligence community has good reason to suspect persons of being/supporting terrorism, the US people ought to support them and let them carry out the protection of our (and every 'free' person on the planet) freedoms. We are willing to protect their rights while compromising our right to unencumbered travel. 4-5 hours of security delays and they still aren't bullet proof. News Break- People will always be able to circumvent security measures that people develop. Air port security is "reactive". The only effective measures that insure everyone's freedoms are "proactive". The US needs to quit being so concerned with everyone's feelings and take care of ourselves. Each of us has to go through a background check, drug screens, credit checks, etc. to get a job. Why do we tolerate less scrutiny for foreign travelers coming into the US. Especially folks that are considered high risk. Sorry for the soap box. Where is the balance between our freedoms and theirs?

    December 29, 2009 at 11:00 am |
  341. Lynn Flewelling

    While I do support body scans, I don't see what all the uproar is about. US security did not fail. The Underwear Bomber didn't get through US airport security; he boarded abroad! Let's send scanners to Amsterdam. This reaction here seems like hysteria.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:00 am |
  342. Laura

    No, the safeguards already in place obviously do not work. Why add more laws that inconvenience American travelers and not increase our safety. If someone is determined they will obviously find a way. AlQaeda wins the war on fear.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  343. Michelle

    I will not go through a full body scan. I will travel weekly next year, which means I will have to go through these x-ray machines at least twice a week. I am less concerned about my privacy; I am more concerned about the long term effects on my health. People should have the option of refusing these scans and have a manual search instead.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  344. Kellie

    I feel the full body scan is a little over the top. It is like punishing the entire class for one student. However, if it benefits those who fly, better safe than sorry. It is very unfortunate we have to live under these conditions today.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:01 am |
  345. Art

    Why isn't anyone discussing the risk of radiation exposure from the full body scan equipment?

    December 29, 2009 at 11:02 am |
  346. John

    No to Body Scans. Frequent flyers will receive high doses of cumulative radiation.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:02 am |
  347. Kelly

    Someone, please look into Kurt Haskell and his wife's story about how the terrorist got through the gate with no passport.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:02 am |
  348. Claudio

    I totally support the body scans. If you are worried about someone seeing your "figure", then drive or take a train. Saving lives outweighs any one person's privacy issues.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:02 am |
  349. John Tyler

    I would prefer a full body scan if it keeps me safe. The next best solution would be sitting on the plane naked with a couple of hundred strangers.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:02 am |
  350. Ben

    Radiation from any scan or x-ray is cumulative in nature and does not wean over time. Who is going to accept the risk to pregnant women and children? Instead, utilize the "watch lists" and better screening techniques.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:03 am |
  351. Gary Courtney

    We owe it to ourselves, family, friends and any other person, to do what is necessary to keep us all safe. I can't believe that those that don't like the full body scan, would give up their life and the life of all the other persons on their flight because they are too modest to get scanned.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:03 am |
  352. M. Green

    WHY isn't ANYONE concerned about the radiation from these scans???? Radiation is cumulative and KNOWN to cause cancer....HELLO?????

    December 29, 2009 at 11:03 am |
  353. rita compain

    Yes , I would take a full body scan. Why doesn't the gov't contract GOOGLE who could probably integrate info, flag any irregularities. Google can put millions of bits of info together instantly, why can't our gov't do that with the half million on the watch list?'
    Rita

    December 29, 2009 at 11:04 am |
  354. Charanjeet Sahota

    No way! Too much radiation exposure for the high frequency passenger! And a slippery slope!! We can't give up all of our values for "fear" of an attack! Remember BF "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!" Jasper Schuringer had the spirit! Let's just kick these peoples ass in the air!

    December 29, 2009 at 11:04 am |
  355. Wendy Grudin

    Body scans are x-rays and x-rays use radiation which has a comulative effect on the body. Frequent flyers will end up glowing...and not in a good way.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:04 am |
  356. ruth

    Heidi, the main concern I have is the health risk, especially for frequent flyers, of all the radiation accumulated from travel and health screenings. How much radiation is used in the screening?

    December 29, 2009 at 11:04 am |
  357. Roy

    I am in favor of anything that can stop that kind of thing and would even consider body scans but would it really pick up somethin in the underwear of a person. I can not just happen on international flights it can happen on any plane just flying cost to cost

    Roy

    December 29, 2009 at 11:04 am |
  358. Kandace

    I fly nearly every week for work, you know... those high-priced tickets booked less than two weeks out? I absolutely will not submit to a body scan. It's gone too far at that point and the scans they are proposing would not have caught Matullab as he had sewn the PETN into his underwear and the scans obscure the genital area. The scans are beyond intrusive. They can pat me down each time behind a screen if necessary. Besides, I have no confidence the TSA yokels I see squinting at the screen when I send my bags through will be able to pick up anything more sophisticated than a knife strapped to a leg.

    Why are passengers ever more inconvenienced and our civil rights trampled while the warnings given about these attacks are roundly ignored?

    December 29, 2009 at 11:05 am |
  359. Cheryll Daniels

    I say for the ones that choose not to have a full body scan they are to board a plane where that airlines staff agrees with the same. Everyone that chooses to have the scans board different plans. Now lets see which airline is breached first

    December 29, 2009 at 11:05 am |
  360. Melvin Richards

    America homeland security failed to put all the information together, coming from the father and other sources. Now we the people have to suffer the consequences, with the full body scans.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:05 am |
  361. Joe

    Way to go Karen! I totally agree with profiling!

    December 29, 2009 at 11:07 am |
  362. Stephanie

    I think a full body scan is fine, but put the person who is scanning in a makeshift tent so we do not have to see there face. As long as you do not have to make eye contact with that person.....whocares you'll never see them again!

    December 29, 2009 at 11:07 am |
  363. Molly

    I am very against body scans. It has always been the other passengers on the plane who stopped the terrorist attacks, not TSA security. Though there is a slight possibility that the scanning would help, it is too much of an invasion of personal space, especially because many young children would get scanned too. This is just another chance for TSA to fumble, and the scan is TOO invasive.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:07 am |
  364. RayInLasVegas

    It is funny, Billions of people on this planet, most are lucky enough to have all the same parts, and some think privacy is more important than life. Make it safe, if someone does not want to be scanned, then they can find another way. At least then, those that do fly, will be safe. How else can we possibly protect against this form of attack. This is not perfect either, since people can hide stuff inside their body. Drugs have been smuggled this way and it is only a matter of time until someone tries to do it with explosives.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:08 am |
  365. Latanya

    It is a shame that the value of life and freedom in this country, that is known for its freedom that we have resulted to having to go through these extemities to enjoy our freedom to travel from place to place. If this would save lives I am all for it. My question though is would this had actually caught this bomber and what about women that wear maxipads during their mentrals or the butt lifting underwears would this body scan actually detect added padding in private areas and would they be subjected to extended searches. Safety is the main thing

    December 29, 2009 at 11:09 am |
  366. Jason

    NO!! Where is the line drawn on these things. How much personal privacy, decency, and freedom are we to give up in the name of "general safety". What happens if the scanner breaks down? Do we resort to the good old conventional strip search on everyone? Yes, we need to better organize and coordinate how we screen and analyze travellers, but we need to do it in a way where the 98% of us who are just trying to get to our destination are not violated. The body scan is a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible incident. Let's take a deep breath, and figure out how to better communicate between agencies and countries. Oh, and lets start paying attention to the families who warned us. Doesn't the saying go "mother (or in this case, father) knows best?"

    December 29, 2009 at 11:09 am |
  367. Eliezer Rosengaus

    I don't really care if anyone sees me "naked". However, body scans involve radiating you body with low doses. That can accumulate and cause damage to you, particularly if you travel often. Why is this not mentioned at any time?

