Just Say No to Body Scanning

Who doesn’t hate the rigmarole of airport security, or, as the New York Times recently dubbed it, “Security Theater?”  
 
Take off your shoes and put them in the bin (or on the belt, depending on the airport): take off your belt; take off your jacket; pick through your purse to find the mini bottle of lotion and your lipstick and mascara and squirrel them away in a plastic sandwich baggie; put your laptop in a separate bin; put your keys and change into the little bowl; throw your carry-on onto the conveyor belt; walk your bare feet over thousands of germs; throw away your half-finished water bottle; be prepared to have your small jar of peanut butter confiscated . . . and walk through the . . . 

WAIT!

Don’t do it.  Do not walk through the body scanner.  You do not have to.  They cannot make you.  And it may be dangerous for your health to do so.

Irritating compliance with ridiculous rules aside, this last step in the security process is downright wrong.

There are two kinds of body scanners in airports across the country – those that use x-ray technology and those that use millimeter wave technology (and, according to a recent New York Times article, millimeter wave machines DO emit radiation, albeit less radiation than the x-ray scanners).  For decades, health care practitioners have cautioned against exposure to unnecessary x-rays.  You even get a little lead-apron to wear when you have to have dental x-rays.  So, why is it now okay to expose thousands of travelers to unnecessary radiation all for the sake of “security?”  Even if those levels are labeled “low” and “safe,” why risk it?  

European, American and Australian studies are mixed about the safety of body scanners.  Plainly, they are just too new to have accurate long-term data about their safety.  In fact, TSA has just recently admitted that the x-ray scanners are probably not safe and are pulling them from many airports in favor of the millimeter scanners (the ones with the “low” radiation).  But, why is low radiation considered safe?  What about people who travel frequently and are exposed often to this “safe” radiation?  Logic would have it that even the millimeter scanners may not be the best for people’s health.

Recently, I flew out of O’Hare and faced the usual ordeal of Security Theater.  Instead of encountering the ire of security staff when I opted out of going through the scanner (they then have to do a pat down instead), I actually got sympathy from the TSA workers.  The first person I had to deal with told me, “I don’t blame you.  I won’t go through those things either.”  The second person, the woman who was assigned to do my pat down said, “Have you done this before?”  When I nodded, she said.  “Yeah, I bypass all the time myself.”

So, go ahead and exert your right not to be scanned.  Opt for the pat down, even if it takes a little longer and isn’t exactly the most pleasant experience in the world.  If entire lines of passengers refuse to be corralled through the scanner, perhaps TSA will come up with saner – and safer – methods of ensuring security.  

Considering how few terrorists are caught, despite Security Theater, isn’t it unconscionable to expose thousands of travelers to health-damaging radiation – “just in case?”

 

 

Here come the Bagel Heads . . .

What's the latest and greatest new fad in Japan?  The Bagel Head.  Apparently, people voluntarily want to look as if they've had bagels surgically implanted into their foreheads.  Why? Good question.  I can't see the aesthetic, ironic or creative draw to the procedure.  It is shocking, though, and a little weird -- and that's probably the whole point.

 

Bagel heads get that way by having about 14 ounces of saline injected under the skin of their foreheads.  The saline creates a round, domed mass.  To get the bagel look (versus, say, the snowball look), the practitioner pushes his or her thumb deeply into the saline mound to cause an indentation.  The indentation -- in fact, the whole bagel look -- lasts for under a day.  Then, the saline is absorbed into the body and the person goes back to looking like a boring old human again.

 

So, do tell.  Is this a look you've secretly been admiring?  Or does the thought make you want to skip breakfast? 

Coco Tapi Tea?

Recently, I’ve tried two new food trends – coconut water and bubble tea.  Both beverages.  Both tasty.  According to advertising, coconut water is healthy – it is supposed to help you lose weight, prevent diabetes, aid digestion, fight viruses and “revitalize your cells and boost metabolism.”  I don’t know if coconut water does or doesn’t do all of those things, but, frankly, the claims seems a little over-blown.  And, coconut water, while tasty, isn’t, in my humble opinion, that tasty.  Maybe it needs a kick-butt health campaign to sell it. 

