PDA

View Full Version : Airports and TSA



Larry Frank
11-28-2010, 8:04 PM
After all of the news prior to the Thanksgiving Airport Rush, I expected my travel through a couple of the the major airports ( Chicago, Miami and Orlando) to be a nightmare with the security. It is always an experience for me since I have a couple of metal implants which makes the metal detectors go off.

For all of the bad press, my experiences could not have been different. All of the TSA people that I saw were pleasant, nice, and trying to get people through as quickly as possible. Yes, one of the pat downs was more than I am used to but not bad.

+1 for the TSA from my experiences

I guess the news people just have to tell the worst things to make a story.

John Keeton
11-28-2010, 8:21 PM
Larry, glad you made it through, and with a good experience. I am sure the TSA is treating this as a professional situation.

Hopefully, those that post will avoid the temptation to wade into the politics of this. Lets keep it clean so this thread can remain open! Thanks.

Matt Meiser
11-28-2010, 8:59 PM
All I want to know is what are they going to do when the first terrorist carries something on board INSIDE their body? I guess CT scans for everyone?

Dan Friedrichs
11-28-2010, 9:31 PM
Exactly, Matt.

More to the point, why do we have airport security at all? (I'm serious). If I wanted to blow up ~100 people, I'd just head to a Super Walmart at about 3pm on a Sunday. Heck, I could probably find all the ingredients I'd need to build a low-yield explosive right there in the store...

Now THAT'S how you'd effectively terrorize Americans - make them afraid of going to Walmart :D


As long as the flight deck door can be securely locked, what special security risk exists for airplanes that justifies such draconian and expensive security measures?

mreza Salav
11-28-2010, 10:41 PM
As long as the flight deck door can be securely locked, what special security risk exists for airplanes that justifies such draconian and expensive security measures?

To spread and make money.
They want people to believe this brings them safety...

I travel frequently and hate being exposed to this radiation each time I want to board a plane. They say it is safe and sure I believe them :rolleyes: Look back and see how many things can you count that were considered safe at the time.

Ken Fitzgerald
11-28-2010, 10:58 PM
During the period of time for holiday shopping you might be able to kill 100 people with a single bomb at Walmart. Maybe. Once outside the holiday shopping period, it would be less probable.

Of all modes of transportation, airline travel would be the most assured method of doing maximum damage by the use of a single suicide bomber.
A similar method on a bus or train would have a less probable outcome. A 35,000 feet drop to the earth is pretty definitive. That is what they are trying to prevent....the actions of a suicide bomber.

Think about this for a moment.

Why are they stepping up security measures? Security is going to be a dynamic operation. It will be ever changing. It's possible the government and the TSA have received information of a possible impending plot.

Flying is not a constitutional right. The TSA is charged with providing security for the flying public, like my youngest son, his wife and my twin 9-month old granddaughters currently in the air between SLC and Houston. I watched my military ID carrying 11-year USN member son get patted down. So what?

Flying isn't a constitutional right. If people feel uncomfortable with the security measures at airports, there are other forms of travel available. Use them. The absurdly inflated outrage and perceived inconvenience of security measures by people who voluntarily choose to fly doesn't outweigh the safety of my flying family members.

Train, bus, car, horses, walk. There are alternatives.

mreza Salav
11-28-2010, 11:32 PM
Flying isn't a constitutional right. If people feel uncomfortable with the security measures at airports, there are other forms of travel available. Use them. The absurdly inflated outrage and perceived inconvenience of security measures of people who voluntarily choose to fly doesn't outweigh the safety of my flying family members.

Train, bus, car, horses, walk. There are alternatives.

Not flying is not really an option for many situations (what are the other practical options to get to China from here?).
I am not against having security measures but the question is how far are you willing to go for this sense of security? Like the scenario Matt is talking about...

Michael James
11-28-2010, 11:42 PM
Coming back from Nassau, I got singled out for a patdown, and I enjoyed it. When I told her so, she blushed! Aint a big thing to me. I think Americans have been too arrogant for way too long; flying everywhere with impunity. No more.
Bottom line is I want to get where ever Im going safely!