    December 29, 2009 at 11:10 am |
  368. Rich Meisels, DVM

    I'll gladly trade full-body scans for flight attendants and gate crews actually being nice to passengers again.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:12 am |
  369. Donna

    NO to body scans. I would not submit to a body scan and would not allow my children to have a body scan. Every sicko and perv in the world will be applying for TSA screener jobs. I guess we will not be flying anymore if this is the new normal.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:13 am |
  370. AMH

    We are too willing to give up our freedoms and privacy–to that extent the terrorists have already won by making us drastically change our way of life. I fly very frequently, and I think most of the post-911 procedures are window dressing. Ban everyone from flying with their own beverage from home or snow globe for the kids or mousse for their hair because it is possible to bring on liquid explosives. So the terrorists use powder. Prevent carrying a small Swiss Army knife. So a terrorist can use a sharp pen. Or clobber you with a laptop. On it goes. There will always be a way for a terrorist to do something. I have flown on El Al which uses relevant profiling and secondary questioning, which seems much more rational to me. I say no to the body scanning machines and roll back some of the post-911 regulations as well.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:13 am |
  371. Meg

    Wow! Now they report that they may have to increase the detail on the groin area to spot something like this underwear bomber. As a urology nurse, I can tell you that you might need to give the screeners some major training in what is normal these days and what is a sensible explanation for certain anomalies. Honestly, I've been seeing people's privates for several years now and I still haven't seen it all! Do we really want to teach them what hormones for transgender patients can do to those parts? It doesn't seem fair to those people or those who were born with certain anomalies. They have been through enough stress already! If we're going to be judging everyone's privates now, I think we need to have doctors and nurses doing these virtual exams, not TSA employees.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:13 am |
  372. Ottilie

    I think the full body scan is stupid because we already have to go through numerous places of checking and it will take to much time. Maybe an other alternitive will work.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:13 am |
  373. Alejandra

    Absolutely yes! This is not a matter of do I want it or not! I think when it comes to National Security some things have to be obligatory. If somebody refuses then they better prepare for some extra time to be able to be taken to a separte room for screening or questioning. I think people who are arguing that this goes against their "privacy" rights or that they are embarrased by the scan are forgetting that it's not just about THEIR security but the security of thousands of people in the airport and hundreds in each plane! Anything that needs to be done to secure safety should be done!

    December 29, 2009 at 11:14 am |
  374. Kandace

    After scanning the posts, I am really dismayed at how many are willing to give up their basic rights and wonder how often these people are actually flying.

    For all of you who think body scans are okay, what will you submit to when we have someone who is packing PETN in a body cavity? The scans will NOT see that and if we have people willing to smuggle drugs in such a way, can we expect terrorists (who expect to die that day) will not? Where will it end?

    We need to re-tool the ENTIRE security process, from beginning to end. No current measures will keep us safe, obviously.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:16 am |
  375. Batus

    I do not have any reason to refuse full body scan if that would put paid to this recurring threat to lives by terrorists. However, of what value is a body scan if that is not done from the originating country and a terrorist decides to blow up the plane before landing ?

    December 29, 2009 at 11:18 am |
  376. charlie

    I believe we have become semi-prisoners in our own country due to the steps that must be taken (or lack of) to "ensure public safety".
    I do believe precautionary steps need to be implemented but at what cost? It seems american's are having rights taken away due to inadequate government preventative steps, one of which is listening when a person contacts an embassy regarding a certain threat. I think full body scanning should have been implemented after 9/11 which shows how derelict the governments is in "terror prevention", do they want this to keep happening so american's are so scared we relinquish all our american born rights? Whats next, shackles and straight jackets to fly?? If the government homeland security (Janet Palatano) cant implement a true plan of action we might as well stop flying. It seems as though we wait for something terrible and/or tragic to happen before action is taken. Ever heard the term "proactive"??

    The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress!!

    December 29, 2009 at 11:18 am |
  377. R.W.

    Absolutely, and in these troubled times, if anyone showed or displayed a reluctance to submit to a body scan, then another mode of transportation should be sought. When it comes to the potential for saving lives, precaution is "always a good thing."

    Taking an opposite view would be absurd.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:20 am |
  378. Scott

    Without doubt I would. Allow those that don't one one to fly on a less secure plane. Funny, but I bet most everyone would then volunteer for the body scan.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:20 am |
  379. Donna Camiso

    Yes, I would go through a full body scanner to protect our freedom and safety in this country. I also agree to racial profiling when it comes to terrorist's. We have become to soft in this country leaving us vulnerable to attack from every extremist group out there. We also need to realize a terrorist can be right in this country and be connected only through the internet. The computer is one of the biggest threat's today because it makes it easy to find these extremist's if your are looking to make a statement through extreme measure's. I have been searched in an airport and yes, it is uncomfortable for the time you are being searched. but....isn't it better then loosing your life??? I think so indeed.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:21 am |
  380. Linda

    I agree with the full body scans. I do believe that many people feel it is an invasion of their privacy, but is it an invasion to everyone elses privacy to ensure a safe flight? We as individuals leave our lives in the hands of security personnel who are sometimes inadequately trained to handle terrorist attacks. If we need to be subjected to these scans, what difference would it make? It is not a physical aspect of who's body is better or fatter. It is about the safety of our lives and the lives of our family and friends. Each of us needs to think about which flight we would rather be on; the one where everyone was scanned or the one in which no one was scanned. I prefer to be safer. We all have a choice to make. If we don't like the search parameters set up to ensure our safety, then drive to your destination.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:22 am |
  381. Gerald G.

    Hello Heidi.The body scan is 40 years over due as a Muslim in the Faith of Al-Islam security for all people should be priority, terrorist should be dealt with swiftly no matter who it is give a ultimatum to renounce it, then if they don't seek to kill them and any accomplice.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:23 am |
  382. Carl

    No! Submit air travelers to pre-travel security checks when they purchase tickets 10 days before travel date, like a federal background check to buy a gun, with a 5 day waiting period. Air travel like driving an auto is a privilege, not a right. Secure safe air travel ought not sacrifice convenience and comfort. A waiting period to vet travelers would be better for passengers and airline industry than body scans or long queue lines and invasive searches before flight.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:24 am |
  383. Guadalupe Serna

    Yes to body scan. To me it's simple...nobody scan ...no boarding! It may your right to fly, My right to fly safe...if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? Example: You want that job, but you have to take a drug test...no to drug test, NO job!

    December 29, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  384. Stacy

    NO! The recent incident on Delta/NWA flight has to do with the failure of communications between intelligence agencies. The underwear bomber's father reported his suspicious activities to the US Embassy in Nigeria. This man was also denied a Visa in Britian. He carried no luggage and paid for this ticket in cash! Hello! What happened to that intel? Why is the discussion focused on compromising American civil liberties and submitting to full body scans at airports? Let's hear from the US Ambassador in Nigeria. Why aren't intergovernmental intelligence agencies doing their job? Why is the US allowing visas (airline access) to questionable characters in the first place! That's the real issue. American citizens who say, "I'll submit to a full body scan to be safer" are foolishly diluding themselves. We're not any "safer"; we're just foolish and naked.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:27 am |
  385. Bob Himell

    As long as there are no health issues to the body scan why would any flier not want as much protection as possible against the "real infidels", the terrorists.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:36 am |
  386. mary

    Stop the "Would YOU Submit to a BODY SCAN" story. BOTH Schipol and Detroit already have technology in place. ANOTHER FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:39 am |
  387. Melissa Winnipeg

    If you want the benefits of flying, you should have to follow any rules or regulations that are now going to become implemented with it. ei like when you go online you put yourself at risk of whatever comes through, it's a risk you take turning on your computer.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:44 am |
  388. Dennis

    Heidi,
    Being a bit overweight, I sweat when I carry baggage through an airport. This seemingly is enough for most airport security operations to focus their efforts on me, every time I travel. And though my having to undo my trousers and stand spread-eagle in front of a line of people potentially waiting their turn, may give some a sense of security, I stand red faced, in complete bemusement . With my first hand knowledge of current security futility, I do not feel any safer because of these efforts.
    Anything ( like a full body scan) that might give passengers back some dignity and may even catch someone with ill-intent, would be an improvement in my book.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:46 am |
  389. RayInLasVegas

    For those who say the body scans eliminate basic rights, how about the right to live? Get over it. We need to be safe.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:52 am |
  390. Joe

    Yes to full body scans and get rid of the idea of the "last hour" B.S.

    December 29, 2009 at 11:53 am |
  391. Becky

    Go Kandace! I'm appalled at the comments I am reading. We have one guy out of millions of passengars willing to blow up his genitals (probably did – though no one is talking about THAT) and now we all need to go through this process. I say Profile the heck out of potential terrorists, especially those on the watch list, but leave us grandmas alone. I fly a LOT! I would NOT be willing to submit to a full boy scan, especially without more information on the technology used and the health impact, and no, that doesn't make me a terrorist inspite of the amazingly absurd comments from some other responders. YIKES- what are we becoming!

    December 29, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  392. Ofer

    There are conventional weapons and bombs
    There are liquid bombs
    There are powder bombs
    There are cotton bombs (liquid mixed with cotton)
    There are “ceramic” bombs (powder mixed into a shape)
    There are unconventional weapons (undetected gas…)

    These are only few of the methods we already know exist. If we were to react only to these methods, we would be doing the following:

    • Go through an full X-Ray scanning naked
    • Travel with a hospital gown given to us at the airport
    • Send all of our luggage on a different plane
    • Wear a gas mask throughout the flight
    • Locked into our seats with no restroom breaks

    This will only work if we are assuming that all airport employees are perfectly screened. Do you really think a full body scan would do it?

