Forum Index
»
Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers
Has anybody with a toddler & pregnant gone through the airport body scanners?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Sorry, until scanners are old/proven technology, I would not be going though it pregnant nor will I send my little kids through it. How many times has the govt approved something only to say later, "whoops!"???
I keep thinking of my dentist, how they put lead over my ovaries and leave the room for a tooth xray, ask if you are pregnant..... I will wait to see how this full body scanner thing shakes out, thanks. |
Anonymous
| Regarding post 13:39, how recently did you fly? Are the plain metal detectors still avail. at National? If DCA still has them, than that would be a good option to ask for if pregnant or with toddlers. But I thought those were gone there? I'm flying next month with my 2 year old and probably won't be using the scanners, but am very nervous about the new patdowns, and how in the world do they do a real pat down with a toddler in a diaper. Ugh! |
Anonymous
I can assure you it doesn't take care of everything. |
Anonymous
|
Airline person here. While I am *generally* inclined to believe TSA and the FDA that the technology is safe, I think it's clear that there are some major gaps in the studies that prove safety. So I don't blame folks for opting out one bit. For those of you traveling this week, allow yourselves plenty of time. TSA is planning for it, and obviously is working to make sure that the process goes as smoothly as possible. Most travelers will not even see the machines, which will end up making people say "oh wow, that wasn't bad at all." They're hoping to take some wind out of the sails of the protestors. While, professionally, I'm very nervous about the opt-out, I am more personally nervous about the way TSA has rolled this out, how TSA seems to be almost at odds with the rest of the Administration (Pres Obama and Sec State Clinton said they need to seek balance and TSA may refine the scanners, while Pistole seems to have dug in his heels). I am deeply troubled by the new security requirements (honestly, when I say "new" I mean in the past decade -- these scanners are just the breaking point).
Those of you wishing to opt-out may find this website (and list of scanners) helpful. Each of these scanners costs about 100K. I find it infuriating that Administrator Pistole continues to discuss the Christmas underpants bomber as reasoning behind this. The scanners would not have detected his equipment so using that example is really ironic. I'm not sure these scanners are doing enough security good to merit the privacy invasion, and if there are no health risks, I'd like to have more solid studies to point to when trying to reassure passengers. Honestly, I think most people are pretty safe in using the technology. However, I would be concerned if I were a screener operating the machine or even someone in the general vicinity of the screenings. Full disclosure, I don't work on security issues, but this is my inside the industry position. Here is a list of scanners, an illustration of what they look like, so you know what you are dealing with. The X-ray machine kind of looks like an X wing fighter while the wave machine looks more like a pod. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1138014-complete-list-airports-whole-body-imaging-advanced-imaging-technology-scanner.html Happy travels, all. |
Anonymous
Enlighten us. How the does one sneak something on? Aside from swallowing something? But again, I ask, what is the solution? What do you propose, aside from less than illuminating vagaries? |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: Anonymous wrote: We are not opting out because of the scientific risks. We are opting out because the scans are invasive and ridiculous - a clear violation of privacy. A government overreach. Like much of what the TSA and Homeland Security does. As other people have written on here before, many countries have much more effective, far less invasive security techniques for airlines. And the enforcement officers are professional and polite. Those of us who opt out of the scanners this weekend are protesting the insane and farcical situation known as American airport security. (The ban on liquids, anyone? Taking off your shoes? Magical thinking.) Many countries that you speak of, like Israel, do not have the same passenger volume as we do. Are some of these measures ridiculous? You bet. But the truth is, security is something we need to at least try to achieve, to work on. Let's say we do it ala Israel? Would privacy advocates be comfortable with the interviews, questioning, and guns? And how exactly would we achieve that with the sheer number of people who come through our airports? HOw much in resources and time could we realistically devote? Seriously. I would like to hear some real, workable solutions. A scan takes care of everything--there is no sneaking anything on. Quick, efficient, and most likely, safe. Certainly less invasive than being groped and questioned. As for the toddler question--I have no idea. A friend flew with a 6 year old and made it through the scan okay. Don't know how it would work with younger children. I can assure you it doesn't take care of everything. Enlighten us. How the does one sneak something on? Aside from swallowing something? But again, I ask, what is the solution? What do you propose, aside from less than illuminating vagaries? Off the top of my head: it would not detect anything in a body cavity. It also does not deal with problems associated with the lack of securty of cargo on the plane, or situations like the underwear bomber, who was screened outside the US. |
Anonymous
|
^ All right. Point taken. Body cavity explosives and others may not be detected.
Still, what is your solution? What do you think WILL work? |
Anonymous
Not the poster you are talking to. But what ARE we going to do if people start putting stuff to blow up planes in body cavities???? |
Anonymous
|
Nothing. We can do very little to stop people with boy cavity explosives, aside from having trained professionals look for shifty people in the crowd (as they do in Israel and some airports here).
