We have been watching the issue of enhanced TSA airport screening procedures with some concern here at ZRecs, both because (a) we have seen solid accounts from reputable scientists [PDF link] that not enough is known about the radiation doseage coming from machines and its potential harm and (b) because the alternative, the "enhanced pat-down" that is in fact just short of a cavity search, is on questionable legal footing and is problematic for many people, including people with a variety of medical conditions, victims of rape or other sexual abuse, and children.

The polarizing tone of the rhetoric also hasn't helped, with all but the most right-wing media coming down consistently on the side of accepting the new procedures without any serious national conversation about whether we have crossed some threshold here. Unfortunately, many of the voices we turn to for trusted insight into health issues like this have remained oddly silent - though I guess that's better than the knee-jerk reactions we've seen from many others.

Beyond our personal concerns, which we would otherwise keep out of this blog, the issue seems to intersect ZRecs at two key points. First, that our children above all deserve not to be inappropriately touched, and that our definition of appropriate and inappropriate touching should not instantly reshape itself to conform to this new TSA directive. That hardly seems a point worth arguing except on cost/benefit grounds. Second, however, is the potential cancer risk posed by the full-body scanners in use.

If you've been inundated by the "get-more-radiation-from-flying-itself" and haven't seen the significant scientific dissent that has been being raised on this issue, please read on.

A reader of the blog Talking Points Memo wrote in with some illuminating insight into the radiation exposure levels of the full body scanners now in use at major airports. You can read it in full at the source link, but I'd like to reproduce some of it here.

The TSA pulls a couple intellectual "sleights of hand" in its discussion of these machines. First, the TSA website compares the dose of radiation received from the machines to the radiation from cell phones (I will note this comparison is for the millimeter wave machines, not the back scatter variety). This is not a good comparison and may lead to confusion about the two different types of machines being used. Cell phones emit radio waves. Radio waves, while electromagnetic waves like gamma radiation, are much longer and of significantly lower energy, and, thus are not ionizing radiation. That is, they do not have the ability to damage DNA and to cause cancer. I can put a flask of cells next to a radio wave emitter and the cells will grow just fine and not accumulate any additional mutations from that exposure.

Second, the TSA often compares the radiation from the back scatter machines to chest X-rays or cosmic radiation. These are much higher energy and typically pass through the body, so the dose is more diffuse and over a much larger part of your body. The back scatter radiation from the scanners is lower energy, but still ionizing, so the exposure is concentrated within a small amount of your body (the top layers of skin). This could potentially increase the effective exposure by 10-100-fold over what the TSA is saying. This second point is the one that the UCSF letter discusses in much greater detail.

The TSA also admits that the ionizing radiation penetrates through 1/10 of an inch of the skin. While that might not sound like much to many lay folks, that is actually quite significant. There is A LOT going on in your skin at 1/10 of an inch. To expose that layer of skin to increased ionizing radiation will lead to increased damage and the potential for mutations and ultimately cancer. It would take years to figure this out and maybe that is what the TSA/DHS is hoping for... the fog of epidemiology to hide the true health impacts. Look how long it took for the risks of smoking cigarettes, with a clear danger, to become well accepted with tons of independent data confirming the point.

The FDA response to the UCSF letter basically says, "the machines are below the threshold of an arbitrary dose limit we developed with the help of the manufacturers of these machines." Some scientists don't think that that is good enough. So, what to do? DHS cannot now do as the scientists from UCSF recommended and empanel a group of independent researchers to examine these machines and the ionizing radiation doses. If this panel did find that these machines were emitting dangerous amounts of radiation that causes cumulative damage, the authority and credibility of the US government would be irrevocably and permanently damaged. And not to mention the class action lawsuits that would follow. How could the US ever again say something was safe? Would anyone believe or trust the US government again on a wide range of health topics (the anti-vaxers would go nuts with this)? No, the US government will not allow a public, independent panel to evaluate these machines. They may do it internally and then graciously and secretly decide that the "benefits" (catching the one in a hundred million passengers that are terrorists) more than outweigh the "risks" (needlessly giving 1 in a million passengers skin cancer).

Why not put some dosimeters on TSA agents that work the machines? It would be interesting to follow over time to see if there are increased risks. Other folks that work around radiation are required to wear such devices to monitor potential exposures. According to the TSA website, there is exposure beyond the machine itself as evidenced by this statement:

"All results confirmed that the radiation doses for the individuals being screened, operators, and bystanders were well below the dose limits specified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)."