    December 29, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
  393. Susan

    Absolutely not unless I felt assured that the people looking at it were either extremely well supervised or, better, that the scans were 'read' by computer and not by human beings.

    December 29, 2009 at 12:30 pm |
  394. Tola

    In the name of security, I will do anything. I will definitely submit to anything required of me for my safety's sake. As long as I have nothing ti hide, there no reason to not support any security and safety measures. It aches my heart to know this is a Nigerian and I am so happy he did not succeed. I congratulate all the passengers in the flight!

    December 29, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
  395. Kamron

    Absolutely not. I am astounded by the number of people who are saying they would submit to a virtual strip search all in the name of what would be supposedly safer travel. This is a slippery slope! It seems like the American public is so affraid og "The Terrorists" that the majority is willing to do just about anything that promises more saftey. Where is the cut off? We're willing to take off shoes and submit to searching without a warrant right now. We're apparently willing to submit to virtual strip search in the near future. Where does it end? Someone needs to put this in perspective. There is a relatively small minority that would commit terrorist acts. Why are we spending billions of dollars and giving up privacy for such a small group of people? There's got to be a smarter way!

    December 29, 2009 at 12:42 pm |
  396. Scott Stodden

    Heidi I think the United States has to get as serious as we can when it comes to securing our country and our airports. Are we safer than we were 8yrs ago here's a hint NO! If we were safer then this attempted terroist attack would never have happened so if it takes a full body strip search with these machines then so be it. We have to take this as serious as we all possibly can, America has become relaxed when it comes to securing our airports and our country and if we don't get harder and stricter like we once was then this won't be the last threat or attempted attack we receive and we could see 9/11 part 2 all over again. The enemy is real and they are out to attack and take down the United States just like President George W Bush used to always say.

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    December 29, 2009 at 12:46 pm |
  397. Mike

    I think this is just another attempt to overregulate an already overregulated industry. Next comes more beaurocracy, bailouts and czars.

    December 29, 2009 at 12:49 pm |
  398. Guadalupe Serna

    Yes to body scans! It's simple, No, don't want a body scan...no to boarding! It may be your right to refuse, but it's my bigger right to fly safe. The lines will be shorter...lol. Example: Want the big paying job, but need to take a drug test...no to drug test...no big paying job! SIMPLE....

    December 29, 2009 at 12:51 pm |
  399. Dave

    Who cares?? If you want to fly...then you have to do it!! If not, drive or take a boat. To all those who don't want to subject to it or don't agree, let them fly with muhamad alfagotsi whatever they name themselves...LOL

    December 29, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
  400. Bryan

    America... get over your modesty! – what's the big deal about the human form? All the viewer sees is an outline. As CNN has reported these scanners are already being used in 19 airports – I went thru one in Indy. No Big Deal – If somebody sees a pictures of me and if it makes the trip safer with minimal inconvenience, then lets do it! (I'll even autograph it!)
    As an alternative, perhaps we could all wear airline issued flight suits – similar to hospital gowns. All bagage and clothing would then be transported in a seperate area or on a dual flight. Now, that would be inconvenient!
    Happy New Year!

    December 29, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
  401. Alex

    A couple of years ago I was flying out of San Diego to San Jose. While going through the first screening, I was asked for my ID? I produced my Law Enforcement ID card which showed I was currently employed by the State of California as a Peace Officer. The TSA employee wouldn't accept my ID card as proof of ID even though It was signed, and had a full photo and ID #? She did accept my Cal. DL because it had an expiration date on it! Amazing! These are the kind of people we have screening us as we go through airport security. No common sense and over-reaction to an incident. A full body scan? If they could tell me why they felt it needed, not because they felt like it. Am I on a watch list? Am I wearing a towel on my head? If not, no scan.

    December 29, 2009 at 1:01 pm |
  402. SafeFlying

    Come to my new airport and fly with us. no wasted tax dollars on expensive body scanners, no need for inspectors. cheep air fares.
    100% safe flying ... Fly Naked and in a straight jacket .
    all your luggage will have to be sent to your destination 1 week in advance of your departure date. ( so you dont know what ups or fedex plane its on )

    December 29, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
  403. Barry

    Yes, but only if I'm wearing my very best Burberry undies

    December 29, 2009 at 1:13 pm |
  404. Kristin

    I too say "Go Kandace!"

    Please get real people. The scanner cannot guarantee we are safe, as a determined terrorist can always find a way around the security screen, including hiding explosives in body cavities. Are we really going to subject every passenger to gynecological and colon examinations? What if the explosive is swallowed? Must everyone check in 24 – 26 hours in advance to clear the digestive tract?

    Why don't "we the people" ask those we hire for Homeland Security to actually provide security, instead of Security Theater entertainment? How about TSA takes those watch lists and compare the names to those of passengers, and search those passengers who are known security risks?

    December 29, 2009 at 1:21 pm |
  405. Marianne

    If the airlines had followed the regulations in place the events of 9/11 would not have happened. They were already aware that the cockpit door was not to be opened for any reason up to and including a flight attendant saying a kniife was at their throat. That was ignored by the airlines and 9/11 was the result and the flying public has been put through hell ever since. I will not submit to a full body scan to satisfy some stupid politicians idea of what should be done to me and that they will never have to put up with. There were red flags that the airline should have noticed. One way ticket, coming from Nigeria, no luggage..give me a break. I am a small elderly caucasian woman and have been poked, prodded and embarassed no end by the TSA even though I buy tickets rd trip, check luggage and present no threat.
    Not to mention that the Brits already tagged this guy and our HLS paid no attention. Now the flying public must pay the price for the stupidity of all the above.

    December 29, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
  406. Fred

    It's kind of like going to your physical with the doctor. You may feel a little uncomfortable but you know it's for your health and so you grin and bear it. If you object that much, as another blogger has said, you can skip the flight and try another form of transportation. It's for the greater good.

    December 29, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
  407. Bob L.

    Using the scanners are fine but they are not the real answer to secure us. Read the CNN article 'Is aviation security mostly for show?' by Bruce Schneier, a CNN writer. This is the first intelligent commentary I have seen on real Security since 911. We have wasted $Billions on useless fake-showcase security measures and ignored real measures that will stop those who would do us harm. The truth is that such acts are extremely rare and we now act as if EVERY US CITIZEN and EVERY VISITOR IS A TERRORIST - it seems the real Terrorist/Criminals have already won by our voluntarily destroying our 'free' society. In the recent case we only needed to use information we ALREADY HAD! to stop it, the same applies to all known such attempts and clearly to all those we don't know about. We need to respond to these criminals with bravado and the truth, that they are sub-human cowards that will be caught & tried like any other criminal. They deserve no respect or recognition and the more we do that even by naming their organization & changing our laws to 'RESTRICT OUR OWN RIGHTS', the more we encourage them to do more damage. Its not a 'War on Terror', Its a war on criminals - specific people who have publicly stated their intentions. Target those criminals NOT citizens! Profiling is Essential to stop these criminals! We have a list of 550,000 of these criminals - Profiling is matching people to those lists! - The last guy USED HIS OWN NAME TO BOARD THE PLANE! Duh!! READ the article and ACT!

    December 29, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  408. Ken

    This is just another knee jerk reation to a past event. We need protactive remedies such as profiling, screening of suspicious poeple and prompt action against anyone who performs a provacative act such as praying in arabric in airports, or acts up on an airplane.

    People are responsible for their own security. Let passengars carry what ever they want onboard. Anyone who thretens the flight gets taken out by the passengars.

    flying will become VERY polite.

    December 29, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
  409. Dennis, Kansas City

    I must laugh, this guy, Tom Casey is talking as though the TSA has some track record of success. Just how many terrorist have TSA stopped to date?

    December 29, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
  410. A. Smith, Oregon

    The new 3D body scanner shown recently by CNN did not penetrate the skin much less the individual organs of the passengers body.

    It is only a matter of time before a deviant Muslim MD. implants a block of Petn inside the stomach or removes one of the Muslim kidneys, sells the kidney and replaces it with 6oz. (2x more Petn than the Muslim butt-bomber had) inside of a encapsulated plastic ball where the former kidney was. It would be virtually undetectable by bomb sniffing dogs and bomb swab machines.

    The only way to see if some faithful Muslim has a surgically implanted bomb would be thru Ultra-Sound which is very slow, or by a Xray machine whose ionizing radiation easily penetrates the skin and organs of the body. However Xray machines are not medically acceptable for such uses on children and young women where the ionizing risk is greater than the medical reason for the Xray exposure.

    If a US Diplomat or US Govt. Agent accompanied that Nigerian butt-bomber thru Amsterdam's heavy security checks despite the bomber doesn't appear to even had a passport, it does not matter what machines or hard core security torments are heaped upon American citizens. All of these measures are pushing Americans away from learning who that man was and what role he has in the US Govt.

