Removing shoes, getting scanned and patted down doesn’t cut it anymore amid tightened airport security following the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. Now, we’re being told to “hold it” during the last hour of flight, and the flying public is understandably pissed off.

While there are plenty of green remedies for bladder infections, there is little to placate the anger and stress resulting from the ridiculously long lines and humiliating security steps all resulting from the human factor: the government and airport employees did not do their job to keep a potential bomber off of a commercial plane.

This, despite the fact the would-be bomber paid cash for his ticket, had no luggage, and was reported dangerous by his own father, a prominent Nigerian banker. Sure, we can sit still for an hour, but not for months to come when we are forced to pay the price of incompetence.

Use of restrooms is a health and human rights issue. My bladder hurts just thinking about it. It’s bad enough we can’t use the toilets in most stores where we shop and spend money, let alone on an airplane where we’re trapped. No Starbucks down the street or other place to go, instead.

Referred to as a “smokescreen” by CBS News, the tightened security restrictions are seen as a knee-jerk reaction to the attempted attack on Friday. Nigerian suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was  flying from Nigeria to Amsterdam and then the U.S. when he tried to ignite the highly explosive PETN substance he had hidden in a soft plastic container on his person as the Northwest Airlines prepared to land in Detroit.

Passengers arriving on international flights were treated like naughty children, ordered to stay put in their seats during the last hour and not use blankets to cover their laps or their babies. They had to refrain from opening overhead bins to get their stuff and keep their hands in clear view.

CBS Travel Correspondent Peter Greenberg argues the one-hour flight rules are merely a bad camouflage attempt for not dealing with the real issues of how the guy cleared security in Nigeria and twice in Amsterdam, and was still able to board the airliner.

“The real problem here is that, tomorrow, if someone tried to detonate a bomb on a plane and right before he detonated it, he sang, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would issue a rule tomorrow saying no singing on a plane.”

Therefore, if someone roots through their carry bags or socks or steps into the bathroom before trying to explode a plane, we the passengers should not be allowed to do those things because it is now deemed a security risk. Passengers are sounding off about the measures, including letters in the L.A. Times that argue Americans are tired of paying the price of failed screening and lapses in human intelligence.

“We are so inept that instead of proactively listing people like Abdulmutallab on no-fly lists, we must torture the traveling public by denying them the use of the restroom,” wrote William Josephs of Encino, Calif. “During recent years, I have given up flying almost entirely, especially since the nonsense with the shoes began. Liquids were next, and now, woe be unto the poor individual suffering from gastric distress on any descending airplane.”

Another letter said it is ironic that we are told to stay seated to keep the plane safe, while “in every flight since 9/11 it is the passengers, up and wandering about the cabin, who have provided the only effective defense against terrorism. It is clear that there is only one requirement for joining the management team at the TSA: You must have first failed an IQ test.”

Images: Los Angeles Times, CNN

The post Flying the Unfriendly Skies with New Airline ‘Security’ Measures appeared first on EcoSalon.

We all continue to be somewhat baffled over how often to get mammograms and whom to trust as the last word on this critical issue for women. Hey, we all want to grow up to be old women, right?

Weeks after the release of the report on new recommendations for mammograms by the 16-member U.S. Preventative Task Force, the firestorm rages on, even splitting parties as Republicans argue that the recommendations could be used to ration healthcare under reform legislation before Congress, a charge Democrats denied.

According to Reuters, Republican Representative Joe Barton suggested in a congressional hearing that under Democratic healthcare reform legislation passed by the House of Representatives, the task force could decide which preventive services, including mammograms, would be covered for many Americans.

“To have a task force make the recommendation that has been made, and to have in this bill the authority that’s given to various unelected bureaucrats to make healthcare decisions, including coverage frequency, in my opinion, is wrong,” Barton told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on health.

The Senate is debating its version of healthcare reform legislation, seen as President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority, especially among American cancer doctors, who are outraged about the challenge to the accepted guidelines. It has touched off a heated debate among those doctors, as well as various groups.

The American Cancer Society, perhaps the most prominent of these groups, says it is sticking to the current recommendation to start annual mammogram screening at age 40 because the breast X-rays have been proven to save lives by spotting tumors early on when they are most easily treated.

Current standards say women 40 and older should get mammograms every year, while the revised recommendations suggest only we gals over 50 get screened, and that they do so every other year. Women over 74 can dispense with the test altogether, says our government.

An analysis by ABC News suggests money is the motivation. Professor Theodore Marmor, a health care policy specialist at Yale University, said cost-benefit analysis is routine in the health insurance biz.

“Although screening every woman between the ages of 40 and 50 would turn up some breast cancer”¦the question is what is the cost per diagnosis per relevant harm,” says Marmor.

“The question is going to be, between the ages of 40 and 50, what is the frequency with which you are going to find a true positive cancer finding, how many cases would we miss, how many of those cases would develop into cancer and what is it going to cost to treat them,” says Ian Duncan, president of Solucia, a company that provides actuarial health care analysis for insurers.

Duncan explains further that mammograms are actually a value-based benefit because they are preventative and only run about $125 per exam.

It’s  believed the new research doesn’t take into consideration the savings of newer technologies in screenings. ABC reports that digital mammograms are 1.5 to 4 times more expensive than conventional film-based mammograms, according to the National Cancer Institute, which also reported in 2005 that only 8 percent of the country’s breast imaging units provide the technique.

Either way, should we be thinking about money when it comes to prevention and saving lives?

“I definitely think this is the beginning of rationed care and I am very upset that women are the first to get slammed with this,” said Dr. Elizabeth Vliet, a women’s health care specialist based in Tucson, Ariz., and an opponent of health care reform. “I think that this change is designed to cut costs, not improve women’s health.”

Meantime, we women must decide for ourselves. What else is new?

Personally, at 51, I’m usually a year late in getting my own exam so I’m not overwhelmed by this debate. I don’t beat up on myself when I’m late but I know I cannot let it go too long. I know because of the number of women lost to this horrible disease, and the pink ribbons that symbolize we must keep asking the important questions and donating to our own cause when we can. I trust the pink panel more than the government panel. How ’bout you?

Image: About.com

The post Mammogram Debate Rages On and Splits Along Party Lines appeared first on EcoSalon.