Notice that they included operators and bystanders in that evaluation. They are receiving doses as well and it is below the arbitrarily set limit. The TSA folks should be demanding dosimeters to evaluate that claim. Too bad they don't have a union to represent them in this.

For me, I will do as instructed in every radiation safety class I have ever received: limit exposure whenever possible. I cannot do anything about cosmic radiation, but i can do something about walking through a back scatter machine. I will opt out. [Link]

We understand that there are also people who are not concerned about either method, or about one but not the other. And the jury is not yet in on these new machines, and we hope it someday will be. As for our family, we are not traveling this weekend so will not have to face the uncomfortable choice between the full-body scan and a body search (and of course, the prospect that even choosing the scan could lead to a search).

Whatever you choose to do and however you get there, we wish you safe travels and a wonderful holiday weekend.

It's easy to make assumptions about felt "storyboards" that don't hold up. They offer the same play options as the once-ubiquitous Colorforms, but that doesn't mean they're more natural; the fact is that almost all children's products made of "felt," unless they are the three-dimensional products purchased on handmade sites like Etsy, use a synthetic felt that is made primarily, if not entirely, of polyester. (Among other reasons, using real wool felt would be cost-prohibitive.) Felt storyboards help children tell stories, but the last time I checked, kids could tell stories just as easily with stuffed animals, action figures, or paper clips. They allow children to creatively compose scenes of activity, but so do paper and crayons. So what is it, exactly, that make felt storyboards like FeltTales attractive to so many parents?

Babalu makes colorful, attractive felt storyboard sets across a broad range of themes, so we asked the company to send us a couple so we could find out for ourselves. The company sent us samples of their Cinderella and Heroes to the Rescue storyboards for review.

The easiest starting point for a discussion of the value of FeltTales is in contrasting it with the product it seems designed to replace: Colorforms. The big difference between the two turns out not to be materials but the fact that Colorforms, with the exception of the highly-praised back-to-their roots "Original" shape set re-introduced by current Colorforms owner University Games, are overrun by licensed characters, and by overrun I mean that the company has near-zero interest in presenting characters or storytelling opportunity unless it is based on a current media property.

Kids' media watchdogs often complain that licensed-character toys leave less to children's imagination, but that hasn't been our experience; at five, our daughter is stilla far more interested in action - "what happens" - than in characters' personalities or stock motivations, beyond established good-guy/bad-guy distinctions. But we do believe that licensed characters have a couple of disadvantages, namely that they surround a child with characters who exist in a more hyperreal form in videos and TV shows they aren't but could be begging to be watching, and that these characters then confront them to zealously pitch other toys, clothing, breakfast cereals and convenience foods. We avoid licensed character toys because as soon as they step out of the books or television shows that launched them, they tend to go rogue.

Discarding that "imagination" argument against licensed characters while recognizing the capitalist pressures that make them such bad playdates is the only way to appreciate the historic value of "storyboards" in general, which are based literally on the idea of using a two-dimensional space to allow for the visual recreation of scenes from a beloved story. Freed from the requirement of designing an environment or its actors, children can re-enact, alter, and absorb classic stories that have timeless value, especially if we seek out and explore the traditional tales behind the Disney versions of many of these stories. (This line of reasoning also explains why we can get more excited about FeltTales' somewhat generic version of the Cinderella story than one that is infinitely replicable in sippy cup, sleepwear, and Polly Pocket form, without being insufferable snobs.)


FeltTales' Cinderella of "twenty-plus" felt pieces (sorry, we didn't count the exact number) features all of the figures, dresses, and accessories your child needs to do the basic story justice, although it lacks a full-sized coach or the means of setting any exterior scenes. We would have appreciated having all figures in the same pose, and removable clothes for the prince, so that Cinderella could have been the vaguely uniformed figure or the wicked stepmother, the sole character with arms folded, could have more than one dress option. But those are minor quibbles with a well-designed play set. Distinctions between Cinderella's home and the palace are cleverly represented by two window options, one of which shows a view of the castle, the other looking out on the pumpkin carriage. The set even includes a clock with a printed hour hand but a separate minute hand, to encourage the countdown to midnight:



FeltTales boards are sturdy and, at 11x14", big enough to set a scene but convenient for travel.


This is the only aspect of FeltTales' design that had us wondering what they were thinking. The pieces simply do not fit in the provided carrying pouch.

We didn't open the Heroes to the Rescue set, but would observe that it needs more fire. Waaaay more fire. There is also no credible way for the police officer to ride his or her own motorcycle.