    Demand the Amsterdam Security Gate photos of that man accompanying the bomber be RELEASED to the American Pubic.

    December 29, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
  411. ken

    No. But it apperas that most people are willing to allow the government to do anything to them. 1 terrrorist incident per 16 million flights does not warrant any further actions against passengers. Flying is not a right, homeland security needs to be more restrictive of who is allowed to get on a plane. Drunks and cell phones are the real killers, wake up america. Obama is the change I can't believe in.

    December 29, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  412. Alex Revai

    The issue is not one of privacy. It is the perennial reactive mesures in response to the latest "trick" of the terrorists.

    When the weapon was a knife, security screened for knives and the airlines served the meal with plastic knives and steel forks! (Seriously, I experienced it first hand)

    When the weapon was a shoe, they started screening the shoes.

    When the weapon was liquid, they limited the size of the bottles to 100 ml. Now you can carry as many 100 mi bottles as you wish. Shouldn't be too difficult to combine them, would it?

    Shouldn't the so called security experts become pro-active for a change and be a step ahead of the terrorists, instead of one step behind them?

    December 29, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  413. Deb

    I think anyone who does not want to be searched should NOT be allowed on a flight. This is our safety we are talking about. I also think that anyone who "looks" the part should be searched and have it not be called "profiling". it is a whole new world we live in. There are many people around the world that are not very fond of the US and what it stands for. We need to take care of our own. Frankly, they can search me all they want if it means I will not be blown up in mid air!

    December 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  414. David

    Heidi, Would I submit to a body scan? As this story has unfolded, there are details that should have raised red flags, One way ticket purchased with cash, no checked baggage, these should've set off alarm bells. There's some reporting that he didn't even have a passport and that the ticket agent called him on that, but somehow was allowed on the flight from Schipol airport. Is that true? The fact that AbdulMutallab's own father reported him to the US embassy in Nigeria should've been a major shot of encouragement to put him on the terrorist watch list, but apparently only got him on an application to be on the watchlist. As I understand it, his British Visa was revoked. As US and UK intelligence work so closely, it is shocking that the info from the US embassy was not paired together with this piece vital background info. Secy of State Clinton should look into this I feel.

    I would imagine as far as the intelligence community is concerned this is one solid lead after another coming in repeatedly even up to the pt of AbdulMutallab getting on the flight.

    So, would I submit to a full body scan? Yes, when there is an urgent need for it, of course. But why wasn't this guy caught with just the investigative or checkpoint information that he was generating? It seems like an overwhelming flood of worrying facts and details. Given that one wonders why a full body scan is needed.

    December 29, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  415. gene aker

    The controversy is idiotic. I don't care who sees my yankee! Will it be in color or black and whtie? That's the main question.

    December 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  416. TK

    Since there are higher odds that I will be killed when on the ground then when I am in an airplane (even with the terrorist threat), maybe we should have full body scans everywhere we go (school, malls, sidewalks, churches, etc.)

    December 29, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  417. Danbury

    Has anyone considered the medical aspect of these body scans? Is it X-ray, magnetic, or what. What are the cumulative effects for frequent flyers, people with pacemakers, or other medical implants?

    December 29, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
  418. John

    Regarding some earlier statements that all the flights that are troublesome initiated from foreign locations, please consider that all the 9/11 flights originated from domestic airports. Granted, they did not have bombs, they had boxcutters, but a full-body scan would catch a boxcutter, too.

    Regarding the privacy issue, airports should have 2 lines, one with a female operator and one with a male operator. Once that's set up, let the individual passenger decide which line they want to go through. I'm male but would be more comfortable having a female scan me. I don't want to go thru a line with some gay male getting his kicks. I know the female could care less seeing me and that's better.

    December 29, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
  419. Rob

    10 years ago no one considered the RADIATION from cell phones. We were assured they were safe. Now there is mounting evidence that brain damage occurs.
    The manufacturers of full body scanners have been addressing "privacy" issues while obfuscating the real danger of
    X rays of any strength. The claims of micro rem doses are suspect and not independently assessed yet.
    I would readily submit to a personal body search but if this dangerous technology becomes required, I will never fly again.

    December 29, 2009 at 5:55 pm |
  420. phatcatvirgo

    i would not have a problem with it simply because the objection to the body scan is to make sure that crazy is not bording the plain. This is just the best way to stop letting thing happen that realy can be stopped with this level of security.

    December 29, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  421. vladimir

    I would not submit to an airport xray. If this were required, it would effectively end my days of air travel. I have had too many xrays already. In addition, who would calibrate the machines and make sure they were not overdosing. Remember the CT scandal of just a few weeks ago. The sensible way to handle this whole problem is to have far more intelligence about potential troublemakers. I have seen people point out Reed and Mcvey as a pair who would not show up among the usual suspects but a closer examination of their travels and purchases would have shown red flags.

    December 29, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
  422. Jarrett Payne

    It will keep the United States safe! After "9-11" we should not be seeing the same issues, so it is clear that something else needs to be put into place.

    You have my vote!

    December 29, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
  423. Sadanie

    Sure, no problem. . .I don't care about full body scan. . .if it speeds up the check in and provide some additional security!
    But even body scans will not ASSURE our security!. . . And next thing you know, the terrorists will be using obese people to hide the explosive in the overly generous folds of skin!. . .
    There is NO fool proof solution to terrorism. . . . where there is a will there is a way!. . .even if the terrorist have to swallow a capsule containing the explosive to hide it!. . .after all, if they are willing to die. . .what do they have to lose?

    But each one of us is still more likely to die in a car accident than from a terrorist attack. . .so, let's just stop the hysteria!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:04 pm |
  424. Choppy

    WAKE UP AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    I cant believe how the SHEEP accept this idea. I agree there needs to be steps taken to protect are safety, but this invasive crap has got to stop. I bet if we went back in time these same SHEEP would say the RED COATS were trying to help us. It is time to reject any more costs to are LIBERTY, PRIVACY and for once stand with are forefathers even if there is risk of life FOR LIBERTY. They stood there ground and protected what we value today so why cant we return the favor. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. AMERICA IS ON THE BRINK, STAND FIRM EVEN WITH THE RISK OF DEATH.

    December 29, 2009 at 9:16 pm |
  425. Kathryn

    It's a little drastic...but drastic times call for drastic measures....

    December 29, 2009 at 9:46 pm |
  426. DebD

    In my earlier post, I stated NO TO BODY SCANNING. Upon reflection I may reconsider my current position if;

    1) I were also allow to scan the scanner (TSA agent) scanning me. This would eliminate my privacy concerns. I would be much more comfortable having my privacy invaded if I were simultaneously invading the other person's privacy! Why shouldn't the scanner be subjected to the same degradation? More importantly, how do I know the TSA agent is not harboring a terrorist device on his/her body?

    2) I knew the body scanning equipment could also detect cancer and other medical conditions. Perhaps a machine could be developed that gives the scanned person a health scan print out as he/she exits the device. The printout could read something like, "While you are 99% guaranteed safe travel to your destination today, you have xyz disease and will likely die in 6 months, 2 years, etc." Or the printout might read, "You have a clean bill of health, but your life span had just been reduced for using this device. FYI, you are not carrying explosives and you are not a terrorist. enjoy your visit with your grandchildren!" The combined body scanner/medical device is the perfect solution to terrorism and health care in America!

    December 29, 2009 at 9:50 pm |
  427. Charlotte

    absolutely. if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't matter. I'm so sick of these fighters for civil liberties allowing terrorists a free ride to come here and attack us. If you're innocent, you shouldn't care what they do to prevent a future attack – the screeners should be trained of course to be professional, but think of it as a preventive security measure.

    December 30, 2009 at 9:32 am |
  428. ron bouwman

    All for the scan, saves time, Health risks? There need to be none. If there are health risks we need to find another way to keep the world safe.
    Everyone should be scanned or nobody, no exemptions. The privacy concerns are ridiculous, who cares of someone anonymous see someones anonymous body. The images need to be deleted right away however if nothing is found. We don't need another database with sensitive info. They already have our fingerprints, irises etc. more than enough to identify a person.
    ron

    December 30, 2009 at 10:15 am |
  429. Terrance campbell

    I sure would privacy isn't an option when it comes to safety.

    December 30, 2009 at 10:18 am |
  430. Sheldon

    if i was to to fly i would have to submit to the search , they have every right to deny you access to a flight for refusing ANY security procedures, all screenings new and old are manditory! yes they invade privacy but as we learned in 2001 invasion of privacy is a small price to pay when compared to thousands of lives , but that being said radiation is emiited through x-ray scan rads have been know to cause cancer , and we all know the dangers of that

    December 30, 2009 at 10:26 am |
  431. H. Ray Prada

    What about the health risks from exposure to x-ray radiation ?

