The TSA rolled out its new, more vigorous pat-downs as an alternative to a digital-body scan, which shows all of a person’s unmentionables and then some.

The pat-down has proved to be quite objectionable to some travelers, including a few vocal people involved in very unique situations.

A few travelers, including a man whose urostomy bag was damaged during a pat-down, have received enormous amounts of national media attention. In turn, this attention has fueled the debate about the effectiveness of these searches and if they violate personal rights.

In this discussion, it largely has been forgotten that this type of incident is not an everyday occurrence. It is a problem with one TSA agent and one traveler.

No doubt it should be addressed by TSA and handled much differently, but the local and national media has sensationalized the issue.

Pat-downs are not required. There are choices. Most people choose to go through the harmless and less physically invasive body scan. Individuals who opt out of the scan face the new pat-down.

According to a recent study completed for ABC News, 63 percent of surveyed travelers support the use of the scanning machines, “even though they produce X-ray images of a passenger’s unclothed body that security officials can see.”

The number of people opposed to the scans is affected significantly by the public’s lack of education regarding the impact on health.

The TSA could benefit greatly from educating travelers about the scans because 35 percent of travelers said they think scans might pose a health risk and 13 percent are unsure.

If people are better informed, it is less likely they would opt out. That would avoid the pat-down altogether.

Furthermore, the process is fluid. TSA administrator John Pistole wrote in a recent USA Today editorial that the TSA always is looking for feedback and will look into complaints, hold agents responsible for uncalled for actions and adapt its procedures to reach a better balance of safety and comfort.

His exact words were, “We will continue to evaluate and adapt these procedures to strike the right balance between privacy and security, while ensuring we’re addressing evolving threats.”

And that’s what this whole debacle is about — threats. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed the country and our view of security.

Those attacks have led to new cockpit doors and an increase in federal air marshals aboard planes, both of which are effective at providing needed security for flights.

The “underwear bomber,” who attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his undergarments, likely is to blame for the newest change in security.

Although critics say the new measures are ineffective, the fact is these measures deter terrorists — a moment of discomfort is better than a tragic death.

Racial and other profiling does not work. Ken and Barbie terrorists are out there and no one is qualified to judge potential terrorists based on racial or ethnic characteristics. It is neither effective nor fair.

The best way to deter terrorists is probably through surveillance and background checks. Unfortunately, it simply is not possible to run a background check on every passenger.

How do we know if an outstanding citizen with a clear background is shuttling bombs onto a plane? We don’t. Not unless he or she is put through a screening process like every other traveler passing through the gate.

Of course, the body scan and aggressive pat-down are not the only options. For those too embarrassed by security meant to save their lives, there is a third option: Don’t fly. If you can’t play by the rules, then get out of the game.

Drive, take a train, boat, taxi, walk, whatever; it won’t matter how offended you are by the security measures.

They aren’t going anywhere soon. It’s time to suck it up or stay put. When faced with the choice of an exploding plane or a few moments of mild discomfort, the choice seems obvious.

Alanna Thiede is the State News East Lansing Reporter. Reach her at thiedea1@msu.edu.