At my workplace today, some folks were discussing this, and someone actually brought up that business about, "Well, it's not like you HAVE to fly. You could always take a bus instead." And I did a double-take, since I thought this a very odd thing for one of my co-workers to say, given how often we're shuttled between the company offices. No, I DO have to fly.
The only reason I fly is because of work, and someone else tells me where I need to be and when, and makes the flight arrangements for me. This often happens with only a week's notice or so. It shoots holes in my reliability to do much of anything on weeknights, but that's the reality of my job. AmTrak or a bus trip aren't valid alternatives.
I am not concerned about some stranger seeing a ghostly representation of my nekkid body, except that I feel very sorry for anyone who has to do so. I am, however, concerned about the radiation exposure, as I've read some articles claiming that there could be risks from repeated exposure (frequent flier miles!), improper use, or even that the exposure is 10x what it's claimed to be.
I can't think of any polite way to explain exactly why the alternative security method available for those not going through the scanner strikes me as an unappealing option, given the new standards.
I guess I'll learn for sure just HOW disagreeable this is, on my next trip.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-11-20 04:09 am (UTC)The only reason I fly is because of work, and someone else tells me where I need to be and when, and makes the flight arrangements for me. This often happens with only a week's notice or so. It shoots holes in my reliability to do much of anything on weeknights, but that's the reality of my job. AmTrak or a bus trip aren't valid alternatives.
I am not concerned about some stranger seeing a ghostly representation of my nekkid body, except that I feel very sorry for anyone who has to do so. I am, however, concerned about the radiation exposure, as I've read some articles claiming that there could be risks from repeated exposure (frequent flier miles!), improper use, or even that the exposure is 10x what it's claimed to be.
I can't think of any polite way to explain exactly why the alternative security method available for those not going through the scanner strikes me as an unappealing option, given the new standards.
I guess I'll learn for sure just HOW disagreeable this is, on my next trip.