    December 30, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  432. Dannie

    There is no real security at airports. You have to catch them before they get on a plane. Not going to happen if they are really determined to blow people up in the terminal or in the air. Besides, all these scare tactics by the media only adds to the terrorists preceiving their success by all the news coverage they are receiving.

    December 30, 2009 at 10:54 am |
  433. Diana Wheatly

    If you would prefer an airplane with hundreds of people to go down in flames to the earth with their bodies burning......rather than stepping in front of a camera revealing only what everyone has already seen....you are a moron. Trust me folks.....Your Bodies Are Not Special!!

    December 30, 2009 at 11:44 am |
  434. cy

    here we go again. another scheme - close the barn door after the horse escaped. and why dio we keep advertiseing our plans to the terrorists.

    New machines only mean more of our money spent even though the las attempt failed. instead of talking about firing Napolitano fire change the CIA,FB I etc personnel who do not cooperate with each other.

    December 30, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  435. Deborah Roberts

    I'm strongly opposed to mandatory body scans. I don't want the additional radiation, and some oncologists agree that they should be avoided. Passengers who don't want them should be given an alternative, such as a full pat-down. Subjecting frequent fliers to additional and repeated full-body radiation exposure, regardless of how minute, is not the way to go.

    December 30, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
  436. Suzanne Mills

    I am against the idea of these full body scanners being used as primary screening tools at airports because of my concern about their safety. Is it really necessary that my 6 and 9 year old (in addition to my 12 and 14 year old) be exposed to this? This device should be used as a secondary screening only. Our intelligence should be used first and used effectively to screen suspicious travelers. This device should be used secondarily. It is our intelligence that failed to catch this young Nigerian man, who purchased his ticket in cash, without luggage and who was on a watch list. The answer to airport security is not to throw the kitchen sink at every American citizen b/c the system failed, it is to figure out where our intelligence failed, and improve upon it. In the long run, I believe it is our intelligence that will defeat our enemies in this war on terror. If these body scanners become the standard primary screening tools, will we then hear about increase cancer rates 5 or 10 years from now? There is literature out there that these body scanners are not completely safe. Common sense! How could they be? Radiation is radiation, and even a little amount on a regular basis over a substantial period of time cannot be a good thing. Common sense! Many Americans travel routinely during the course of a year for pleasure and business. Personally, I would much rather a pat down, than to risk even more radiation exposure than is necessary in my daily life.

    BTW- On June 4, 2009 the Congress already almost unanimously passed a bill, H.R. 2200, that would limit the use of whole-body imaging (WBI) systems in airports. The amendment prohibits the use of full-body scanners as a primary screening method. They can be used as secondary screening and in such a case “would require the TSA to give passengers the option of a pat-down search in lieu of going through a WBI machine.” Let's hope that the Senate has the same common sense!

    December 30, 2009 at 12:10 pm |
  437. Ree

    The international airline industry should develop "universal "regulations so that there will be no variation in the screening process. Just as the health industry has universal precautions and choking symbols.
    TSA employees must follow protocol
    When you purchase a ticket to travel on public conveyance you agree to be subject to search needed to insure safety ( it should be in the fine print). If you were stricken with illness or involved in an accident you would want your clothing cut off to facilitate treatment. The process is in place to avoid catastrophe.
    If you have a problem with the regulations buy a private jet

    December 30, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
  438. R J Mitchellette

    Yes it is absolutely necessary to have a full body scan, perhaps the answer to isssue can best be resolved by having a women do women & men do men. We may even find it necessary to do selective strip searches and racial profiling as saftey should be paramount.
    Thanks
    RJ

    December 30, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
  439. T Fort

    = an invasion of privacy. I am going to reiterate what others have noted. 1) The Israeli's have a more efficient screening system based on Intelligence and profiling. 2) This recent event with the explosive powder on the airplane could have been averted had the father who had reported his son to the U.S. Embassy six months or so ago been listened to. People blindly follow governments and we believe what we are told because we fundamentally ignorant. 9/11 and Saddam Hussein anyone? We knew at the time that there weren't WMD in Iraq. I wonder to what extent it will impact air travel?

    December 30, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
  440. Scott Stodden

    Heidi Im so sorry but in this day and time when we're dealing with 9/11 and now these attempted Christmas Day terroist attempts that yes I encourage every single airport in this country to get these machines and for everybody to go through a full body search. However if the United States is using these machines and doing full body searches for anyone who get's on plane's or comes from another country how do we know international airports in other countries are doing the same search and procedures? I think if you want to fly and know that your safe you will let these airports and security do whatever they have to do to make sure nobody gets on a plane with any type of explosives.

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    December 30, 2009 at 12:59 pm |
  441. Justin

    Safety is not the government's job, it is ours. Obviously a government (ours or otherwise) cannot be trusted to keep every single person safe. People slip through the cracks. The TSA missed a knife that was on my keys in a carry-on a couple years ago. These are not the best and brightest our country has to offer. I wouldn't trust these people with a gun, much less my security on an airplane. You want security, require all passengers to carry a tazer while on board. If anything fishy happens, I guarantee they will be taken care of. If we will not defend ourselves, we cannot expect anyone else to either.

    December 30, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  442. Andrew Wroblewski

    Personally I have no problem with FULL BODY SCAN, however I feel that all these numerous precautions are really nearly useless (statistically speaking).
    It is my opinion that we should follow the Israeli model of FLIGHT security whereby ALL investigation is done before a passenger arrives at the airport. In my opinion, ALL ticket holders need to be investigated prior to flying. Those who purchase last minute tickets must be interviewed in person before boarding.

    December 30, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  443. JIM

    Kyra,
    This is not a Privacy vs. Security issue it's a Security vs. Stupidity issue. This is not some global attempt at a collective invasion of privacy and/or nascant facism. Scan me away. I also want to feel safe that other passengers have also been scanned.

    December 30, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
  444. Ana

    I am agree with all kinds of electronic systems to be used to secure all travelers. I am against racial profiling. Believe me, every time my husband travels the security looks at him odd because he looks like an Arab when he has his beard. Remember, Spain was ...invaded by the Moors for over 700 years; therefore, many Spanish descendants do have some physical Moorish characteristics, geez so many great races but one only counts: the HUMAN race. How are we even thinking of profiling?

    December 30, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  445. GM

    I'm a privacy advocate and have not submitted to the full body scan in the past and have opted for the body search. So long as there is a choice I approve of having these machines in all airports.

    I'd like to know what company is making these scanners and what their stock price is right now. They probably will make a ton of money once these are rolled out.

    December 30, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  446. Angie

    In one word, 'YES!'

    December 30, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
  447. Juliet

    Is anyone aking what the health effects would be of such a scan? As a frequent flyer I would be reticent to put myself through potentially cancer causing scans.

    December 30, 2009 at 2:38 pm |
  448. Dee

    Either use Body scan or don't fly. Peoples' right to live outbid your right of "privacy". Like who cares what your bones look like anyway? It's not all about YOU.

    December 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
  449. Jill Browne

    The next incident will likely be with a terrorist smuggling explosive materials like the drug smugglers, inside the body. Will we all be ready to undergo body cavity searches? Sorry, I'll take the train or a boat before flying under these circumstances!

    December 30, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  450. David

    DebD, I think your first post about the knee jerk reaction makes more sense than your second post if only because I can see being stuck in the long lines created by a passenger and TSA screener patting eachother down to make sure no one was harboring a terrorist device.

    When it comes to your second pt about taking the opportunity of going through a full body security scan to get a health check, I guess it stands to reason that if someone's getting scanned they should go all the way and get full medical imaging while at the airport, though the crush of busy holiday travel could prolong the time it takes to get the results, check in, get on the plane and be seated and comfortable for one's flight. So there might be a some details in your plan that need to be worked out.

    December 30, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  451. Ann

    Scan Away !!!! IF you have a problem with it , drive to your destination!!!

    December 30, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
  452. Michael D.

    I think it should be an option, but not mandatory. I personally would not submit to a full body scan because I think it's an invasion of privacy and also violates my religious beliefs. The fact that better technology is not available doesn't make it ok. I think what people forget is that this current situation with the Nigerian youth resulted mostly from the lack of information sharing between various intelligence organizations. His own father went to the US embassy in Nigeria and told them that he has cut off ties to the family, gone to Yemen and is radicalized. His visa application to the UK was denied because he listed a fake university name. He shouldn't have even been allowed to board the plane, not because of what he was carrying but first of all because of all the information that was out there about him.

    I don't appreciate people commenting with things such as: if you don't submit to these scans you shouldn't be allowed to fly. Being careless about personal, social or religious sensitivities is not the American way, and aviation safety can be fortified endlessly by bettering inter-agency information sharing.