Ken Fitzgerald
11-28-2010, 11:47 PM
If the x-ray exposure concerns you.....get the details .....the definitive values in millirads of the exposure of the machine by which you are being exposed....and then compare it to the amount of x-ray specified as an annual safe limit.....Then compare that to the amount you are exposed to annually from the sun......yes...the bright yellow ball in the sky on a clear day. You are exposed to x-ray daily by the sun and other stars.

Don't take the word of the anybody else. Educate yourself.

The FDA under the U. S. Department of Health and Human services (formerly the Bureau of Radiological Health controlled) regulates the amount of x-ray you can be exposed to by any machine used in public. They set the standards.

For over 40 years I have worked with high power RF and x-ray radiation. Also I worked around nuclear reactors in the US Navy.

I can tell you from 34 years of experience of working with x-ray for two different major corporations, the FDA regulators (formerly the BRH) take their job very seriously. The state radiological physicists in each state take their professions very seriously. The machines have to meet both FDA and individual state guidelines set by both Md's and scientists who specialize in radiation safety.

Most of these machines are checked at least on an annual basis by both the manufacturer or service provider and the governing body. They must meet the standards. In some cases they are checked more frequently by the service providers. It depends on the manufacturer's specifications. So you have at least 2 different, independent organizations verifying proper output. All of the machines are designed and built with multiple specialized safety devices to prevent overexposure.

In the case of hospitals, they often hire independent health physicists to check their equipment so they meet accreditation requirements...then you have the service provider and the state radiological physicists. So 3 different organizations independent of each other, measure and confirm proper operation in hospitals.

Don't be scared. Don't overreact.

Educate yourself. Decide for yourself.

Ken Fitzgerald
11-28-2010, 11:59 PM
Not flying is not really an option for many situations (what are the other practical options to get to China from here?).
I am not against having security measures but the question is how far are you willing to go for this sense of security? Like the scenario Matt is talking about...


Ships.....go to China.

Hire a private jet.

There are video conferences, telephone calls.

You will always be able to find some EXTREME example to rebuke current security policy.

I firmly believe a lot of the people who complain about the security measures taken today would complain if they weren't doing it and a suicide bomber was successful in bringing down a jumbojet with 300-400 people aboard. Some folks just like complain. And others believe their personal convenience is more important than public safety.

And...yes....I have been singled out for extra security checks in the past and once I receive my cochlear implant, I will be singled out more often.

Flying isn't a constitutional right.

These heightened security measures is part of the price you pay for travel by public air transportation.

Dan Hintz
11-29-2010, 6:57 AM
As long as the flight deck door can be securely locked, what special security risk exists for airplanes that justifies such draconian and expensive security measures?
You don't have to open the cockpit door to take down a plane, unfortunately.

JohnT Fitzgerald
11-29-2010, 7:13 AM
Exactly, Matt.

More to the point, why do we have airport security at all? (I'm serious). If I wanted to blow up ~100 people, I'd just head to a Super Walmart at about 3pm on a Sunday. Heck, I could probably find all the ingredients I'd need to build a low-yield explosive right there in the store...

Now THAT'S how you'd effectively terrorize Americans - make them afraid of going to Walmart :D


As long as the flight deck door can be securely locked, what special security risk exists for airplanes that justifies such draconian and expensive security measures?

Dan - a major reason for targeting airliners is NOT the people onboard; it's what air travel (people, cargo and goods, etc) means for the worldwide economy. Putting a ding in the perceived safety and reliability of air travel would do serious harm to the World's economies.

JohnT Fitzgerald
11-29-2010, 7:15 AM
Larry, glad you made it through, and with a good experience. I am sure the TSA is treating this as a professional situation.

Hopefully, those that post will avoid the temptation to wade into the politics of this. Lets keep it clean so this thread can remain open! Thanks.