I do support the body scans, but not because I am under the illusion we can stop every threat. I am not. I just don't think the inability to stop every threat negates the effort to try reasonable measures. I find the scans, so fa, reasonable. And in the absence of other suggestions... |
Anonymous
I can't dicuss it publicly, but I know enough to understand even these scanners will not provide full protection. I believe that there is no 100% deterant, but our methods are not giving the highest possible protection. I don't have a great solution that covers every threat imaginable, but I don't believe this is the answer. |
Anonymous
Yes, let's do it a la Israel: The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports. It’s a booth you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you. They see this as a win-win for everyone, with none of this stuff about racial profiling. It also would eliminate the costs of a long and expensive trial. Justice would be swift. Case closed! |
Anonymous
The info is supported in the following. http://www.ohiohealth.com/bodymayo.cfm?xyzpdqabc=0&id=6&action=detail&ref=255 Generally, commercial air travel during pregnancy poses no special risks to a healthy pregnant woman or her baby. Still, if you're pregnant, it's best to check with your health care provider before you fly. Certain conditions in pregnancy — such as severe anemia, sickle cell disease, clotting disorders and placental insufficiency — can increase the risk of problems. If you have flexibility in your travel plans, midpregnancy (14 to 28 weeks) may be the best time to fly. This is when you're likely to feel your best — and the risks of miscarriage and premature labor are the lowest. Your health care provider may restrict travel of any type after 36 weeks of pregnancy or if you're at risk of preterm delivery. When you fly: * Check the airline's policy about pregnancy and flying. Guidelines for pregnant women may vary by carrier. * Choose your seat carefully. For the most space and comfort, request an aisle seat. For the smoothest ride, request a seat near the front of the plane. * Buckle up. During the trip, fasten the lap belt under your abdomen and across the tops of your thighs. * Promote circulation. If possible, get out of your seat for a short walk every half-hour or so. If you must remain seated, flex and extend your ankles often. * Drink plenty of fluids. Low humidity in the cabin is dehydrating. Women who are concerned about air travel during pregnancy often worry about air pressure and cosmic radiation at high altitudes, but these issues aren't usually problematic. Decreased air pressure during flight may slightly reduce the amount of oxygen in your blood, but your body will naturally adjust. And although radiation exposure increases at higher altitudes, the level of exposure for the occasional traveler isn't a concern. There's a caveat for frequent fliers, however. Pilots, flight attendants, air marshals and others who fly often may receive radiation exposure that exceeds current recommendations. If you must fly frequently during your pregnancy, discuss it with your health care provider. |
Anonymous
Here is a little more information about airplane cabin pressure and pregnancy from an obgyn. http://www.babycenter.com/404_will-airplane-cabin-pressure-harm-my-unborn-baby_7240.bc The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires all commercial airlines and many noncommercial planes to maintain a standard level of cabin pressure (kept at the equivalent of 5,000 to 8,000 feet, the altitude of Denver and other Rocky Mountain communities). If you're a healthy woman with no serious medical problems, you and your baby should have no trouble in a pressurized cabin. However, because the air pressure in the cabin is less than at lower altitudes, your heart rate and blood pressure will increase to enable you to take in the oxygen you need. If you have severe anemia, sickle cell disease, a history of blood clots, or a condition called placental insufficiency, you and your baby may have trouble adapting and should avoid flying. If you have one of these conditions and must fly, you can be prescribed supplemental oxygen for use in the air. (And in case of sudden loss of cabin pressure during a flight, all commercial airliners are equipped with oxygen masks that drop down automatically.) Flying in unpressurized small planes is a different matter. If you're cruising at 10,000 feet, for example, that's just like standing atop a 10,000-foot mountain — almost 2 miles high. Your body will have to work harder to supply you and your baby with sufficient oxygen, so it's probably wise to avoid unpressurized planes while you're pregnant. |
Anonymous
| Dear OP: To answer your original question, I flew at 24 and 28 weeks pregnant alone with my almost 2 year old. The TSA staff in the US (we had to take multiple flights in the US) varied on what they asked us to do. One asked if he would walk through himself. I asked him to go through (with the TSA staff encouraging him through) and I quickly followed. At a different airport (when DC was having a clingy fit), TSA allowed me to carry DC through. I have generally found them to be good with kids......Good Luck and DONT HESITATE to ask fellow passengers for assistance! |
Anonymous
Totally correct. Check out http://dontscan.us/index.html to find out more details. Also see what these photos really look like. The TSA has only published low resolution images not the full resolution of what they actually see. The truth is its graphic and is truly a virtual strip search. Also. Backscatter X-ray uses ionizing radation, a known cumulative health hazard, to produce images of passengers bodies. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with defective DNA repair mechanisms are considered to be especially susceptible to the type of DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation. Also at high risk are those who have had, or currently have, skin cancer. Ionizing radiation's effects are cumulative, meaning that each time you are exposed you are adding to your risk of developing cancer. Since the dosage of radiation from the backscatter X-ray machines is absorbed almost entirely by the skin and tissue directly under the skin, averaging the dose over the whole body gives an inaccurate picture of the actual harm. In their letter of concern, the UCSF faculty members noted that "the dose to the skin could be dangerously high". The eyes are particularly susceptible to the effect of radiation, and as one study found allowing the eyes to be exposed to radiation can lead to an increased incidence of cataracts. Another type of device uses millimeter wave technology, which if improperly calibrated can cause burns. Less is known about the potential health risks of the millimeter wave devices than those of backscatter X-ray, and as with the backscatter devices, no independent testing has been conducted. |