    December 30, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  453. Victoria

    I cant think of anything better to add to this.
    In the words of Benjamin Franklin "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"

    December 30, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  454. rolley

    Great, everyone rolls over to this.
    People dont realise that you will be x-rayed everywhere you go!

    in 10 years we will all be dying of cancer
    but heck we will be safe!!!

    I suspect thos who are behind all this is the result that they want.

    December 30, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
  455. kymi

    I have no problem with a full body scan. If it will stop a person with a weapon... why should I have a problem with it? The agent doing the scan probably has more important things on her/his mind than whether I need to go on a diet or not... please. We've all seen private body parts; really, who cares.

    December 30, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
  456. Linnea

    Hey, I have a 67 year old body which is neither good or bad, it is getting old, and I travel by air all the time. Which is more important? That they see our male or female anatomy or that we are safe when we fly? Is that a real question?

    December 30, 2009 at 8:50 pm |
  457. Eric

    Is it safe? What is the radiation exposure level? I fly every other week and radiation doses are cummulative, so I would like to know more about the health/cancer risk associated with the whole body scanning machines.

    December 30, 2009 at 10:29 pm |
  458. Crystal Showers

    And all you people claim to live in The Land of Freedom and Liberty?
    Get real. You are not giving up your privacy in order to stay alive. You don't board a plane thinking you may not survive the flight, due to whatever cause. There is a much more realistic risk of being killed in a car accident than on a plane at the hands of terrorists.
    The terrorists have had a huge win if you submit yourselves to this degradation. They already have, with the current ridiculous circus at U.S. airports. A TSA officer is not a doctor, that is simply no comparison.
    The TSA should put on staff with some basic sense of judgment. I am a 63 year old female and I was patted down the last time I left the USA. I won't be back. You live in a beautiful country. Try to keep it that way – in all respects. Don't give up that hard-fought freedom – or your privacy.

    December 30, 2009 at 11:10 pm |
  459. mike

    First of all ... The odds of anybody being on a plane with a terrorist who is trying to blow up a plane is considerably less then being in a plane crash. Security should be every person's responsibility. If you keep your eyes and ears open, everybody will be safe while flying. These X-Ray machines emit radiation, and if your a frequent flyer I sure as hell would not want to be going in these full body scanners that often. Evey inch of your body is being X-ray'd...Keep that in mind! Don"t believe our truthful government when they say these machines are totally safe, they aren't. Especially when they malfunction. For all you Americans that aren't concerned about the privacy issue, guess what? The terrorists have won! Our way of life has been changed because of them, this would never have been tolerated 10 years ago. I don't fly that often but when I do I'm not concerned about a terrorist possibly being on a plane, I get pissed off because of what I got to go through to get on the plane. If the government was doing their job in the first place, this last attempt would have never happened. Stop relying on the government!

    December 31, 2009 at 1:16 am |
  460. Cheryl Finfrock

    How does the airport body scan compare with a medical body scan? How much radiation is involved? What are the health risks?

    December 31, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  461. Raj

    I am for full body scan, so they can catch the bad guy.
    if you are bad guy than there is a problem.
    go for it, save some life............................

    December 31, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  462. Rick

    I still say a full body scan works for everyone, or go to a changing room take off all your clothes put them in a basket to be scanned and you can fly in airport issued robe.

    December 31, 2009 at 12:26 pm |
  463. kurly

    absolutely , your not being oogled your being scaned for weapons ..get over it , personaly ive been scanned for gunpowder residue , id be willing to fly in the buff if necessary

    December 31, 2009 at 1:01 pm |
  464. Dennis Logan

    if passengers were made to wear a paper jump suit before boarding, that would solve the security problem. they make them already and you could charge 3 bucks or allow passengers to buy better jump suits they wear before boarding. problem solved, no pockets, no where to hide explosives. easy to scan, you could even add a spray to private areas that fuzz out the scans.

    December 31, 2009 at 1:04 pm |
  465. Dan

    Giving travelers the choice of being exposed to radiation or lose freedom of movement would be a human rights issue. It's one thing to give up privacy for "security", but giving up health freedom is where many of us will draw the line. Cumulative x-ray exposure leads to sterility and cancer. This is why your doctor/dentist steps behind a lead shield. TSA employees should be especially concerned about long term health consequences of these machines. I hope enough people will decline so they will offer less risky alternatives.

    December 31, 2009 at 11:14 pm |
  466. Yvette

    I am more concerned about the radiation than about the privacy. So far i have seen a couple of pictures taken by a back-scatter radiation machine and they showed the bones from the knee down in the front and the arm bones from the elbow down from the back. Now that tells me there is a whole lot more radiation involved than what they would like us to believe. This goes a few centimeters, not millimeters below the skin. What about our eyes, our thyroids and breasts? And what about malfunctioning machines and bored operators? Sure, they are also showing us pictures without bones, but let's remember, these machines are adjustable and they will show us what they want us to see. In fact, I think there is so much talk about privacy because that can be tweeked with, but the radiation aspects are much more serious. I, for one, will NOT do such a scan, and if it ever became mandatory, which it is not now, I would never fly again.

    January 1, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
  467. nafila

    I think some sort of security is absolutely necessary to avoid incidents, such as the one that happened on Christmas day. But I personally think that a body scan is okay, only if men and women are separately examined, so that only women securities would be able to scan women passengers, and only men securities would be able to scan men passengers. I would advice this for religious purposes. The negative affect of a full body scan is that it could cause health issues such as cancer and this could be a big problem.

    January 1, 2010 at 9:51 pm |
  468. Khaldoun Assaf

    After reading some of the comments that were posted about the new x-Ray full body scanner, I noticed that a lot of people accept blindly to such a body scan. Personally, before rushing in with a decision, I would need more information with regard to health hazards to adults and children when subjected to such x-Ray scanning especially if you need to pass through those scanners more than once during your trip whether on domestic or international flights.

    January 2, 2010 at 11:36 am |
  469. janetl

    I dont have a problem with the privacy issue, but what I would like to learn more about is any health risks duke to the extra radiation. What studies have been done? how much radiation are we getting extra? affects on pregnant women? children? etc.... why are we not speaking about his?

    January 2, 2010 at 8:24 pm |
  470. Jim

    Everyone concerned about the risks of X-radiation are spot on. Do not let the media gloss this one over with a simple "It's a low does, less than high altitude flight". All wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are not identical. So happens X-radiation, blasts electrons out of their orbits, leaving behind highly reactive particles, ions, which can run amok including damaging your DNA blueprints needed for cell replication. All it takes is one lesion and a cancer can happen. No amount of X-rays are safe. How lucky do you feel? I, for one, will never subject myself to casual X-rays. Both an airline Captain and a BS Physics.

    January 2, 2010 at 9:22 pm |
  471. Lisa

    You want to save lives on multiple levels? Use DOGS!!! That's right, DOGS. Effective, economical, with no deleterious health effects or privacy issues (other than perhaps a good crotch sniffing). Let's be sensible here.

    January 3, 2010 at 8:11 pm |
  472. David

    Heidi, I am sorry this is coming late in the day. I wondered about the radiation too. What is the cumulative amount of radiation from a full body scan? How does that compare with medical imaging? For some flying frequently, how much radiation would be entailed in back and forth traveling?

    What amount of radiation can people stand in the course of a year? When one of the scanners is cranked up how much radiation is it emitting when someone walks through? Who is supposed to monitor this? How hard is it to figure out how close the amount of radiation absorbed by those flying often comes to what doctors believe a person can safely withstand?

    January 4, 2010 at 2:33 am |
  473. Chris

    Absolutely no way do I want the US Government to see me naked!

    I've saved myself for marriage and I want my spouse to be the only one to see me naked, not some TSA agent.

    As for the get naked for a doctor, never have had to do that! But I'm still in my 20s, a doctor is very different to some random TSA agent.

    As for the "don't take the plane comments" I have 2 issues:
    1. The TSA was recently spotted doing scans at a Greyhound stop in Colorado
    2. Do you have a better way to get to Sydney from San Antonio?

    They need to at least give people a choice, and "do it or don't fly" is NOT a choice.

    January 4, 2010 at 4:58 am |
  474. Liberty

    It is humiliating to most of us (some may be enjoying it) and this is (part of) what the enemies of freedom want: humiliating us. We are willing to strip for safety and freedom. Next time a bomb will be hidden in the inner back parts or in the vagina (in the case of a female terrorist), or may use even an innocent child for that matter. Are we going to lower ourselves to even more unreasonable searches?
    And there is another problem next to the moral issue and health concern (which may be realistic): once we have accepted to strip on airports, there will be fewer objections to use the method in other places as well. Why not strip people permanently when they are in a public place? They could blow up a school, sport center etc. Is this less harmful/painful etc. than a plane?
    We need to use alternative methods that are more efficient and in balance with the human rights and freedom we try to protect (by giving up?). And there are.