There are environmental arguments for felt boards over Colorforms - the latter are made of PVC, after all, a plastic which (even in its phthalate-free form, as Colorforms are declared to be) is produced at a significant cost to the environment and to the health of workers - but if felt were the only criterion, Colorforms could still serve your needs, as they're getting into the felt storyboard market as well. Magnetic storyboards are also an options, from International Playthings and others. But it's FeltTales reliance on unbranded but evocative themes that makes them special. FeltTales makes storyboards with such varied themes as pirates, dinosaurs, ballet, forest fairies, dress-up dogs, the zoo, and the classic, idealized representation of life on the farm.

You may notice that several of these options are really an alternative to paper dolls more than storytelling vehicles, but they are a welcome one. I tend to throw away paper doll clothes as I find them, and I find them all over the place at our house, while FeltTales are "stored" on their board even when they aren't put away in their carrying pouch. This also makes them a nice travel item, although I guess Colorforms meet that requirement, too.

The only two disadvantages I've noticed in comparing FeltTales storyboards with the Colorforms I played with in my own childhood are 1) felt figures don't stick to windows, and 2) fewer sets are cross-compatible, whereas many Colorform sets have figures that are similarly scaled and thus can be introduced into each others' worlds easily. (The latter is perhaps the best example of how eagerly children will break the conventions of licensed characters' scripted stories.) That said, there's something truly special about being able to introduce Cinderella and her sisters into the urban landscape as 25-foot behemoths to be subdued by emergency responders.

You can find the full complement of FeltTales storyboards all on Amazon.com for between $15 and $20.

The FeltTales sets we received from Babalu will be donated - the sealed "Heroes" set to charity, and the gently used Cinderella version to a location that accepts used children's goods - a doctor's waiting room, kids' gathering place, or barring that, a friend or acquantance who can make use of it.

The Baby Bjorn Travel Crib had us at "hello" with its lightweight design, and as veterans of the heavy Graco Pack 'n' Play, we appreciated how easy it was to set up and break down.

Here's a video of me opening up and closing the travel crib for the first time - I managed to screw up a step, but it's still a piece of cake.



When set up, the crib is quite sturdy and stable. The size should be good for kids up to three years old. Fabrics are certified to the rigorous Oeko-Tex standard for toxicity.

We took the crib with us on our Seattle trip in October, and it traveled well, although the carrying case could really, really use a shoulder strap - it just doesn't carry well as a giant briefcase, and its light weight would make it perfect for slinging over your shoulder. Other users on Amazon seem to almost universally love it. But the truly amazing thing about it is its weight - the thing is 11 pounds. This is a huge advantage over other travel beds, the best-selling (and very functional) Pack 'n' Play included. The only disadvantage to the design is the splayed legs, which might get in the way in a small room or during nighttime tasks.

The one big drawback to this product is its price - $280 - which we just can't get over. A Pack 'n' Play is heavy, yes, but it costs runs from $100 to as low as $60. A PeaPod offers the portable bed for $55-$85, but not a place for an awake baby to hang out. Baby Bjorn's Travel Crib lists at $280 and sells for at least $240 most places we've seen it, or $235 on Amazon (although the free shipping helps). A $100 price tag would result in Baby Bjorn putting its competition permanently to bed in this market - the product is clearly better. I think they could even pull off $150 without raising too many eyebrows. But $280? I'd hate to see travel crib prices go the route of strollers, with an ever-heightening price ceiling and parents seemingly willing to support the increase.

We are truly wowed, but simply would not pay this much, even for this level of quality and convenience. How about you? Could any travel bed merit this price - now, or in a rosier economy?

We reviewed the KidsFlySafe CARES airline restraint system over on The Tranquil Parent yesterday. If you're planning to travel for the upcoming holiday season, you've got to read this review. I admit that I was hesitant at first, but man, oh, man does this thing make your life easier (even if you still gate check your car seat). So hop on over to read the review and make your holiday travels a little less stressful this season.

KidsFlySafe has also agreed to give away three CARES restraints as our ZRecs Newsletter giveaway for the month of October. Current subscribers are already entered in the drawing; if you haven't subscribed to our once-a-month email yet, sign up here and you'll be all set. We'll draw three winners at random at the beginning of November from the subscriber rolls, announce winners in the next newsletter, and they'll get a CARES system in time for any holiday travel, and beyond. Please note, you will be receiving one, and only one, email a month from us, so please sign up only if you want a monthly compendium of news, information, and deals from ZRecs in your inbox.