John - as always, thanks for the reminder! so far so good, I think....and Michael's comment about "enjoying" his patdown made me chuckle. Of course, with my luck, I'd have some ex-NFL linebacker named 'Hank' giving me the once-over.

David Weaver
11-29-2010, 7:44 AM
Compare and contrast our security measures at airports vs. israels (you would think their airliners would make for a much more politicially expedient target).

Compare and contrast the safety records, them vs. us.

Is there really an argument that the TSA, the scanners and the pat downs are useful?

There isn't. There's a wrong-headed answer that "who cares, if you don't like it don't go". I guess we'll use the same argument when it comes to buses, trains and subways "you can just walk or drive", both of those being not really the case if you live in a city where parking and driving isn't feasible.

I'm glad I'm no longer a regular airline traveler. It's a joke. It was once I had to take my shoes off and open my laptop case twice a week, and take an hour to go through a baggage security line that used to take 10 minutes here.

David Weaver
11-29-2010, 7:51 AM
For over 40 years I have worked with high power RF and x-ray radiation. Also I worked around nuclear reactors in the US Navy.

I can tell you from 34 years of experience of working with x-ray for two different major corporations, the FDA regulators (formerly the BRH) take their job very seriously. The state radiological physicists in each state take their professions very seriously. The machines have to meet both FDA and individual state guidelines set by both Md's and scientists who specialize in radiation safety.


Would you go as far as to say exposure would have no effect on mortality for a regular traveler, say one who travels 30 times a year?

And would you go out on a limb and say that nobody who works in the environments you're discussing has adverse mortality due to radiation experience that is within the acceptable limits?

Nobody should ever be subjected intentionally to any to radiation for reasons not related to occupation or medicine.

(by the way, while the type of xray that's being used in the TSA scanners is less potent than a medical xray, I haven't seen anyone make the claim that there will be no additional population deaths from cancer due to exposure to the scanners. I have only seen people claim that the numbers will not be distinguishable by source, meaning that there will likely be some cancer deaths due to xrays but since they can't be attributed, nobody will state what caused them. )

I don't want to start any spats here, mortality is more or less part of my trade. There are very few things remotely unhealthy that don't increase mortality risk. Saying there is no risk and saying the risk is very very small are very different things. Annual limits are put in place to balance between death and benefit, not to limit deaths to zero. I would *not* want to be someone who was exposed to any federal annual limit on radiation, the same as I wouldn't want to be exposed to the maximum allowable amount of radon before you have to have a mitigation system installed.

Scott Shepherd
11-29-2010, 8:33 AM
Would you go as far as to say exposure would have no effect on mortality for a regular traveler, say one who travels 30 times a year?



I don't think you'd have to go out on a limb to say that. The exposure to radiation from that machine is LESS than what you'd get if you walked down the street on a sunny day. Also, going up in the plane and flying at altitude exposes you to far more radiation. So if you're not happy with those tiny amounts going through the scanner, you best not get on ANY plane. The higher you go into the atmosphere, the more you are exposed.

The radiation "fiasco" is nothing more than a red herring for people wanting to complain. It has NOTHING to do with facts. If you have ever flown, you have been exposed to higher levels of radiation in the plane itself, not in security.

David Weaver
11-29-2010, 8:46 AM
It is an unreasonable statement to say that it introduces no additional cancer deaths if there is any dose of radiation. It may be relatively less than sun exposure or radiation exposure at altitude, but it isn't none. Justifying by relative severity is relativism at its best (or worst).

Even if it's 10 per billion scans (at that level, you wouldn't be able to attribute it to source).

The real issue is that it's unnecessary, and there is no evidence that it provides any benefit, at least at this point. I can't imagine what it costs, and that cost is a *very* real issue. I do not see huge incidents in other countries who don't use a similar system, and they are, especially in western europe, as big of a target as we are. That's not even discussing israel, who uses none of this stuff and has a better record than we do by a large margin.

Dan Friedrichs
11-29-2010, 9:46 AM
I can't imagine what it costs, and that cost is a *very* real issue.