    January 4, 2010 at 5:41 am |
  475. SamRam

    Without a doubt; if you are thre victim of an explosion and by some chance happen to survive with "only" injuries; when you arrive at the hospital, you wil be scanned and never know, or care, who is doing the scanning - and be most grateful you are there. I recently was diagnosed with prostate cancer and went through so many scans to make sure it hadn't spread that I do not even remember how many - I did not even consider who was "checking me out" and could care less. Let female TSA agents attend to female passenger scans; and let male TSA agents attend to male scans. If you have been to a high-school locker room; a health club locker room; a college or military locker room - you have, most likely, been more "exposed." Get a grip folks. We are talking life and death here for you as an individual; or your loved ones that are boarding planes; and we know that airplanes are the target of methodical attacks. You'll get over it! Be thankful we have the technology. Have a Safe, Secure and Happy Flight!! Happy 2010!!

    January 4, 2010 at 10:07 am |
  476. Kim K

    The naivety I see in all of these people who think full body scanning in airports is really going to make a difference is astounding. I would be very concerned about the radiation exposure, since I work in this industry. The benefits do not out weigh the risks. I would think twice about submitting to these especially if I was a frequent traveler. There are alternative and better ways to screen but our "political correctness" policys and the ACLU will make it difficult to really crack down on terrorists.

    January 4, 2010 at 4:05 pm |
  477. Amoroso Campanelli

    Friends..You are all too easy. Please step back for a second and read your own comments! Just like sheep, we are herded at the whim of others. Instead of POTENTIALLY sacrificing a few lives to protect the freedoms of millions, we are bowing to a new montra "Sacrifice the freedoms of millions to protect a few lives". When will we understand that terrorists have no plans to kill 300 Million Americans? All they want is to change the freedoms we have, and by God, they have been accomplishing one milestone after the other since 2001 towards their goal; not because of what they do, but because of how we react to it. We are reacting exactly in the manner they expected us to, step by step.
    I will bet my life that terrorists will be willing to swear an oath not to bother Americans ever again if they get to watch us all walk around with electronic probes inserted in our aft cavities with a flashing antenna protruding from our pants. Why don't we all just do that now and stop this "violence" for good!! We already know from the comments that quite a few of us are already more than willing to do it...

    January 4, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  478. LiveFree

    Hi All- I applaud everyone who is would subject themselves to a virtual strip search. However please bear in mind that our Founding Fathers never advocated nor ever imagined the current state of affairs. In my opinion such machines are against the very principles on which this great country was formed. I have nothing personally against submitting to a virtual or a real strip search, however there might be many people who will find this invasive (people with deformaties, etc). It is not the same as going for an yearly physical or being x-rayed or a trip to the ER where on wears a thin gown. In my opinion rather than invading the privacy of Citizens how about getting rid of the root of the problem. The government should be grateful that people are supportive of such invasive scans however I feel we are taken for granted. How much liberty, freedom of choice and privacy must Americanse give up for the sake of everyday life....Where will the line be drawn....think about it...

    January 4, 2010 at 8:39 pm |
  479. P. Rowsey

    No way would I ever submit to the TSA nude o scope.

    January 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm |
  480. Savannah

    Everyone seems to be missing the health risks here. I couldn't care less about screeners seeing my body, but I DO care about exposing myself to excess x-rays.

    Some accounts say that these scanners expose people to 10uRem of radiation, which is a relatively low level. However, the effects of radiation are cumulative and frequent flyers would be exposed to unhealthy levels.

    And all this assumes that the machines would be serviced and calibrated regularly to monitor the amount of radiation they're putting out. Yeah, right. What do you think the chances are of THAT happening?

    January 5, 2010 at 2:23 am |
  481. Rob

    I fly regularly and am very concerned.
    Look at the percentages of actually being killed in a terror attack and you would find that winning the lottery is much, much easier to accomplish several times over.
    Better training, pay and staff for our TSA and they might stop wasting time harassing and stealing to pay more attention to the job that they were put there for.
    Look and you will see that the scanning frequency is showing signs that it can damage DNA.
    Give me a pat-down any day that I may raise suspicion.

    Plus, Do you want an under-paid, under-educated, security guard looking at your 14yr olds naked body?

    Think about it...... This person is NOT A DOCTOR.
    Their training come from a couple hours lecture at most and a textbook!

    Wake up,
    Next will be the now proposed taser bracelets. Then they can shock any one when ever they want.

    If you travel on a regular basis and had children, you'd think differently.

    January 5, 2010 at 7:17 am |
  482. John

    Sure, as long as Obama (shudder) his family, every Senator, Congressmen, Supreme Court Justice, Governor, and TSA agent does their job naked. How is this any different than being stripped searched? Just because there is this "Tech" aspect to it makes it no different than strip searching granny and your little ones. How on earth can ANYONE be ok with that? Just another example of Crimestop, Orwell would be proud.

    January 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
  483. John

    Next well be told that shaving our heads and having a number put on our forearm as we are being herded into a shower will save us from the terrorists...

    Remember, when you give up freedom for security you lose both.

    January 5, 2010 at 4:52 pm |
  484. nancy sewell

    I was through an airport on Sunday and asked a security person about the radiation levels of the scanners. He said that they were interested in security not in health.
    I think that the success level for all these security measures should be posted. How many terrorists are they catching for every 1,000 people they have patted down so far? If they don't react when a terrorist's father reports him to authorities are they going to notice an aberration on the screen?
    Will Harper and Baird be going through these scanners first to show us how it is done?
    How will we know that the person doing the screening is not just getting his jollies? Just wondering.

    January 5, 2010 at 7:00 pm |
  485. W. Craig

    -did I see hand searching in front of the public. Where have our rights to dignity gone, My old Mother would have a stroke just watching that let alone having it done to her. Showing her body in a scan would give her a heart attack.

    Who searches children and babies and how/what?

    I would pay for them to add an MRI and CT scan if I have to have this. Might as well take full of vantage of the the situation, if I got a copy of course

    By the way, are our scans kept somewhere or are they gone once you step out?

    I would be interested in how you would be treated if you "voiced" your objection at the airport.

    WRC in Canada.

    January 5, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  486. Ruth

    We teach our children to say no to strangers. So what kind of example are we? Willing let someone take a picture of our naked body because a person in position of authority tells us we have to do so. Like little children we cowar when authority tells us to do something we know isn't right.

    January 5, 2010 at 11:55 pm |
  487. Ted Buila

    Some perspective on security. As scary and insecure as some would have people believe flying has become since Christmas/post 911, it’s still 1000% safer to fly than for the average person to take a walk at night in most US cities or even drive to work.

    If the White House is really serious about immediately reducing the security vulnerability resulting from "passenger terrorists," the airlines, Congress/White House, and insurance companies have a low-tec and doable option that trumps hi-tec peek-a-boo scanners:

    (1) put air marshals in first and economy class on every flight as some of the US international carriers (PanAm/TWA) did for a while in the 1970s until lost seat revenue changed their thinking; and

    (2) replace current TSA protocols with Israeli preflight security protocols for all flights.

    If Congress and the White House are really serious about reducing the national security vulnerability resulting from air (and surface traffic), US national security has considerably way more exposure when it comes to public health national security.

    The 2009 Swine Flue epidemic-pandemic claimed 4000+ US victims and over 12,000 worldwide. Airplanes, passengers, cars and foot traffic...all are on occasion disease carrying vectors–carry pandemic-level bad bugs and viruses.

    Congress and the White House's #1 national security concern should be–when it come to passenger related air transportation–is public health. Peek-a-boo scanners and the sure to come do-arounds by clever people are ready made (low cost) ratings copy for CNN. CNN can and knows how do better.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:24 am |
  488. Benjamin

    First the toxic H1N1 vaccine and now rediation bathed body scans. PEOPLE WAKE UP the government does'nt want you to live long. They would rather you die young than collect your old age pension. Stop buying into "this is for your own good". Can't you understand that the false sense of prevention is killing you.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:28 am |
  489. Abraham

    This type of control reminds me of a tactic that Hitler used to degrade the Jews and other minorities. Do you remember that the Nazi's would tell there prisoner's they were going for shower? How happy the prisoners were to finally get clean only to find out that they had been led into the gas chamber.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:45 am |
  490. Bill

    How does this protect your freedom? It is an invasion! How about some sex offender working for TSA saves your kids images for self gratification!
    We are losing more and more freedom! When will people wake up and draw the line?