And, then there’s bubble tea – the drink that’s fun to eat.  Bubble tea, reportedly invented in Taiwan tea shops, is a tea base beverage that is mixed with fruit or milk.  It can be frozen, chilled or served as a sort-of slushy and comes loaded with small chewy tapioca balls you can slurp up through a wide straw and eat.  Bubble tea may contain some of the same antioxidants as tea, but some recent reports have linked certain types of the tapioca pearls with cancer.  The reports haven’t been verified to date, though.  It might just be a scare tactic. 

It’s interesting that these two trends produce big discussion.  Is coconut water really the fountain of youth and is bubble tea really the end of civilization as we know it? 

I think we should combine the two drinks into a coconut water bubble tea concoction.  The coconut water’s health benefits would negate any negative effects tapioca might have on human cells.  The result?  A tasty, healthful, fun beverage, maybe called Coco Tapi Tea.  Hmmmmm.

Bottoms up!

 



Cray Cray

Yes, frustration.  That's what you get when you deal with bureaucratic craziness.  Here's my latest example:  I used to have a cell phone contract with Sprint.  Yes, I'm naming the carrier.  Probably not a good idea.  Definitely poor taste.  But, whatever.  Anyway, I used to have a cell phone contract with Sprint, as I said.  That was three years ago.  I didn't mind Sprint.  I was reasonably happy with Sprint.  But, we found a better plan and changed to it.  It was with a different company.  A company that is not Sprint.  Another decent company not much better and not altogether worse.  Whatever.  However, lately, I have begun to hate Sprint.  Detest Sprint.  Have horrible dreams about Sprint.  Why?  Sprint is a prime example of bureaucratic craziness. 

It seems I overpaid the last payment of my last Sprint bill by 72 cents.  Yes, that's right, 72 cents.  So, Sprint dutifully sent me a statement informing me that I had a credit of 72 cents.  I called them and told them that I am no longer a customer and therefore, would never be in need of my 72 cent credit.  Could they send me a check for 72 cents?  No, Ma'am, they couldn't.  They can't cut checks for less than a dollar.  Well, then, I said, just keep the 72 cents.  No, Ma'am, they couldn't do that either.  Accounting controls.  Well, what should we do?  Did they want me to send them 28 cents so they could cut me a $1 check?  No, since I was no longer a customer, there was no way to pay into my account. 

 

X*&!#Z!

 

So, what happened?  For the last three years, I have received a monthly statement from Sprint telling me that I have a 72 cent credit with them.  I've called them several more times and had repeats of the above conversation with different representatives.

 

Grrrrrr

 

 

So, if Sprint goes bankrupt because they have had to send me a hundreds of statements in the mail, each with 42 cents worth of postage, and have had to buy the paper to print those statements and have had to hire the people to process those statements and to keep track of my account that is closed . . . well, don't blame me.  I tried.

 

Do you have a frustrating story about bureaucratic craziness?  Do tell!

 

 

 

 

 

Battle of the Oddities

Enter:  two hot, new trends for you to debate.  In this corner, notice the "Sun Stache." Advertised for women, children and "all of the mustache-less" out there, sun staches, as you can see, combine sun glasses with fake mustaches. I wonder how we ever survived before this invention -- I cannot tell you how many times I've gazed wistfully at myself in the rear-view mirror, clad in my bare, ordinary sunglasses, and thought, "Too bad I am mustache-less. If only I could add a mustache to this stunning look, I'd be sure to attract everything I've ever wanted in life."

 

On the other hand, I needn’t have worried too much.  Being mustache-less is, apparently, nothing compared to being beard-less, especially on cold winter days.  Note the other oddity – the Beard Beanie.  Who doesn’t want a fake beard to warm the face in the face of blustery wind?  Combine it with the attractive skull cap and you’ve suddenly got the go-to look.  Bonus:  If you look carefully, the fake beard comes complete with a fake mustache.  Add you own sunglasses and you’ve combined the two trends into the ultimate of cool warmth.

 

Questions of the day:  Have you ever seen anyone actually sporting these looks?  Do you secretly want to try them out?

 

 

Unusual Historicals Guest Blog

Today I am honored to be featured as a guest blogger on the very cool blog, "Unusual Historicals." 

Of course I waxed enthusiastically about Fanny Fern and Shame the Devil, but the editors of the blog asked interesting questions about writing and the writing process, too.

Take a peek at my recent interview, if you please.  And while you're at it, check out the extensive listing of great books, interesting authors and terrific takes on history.

Click here for fun and adventure:  Unusual Historicals




Trickle-down is still a trickle

 

This photo and quote say it all.  Trickle-down is, at best, a trickle.