EXACTLY! We are spending a LOT of money to prevent what amounts to very little risk. The "lives saved per dollar spent" is VERY low. The money could be better used elsewhere.



During the period of time for holiday shopping you might be able to kill 100 people with a single bomb at Walmart. Maybe. Once outside the holiday shopping period, it would be less probable.

You've apparently not been to my local Walmart at 3pm on ANY given Sunday afternoon :D But seriously, an airplane is far from the highest density of people you'd find. The Washingon DC metro rail system, for instance, has no security, and people are packed in there like sardines every single day of the week. Or just go to any big airport and stand in the line that's waiting to get through security - you could cause that same fear of air travel without even getting on the plane, no?



Why are they stepping up security measures? Security is going to be a dynamic operation. It will be ever changing. It's possible the government and the TSA have received information of a possible impending plot.

That implies that it both increases and decreases in severity. When was the last time they REMOVED security measures? :confused:

I don't understand why everyone is so scared of "terrorist plots". Even if "terrorists" managed to stage a 9/11-scale attack EVERY SINGLE WEEK OF THE YEAR, your risk of dying in one is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

Why do we not have a "war on drowning"? :confused:



The radiation "fiasco" is nothing more than a red herring for people wanting to complain. It has NOTHING to do with facts. If you have ever flown, you have been exposed to higher levels of radiation in the plane itself, not in security.
Except radiation exposure is cumulative. Sure you get exposed to some when flying, but overall, you want to minimize the TOTAL amount you are CUMULATIVELY exposed to. Thus, I don't want to get scanned if it isn't necessary.



"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Kent A Bathurst
11-29-2010, 9:46 AM
.... I am sure the TSA is treating this as a professional situation......

They are. My 5 year run as a Platinum club member ended last year [following decade + of Gold status] - just an indication of flight freq. I didn't care what their methods were then, as long as there were no "little Napoleons" involved. New procedures in place for my last 4 check-ins. I still don't care what their methods are. THey are different, they aren't intrusive IMO - Let the TSA do what they think needs to be done, do it professionally and efficiently, keep the lines moving, I'm good.

In all the many hundreds [thousand?] of flights since TSA took over, I ran into a napoleon complex three times. In all three, I stopped the process and said "get a supervisor over here." After a bit of push-back ["this is MY security line" - "No, its MY taxes, and MY flight, so its MY line - get a supervisor"], the supervisor was called. In each instance, after I explained what was going on, the offending officer was sent on break, and someone else took over, and I got an apology. Understand that I had an average of 5+ security pat-downs per week [bionic hip], travel 45 weeks a year, for many years, and 3 examples of unprofessional behavior in dozens of cities. That's a fair batting average in my book.

BTW - as much as people like to gripe about ATL-Hartsfield - I find that the "pro" travellers like it. It's the best-run TSA operation I have found, bar none. [One of the napoleons was there, and I ended up with 3 levels of supv/mgmt that were furious at how I was treated - that young woman had a hard, hard shift to finish after that].

And, no - I don't know how safe it actually keeps us. But, you can't prove a negative - how safe are we without it? or with different methods? - my vote is to try it out on flights I'm not taking. And, Dan - comparing the risks of a small, easily concealed explosive bringing down a vulnerable airplane to the risks of drowning or jaywalking is beyond the pale, IMO - its not a mathematical/economics equation. Remember the context in which Ol' Ben was speaking - he was rallying support among the masses for an armed insurrection to overthrow the ruling government - not applicable to this situation IMHO.

Ken Fitzgerald
11-29-2010, 9:51 AM
David,

You can't site anything that is 100% safe.

BTW...you don't see radiologists driving down the road wearing red glasses anymore.....You don't see them shooting x-rays on their own body to test the machine.....and no....I don't know that any of the people that I have worked with for the last 40 years have had any problems as a result of exposure.

Flying is in itself inherently dangerous. It's a decision you make for convenience of quick travel.