    January 6, 2010 at 1:53 am |
  491. Kim

    Does it not seem odd that the x-mass day un-attack the "attacker" hid the explosives in his crotch and yet the knee-jerk reaction is to use full-body scanners that will scan everything EXCEPT the crotch area ??? Are people THAT stupid they will accept this with no question ??? The idiot didn't even go through united states airport security for crying out loud. Besides, he had the explosives in the 100ML bottles and poured them into the 1 quart baggie before he put it in his crotch area and the full body scanner would never have picked it up even if the crotch area was scanned.

    The full body scanner rips apart DNA in the body it is used on. I would think people would learn from history when shoe sellers used to use x-rays (fluoroscopes) to fit shoes - which was stopped because of the radiation exposure was causing health problems (FYI – late 1940's to early 1950s)

    Each trip a person would be scanned at LEAST twice (going and returning) not to mention multi leg trips. The trip I took in 2007 I would have been scanned SIX times – and many people travel much more frequently than that. That would be a LOT of radiation exposure – not to mention health x-rays some people get every year I would not want to expose my body to that type of radiation at that high of frequency.

    Who is going to pay for the health problems caused by the airport scanners???

    January 6, 2010 at 8:35 am |
  492. Kim

    first people panic because of the swine flu now they are panicking because of a non-attack

    the explosives were in the 100ML bottles that he poured into the 1 quart baggie after he boarded the plane. He then put it in his crotch area when he went to the rest room. Now how does the full body scanners protect us from all those 100ML bottles and 1 quart baggies ???

    Next you will have terrorists becoming pilots of the airliners so you better scan every pilot on every flight. When the pilots start dropping like flies when their DNA unravels from all the scans, then they and their families will wish they had not insisted on this idiotic move.

    January 6, 2010 at 8:55 am |
  493. Kim

    If the terrorists really wanted to take out a flight (al qaida is a u.s. government organization) then they would sit at the approach (or departure) end of major airports and take shots with a rocket launcher. The "failed" attempt on x-mass day was to scare the sheeple into accepting full body scanners.

    January 6, 2010 at 9:00 am |
  494. peacefulearth

    No. This has astounding implications and I think all our "security" is about to spiral out of control. This is a little disturbing how many people are so willing to do this. And what are the odds there will be a terrorist on your flight? Think about that.

    January 6, 2010 at 3:07 pm |
  495. rey

    does anybody have the link for the regulations and exeptions on the new full body scan?i mean..if you are an ambasador,FBI agent,jagg or military personel do you still have to do it? if anybody have an answer pls post the link of the instruction and regulations about the new full body scan. thanks

    January 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
  496. Gwen Graham

    I want to know how these scans are done....ie. x-ray, ultrasound, what?? There could be tremendous health implications if these scanners use or produce any kind of radiation. Certainly a scan once in a while is probably not of concern (but even dentists provide protection for parts of the body not x-rayed). Frequent fliers & airport employees might need to wear dosimeters. All this fuss about health care in America and people are ready to submit to this without knowing the health implications. Crazy!

    January 6, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
  497. Brooke Lorren

    I would not do a full-body scan. I think that it is immoral.

    In the Bible, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego chose to be thrown into a fiery furnace rather than to do something that they knew was wrong (bow down and worship an idol). Letting someone that you are not married to see you naked is wrong as well.

    I fear the TSA screeners more than I fear being blown up on a plane by some terrorist nutcase.

    January 6, 2010 at 10:55 pm |
  498. Courtney

    I see female passengers being sexually harrassed and deemed as "suspious" by corrupt male TSA agents looking for sick power trips. On the bright side, these agents are going to have a good laugh making fun and comparing the size of body parts with all their co-agents, afterall there just human like the rest of us. On second thought I wonder if their hiring?

    January 7, 2010 at 2:11 am |
  499. Fred Boenig

    It was so cold we had to "Jump Start" the dog!

    Emmaus PA

    January 7, 2010 at 10:36 am |
  500. jim

    Lots of critical thinkers here. X-rays are ionizing radiation of frequencies higher, and more energetic than UV (ultraviolet). UV is not so penetrating yet is implicated in skin melanoma. If you are so stupid to do a tanning salon, you'll take, hook, line and sinker that "backscatter X-ray" full body scans are low dose, so no worry. You do not now have to accept the X-ray scan, opting for a patdown. I will ALWAYS take the patdown. Millimeter wave scans are not ionizing, lower frequency than visible, microwave wavelength region. They MIGHT be OK. CAT Scans are deeply penetrating X-rays. NO WAY! MRIs would be safe: powerful magnets and radio waves but they are expensive, take time, will magnetise everything metallic so don't expect to ever see these. Only way to look inside the body and crevices is with powerful X-rays or cavity searches.
    How about bomb-sniffing dogs. Jim, BS physics and airline captain.

    January 7, 2010 at 11:24 am |
  501. Holly

    The funny thing I find, is anyone that seems to be on the "unattractive side" does'nt seem to mind the idea of the body scanner. They seem to know that nobody wants to see the naked anyway. It's like they're desparate for any type of attention they can get. If you read this and get angry, you're probably one of them. Sorry but it's true 🙂

    January 7, 2010 at 4:06 pm |
  502. Dinah

    I'm shocked at how many people on this board so cheerfully step into line behind the hysterical theory that submitting themselves to strip searches will keep them alive. Stay at home if you don't want to be stripped naked? Really? I suppose it doesn't concern you that the undie-bomber could easily make it thru this scan. And I suppose you'd be just as cheerfully go on to the next level when the time comes – the body cavity search?
    How disappointing that Obama is forcing increased use of body scanners in response to a terrorist his administration should have stopped with good old fashioned intelligence work. Rather than just take his lumps and strengthen our security he's going to do just as Bush did and take more of our liberties away.
    It has nothing to do with modesty. It's the idea that we become less like individual humans every day, and all of you above give up so easily the cherished rights your fathers fought and died for. The terrorists couldn't have dreamed it would be this easy.

    January 7, 2010 at 8:51 pm |
  503. Becky

    I don't know if anyone saw "Holly's" response on December 29, but I must say Holly, you are obviously very immature, ignorant, and prejudiced. (All of which are much better words than my original word for you). If I were you, I would definitely think before I opened my mouth or typed on a key board. I can't even believe that CNN would approve your response.

    January 7, 2010 at 11:15 pm |
  504. YES WE CAN

    Barack, I bet out of curiousity you're reading some of these posts in your spare time. I recently read a spiritual article that explained the only way to remove a weed is to pull it out by the roots. In time, the only way we are going to get rid of these terrorists is by separting the state and from religion world wide. Once we take away what makes them feel justified they will have nothing and know one to hate but themselves.

    January 8, 2010 at 12:10 am |
  505. flo

    Can a pregnant woman go thru a full body scan ?

    January 8, 2010 at 1:40 am |
  506. Jim

    The Backscatter X-ray is barely skin deep so, unless the machine is mis-calibrated, and therefore more deeply penetrating, should be OK and not directly affect the foetus. CNN's Dr. Gupta believes Backscatter X-rays are OK because they are not penetrating. Doctor, I respect you enormously but have to ask, "If Backscatter is only skin-deep, why would it be any safer that UV (ultraviolet) which too, is only skin-deep"? X-ray is higher frequency (Energy E= Hf where H is Planck's Constant and f is frequency). Doctor, if the skin-deep scanner was simply tanning salon UV, would you say it's OK? Melanoma? Yet, X-ray is illuminating human skin with higher frequency radiation than even UV. Think about it.

    January 8, 2010 at 12:39 pm |
  507. MTLCDN

    I all for more security in airports but I really don't like the idea of being zapped with radiation an more than I have to, I'll opt for a pysical body search.

    January 8, 2010 at 11:52 pm |
  508. yo

    i think we all should stop to travel to USA or Uk... I think we should travel to Asia and enjoy our vacations and protect our privacy. These scanners just for innocent people. Crimnals and Terr- they will find other ways or people will start getting cancer from the scanners... they should use micrwave mind controls to all crimnal ,terr= prisoners and brain wash them just like they doit to prsidents so they wont remember country secrets.....Oh yeah new season for 24 is starting soon cant wait to watch it...jan 17 Fox

    January 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm |
  509. Jim Price

    Mark my words, full body scans of celebrities', public figures', and physically well-endowed people's body scans will start popping up on YouTube.

    January 11, 2010 at 9:45 am |
  510. Jim

    CNN, all media, typically always stop short with invasion-of-privacy (ACLU) reasons against the X-ray scanners, then the reason why we're going to get these machines, like it or not. Americans want it. Truth in labeling. How about letting people know there really is no safe minimum amount of X-ray? The dose is small but a long held theory says one exposure to ionizing radiation is enough. How lucky do you feel? The scanner makers will reject. May we remind: Agent Orange, PTSD, partially-hydrogenated fats, asbestos, tanning salons?

    January 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm |