The Diane Rehm Show

My guess is that most of us do not mind being screened by the TSA in order to improved flight safety. The media likes to make everything into a controversy (DR Show excepted) and is going to focus on the loud naysayers.

However, I would want a choice. I would not want to go through the body scanner due to the radiation (sorry, I don't believe anyone who tells me the amount of radiation is no big deal) but I would have no problem being patted down.

1. Can the scanner detect anything that a properly-used scanning wand (or whatever you call those things) cannot?

2. Isn't the scanner completely useless against an object or substance hidden in a body cavity or swallowed? What will the TSA's reaction be after someone gets something past the scanner that way - mandatory X-rays and MRI's?

If I'm not mistaken, when the Christmas Day Bomber of 2009 was found, this Country screamed about why we didn't have full body scanners like other countries do. Now the government has answered those calls for greater security and this is the result. Is everyone in this country schizophrenic?

I recently flew and received full body scan and a hand-scan. I don't mind at all, as long as EVERYONE gets a scan. Pat downs should not be used - I don't want anyone's hands on my private parts. But everyone should be thoughly scanned. Otherwise, take the bus or car or boat. We have to wear seatbelts, can't smoke, and have to turn off electronics for our safety. Thorough scanning due to terrorists of all shapes, sizes, colors now require scanning.

As I listen to this debate, I'm struck by the fact that those complaining the loudest don't seem to have any sorts of practical solutions for how to keep passengers safe WITHOUT the scanners or enhanced patdowns.

Many mention Israeli security as a model for our own, but they don't take into account the fact that Israel's one major airport (Ben Gurion), gets just shy of 1 million passengers per month, whereas there are over 1.5 million passengers per DAY flying in the US. The type of screening the Israelis do takes much longer than the scanners, and would create horrific back-ups at the security lines. As well, the Israeli screeners all have military backgrounds (as do most Israelis, since every citizen must serve for two years in the military); and are paid better than our TSA screeners are. To recruit and train an equivalent force here in the USA would cost millions upon millions of dollars. But those same people who want these types of forces at the airport are unwilling to raise taxes. And without an increase in government revenue, with our current deficit, we simply can't afford these types of highly trained TSA agents.

The same could be said of having more bomb-sniffing dogs at the airport. A great idea, yes, but also a very, very expensive one.

I'm a professional travel writer and spend a good chunk of my life in the air. My first priority, therefore, is safety. I'm willing to have someone touch me, or see my naked body on a screen, if it will stop another passenger from being able to carry aboard explosives.

Its very, very easy to attack the TSA. Personally, I find these attacks highly unpatriotic. They've got a very hard job to do, the agency has VERY limited resources and its doing its best. Is it perfect? Of course not. But its getting better, and we have not had one successful terrorist attack on an airplane since 9/11. That should count for something!

Perhaps the TSA should consider hiring retired nurses/health care workers to use the body scanners. They have seen it all and really don't care about seeing what's under your clothes. And perhaps the public will feel more comfortable with nurses 'seeing them' as they move through the scanners. -- Gerri

Last week - at the Indianapolis International Airport - I had to go through the new scanner and I was still subject to a pat down. The officers were polite, I did not feel "violated." It certainly was not a fun experience, but it was not abusive either.

Every person with a metal medical implant sets off the metal and therefore is subject to the pat down. I have had the new one, and it is way more intrusive. Many many seniors have implants. How does this make sense? Most airport do not have the "get naked" screening machines, so many many older people will be groped. How does this make sense?

Question-Realistically, can we ever eliminate all of these risks. Are we spending billions each year and sacrificing our freedoms, privacy and quality of life to find a needle in a haystack. Has our reaction to 9-11 exponentially magnified the tragedy

I think we should model what the Israeli's do. They don't have these super scanners and they don't racially profile. They use behavioral profiling and all passengers are "interviewed" by well-trained and vetted, intelligent university students whom served in the military.

I know that we don't have conscription. However, I think airport security should be under the control of the military. Then, if the current crop of TSA "Officers" really want to be a government employee and do airport security, they should sign up for military service.

TSA in its current form is an entitlement program for these so-called "Officers" and this bureaucracy's main goal is not effective security, but self-preservation through fear and the wielding of power.

In the 1930's, the Gestapo was established. In 1954, the KGB or Committee for State Security was established. Today, we have the TSA.

Two things:

First, these are new machines. That means new software. New software is buggy by nature, so Bud's question applies: even if we accept that they are safe is operating correctly (I'm not sure I do) how do we know that only the proper amount of radiation is being emitted with each use?

Secondly, the Israeli's have the best security on the planet due to having arguably the greatest threats. If they don't use these things--and they don't--that tells me they are pure security theater and nothing more.

Some years back, I was told (or heard on NPR maybe) that Airlines had a profitable side business of taking on small freight at the last minute to fill up empty baggage space. 1) Please tell me if the was true or is hopefully not still true. 2) Is this linked to the extra charges for passenger baggage of latter years - to make more space in the baggage holds and therefore better profits for the airlines. This is probably paranoia on my part, but having spent several flights over a year to tend a sick relative the thought has bothered me and I haven't found out a good answer. Thanks

My question is does this technology even work? I was talking with a friend who has knowledge of the technology used in the scanners and he said it doesn't well -- it won't be able to detect much of what it claims to detect.

DM Baltimore

I don't understand why the use of sniffing dogs has not been expanded. I have seen dozens of these dogs used within airports in other countries. The dogs are reliable, don't break down, can be easily moved, and can cover a zone instead of a single individual at a time.
My suspicition is that the manufacturers of the full body scan machines have lobbied heavily for this route because of the profits involved. I don't have a problem with the scanners but I think that the use of dogs as a better solution has been overlooked.
By the way my husband missed a flight recently when a full body scanner went down and no one operating it knew what to do. They had to wait in line for over a half an hour until someone received authorization to use the metal detectors, instead.