Bomb detection irony

It would seem the safer and cheaper way to go too. I am sure the dogs would cost less than those scanner. You also don't have to worry about the dogs giving you cancer. Personally if I do have to fly (which I avoid like the plague) I will NOT do the scanner. Too personal and I personally don't like the idea of getting x-rayed unless I have to for medical purposes. But you know poeple...if there is a new "toy" out there we gotta have it and try it out.

You do have a point. Is there a difference between having the hands of the TSA agent where they don't belong, vs. the nose of a trained dog? Which would you prefer? The dog seems like the safer bet. Guess we can return those body scanners now.

The TSA already uses dogs in several airports to sniff luggage...I've seen them down here in Florida...but I would be willing to bet that there's a liability factor involved when it comes to using them to screen passangers.

my husband and I were having this debate, as he just traveled this past weekend. St. Louis's airport has the full body scans, and he refused one. He feels that since the process is not tranparent, and there is not a clear regulation of the scans taken, he will take the pat down instead. I personally have not traveled, and would like to personally see the process before i make my own judgement on the issue. I do think that there should be more bomb sniffing dogs around.