Can you refer to a resource respected by a majority of the scientific community to justify your claims? Or is your argument based on purely personal opinion? I would suggest that if a majority scientific and medical communities agreed with you, the scanners wouldn't be in the airport. Contrary to what some might believe, I don't think there is a conspiracy or plot to allow business to make money at the expense of public health.

....and I really don't care how other countries handle these matters....I don't live in other countries.

IF there are any health issues as a result of low level exposures at the airport, they won't be seen for decades based on my knowledge. The effects of an airplane crash caused by a suicide bomber will be more immediate and probably terminal IMHO....it's that 35,000' drop thing....just my personal opinion.....not referring to any scientific reference on the 35,000' drop thing....

I only stated....educate yourself ........make the decision yourself.....don't listen to me or any other person...including you David.

There are other means of public transportation. Take it.

Ken Fitzgerald
11-29-2010, 10:04 AM
Dan,

Security is dynamic. Sometimes I got through and just empty pockets ( and throw away another pocket knife.....I hope the TSA is selling those rascals used and having a nice Christmas party), walk through the magnetometer and I'm on my way.

The same airport the next time I do all the above and end up getting patted down.

I'm still a pot-bellied 6'2" 265lb balding old man over age 60. What changed? No I didn't have a bigger pocket knife. I remembered to leave it home.

And yes I travel out of bigger airports than Nez Perce International.:p

Kent A Bathurst
11-29-2010, 10:07 AM
....and I really don't care how other countries handle these matters....

Well said, Ken.

I recall in the early months after 9/11, there was an article [Wash Post? NYT?] where they interviewed a former head of Mossad about security measures - and THAT is one seriously tough group of people. He basically said: I can tell you how to keep the USA completely safe from terrorist attacks, guaranteed, but it wouldn't work because the American public would never stand for the intrusion into their privacy that would be required.

Other countries have a very different internal security structure, and laws and attutudes regarding what is allowable re: civil and privacy rights.

David Weaver
11-29-2010, 10:17 AM
I take public transportation every day. It includes a subway. I understand that the DHS is considering putting scanners in a subway. That interests me. I would have approximately 500 exposures per year to a scanner if they do that, and I am in a category of individuals who is at a very high risk for melanoma (and, no, that doesn't just mean "i'm really white").

You do not have to read very far to find discussion of the risk of cancers due to radiation exposure, and even very specific to the TSA issue and backscatter xray. The individuals quoted are not random individuals, they are opposing opinions on the effects by MDs (cancer and radiation specialists), biophysicists, nuclear physicists.

I work with data all day. The most difficult thing to communicate to people is that you can't take statistics from data and infer them to everyone. In this case, you can't use a full-body xray exposure and ratio the amount of radiation to xrays absorbed only or mostly by the skin and confirm a proportional risk, it's not possible and it's also unlikely. You also can't take an average risk and apply it to every individual and state that's their risk. it's already well known that some proportion of society is much more susceptible to developing cancer from radiation exposure than others, it's not an individual average or bank account style accumulation that is the same for everyone.

Your point of view is presented as nobody else has read anything about this or knows anything about it and that anyone opposing x-ray scanner just doesn't understand it, though you're disguising that insistence by saying "go read for yourself" with the implication that "you'll come to my conclusion once you do".

I already did. I can't understand why millimeter wave scanners aren't used. In fact, I can't understand why any scanners are used at all, because just as there is nothing to confirm there's an assignable risk, there really isn't anything to confirm there's an assignable benefit. At the very best, it's makework, and makework lowers the standard of living in society. That's extremely observable.

David Weaver
11-29-2010, 10:27 AM
For the record, were I to go through the airport, I would walk right through the scanner and not worry about whether or not I was harmed.

I would let them squish around my privates if they wanted to "for security".

My point is that there doesn't seem to be a benefit to it, and I don't like to fall into the category of "with what we know now, this is harmless so it's harmless". There are quite a lot of things that have gone 180 degrees from that, but there has always been the assumption that what is instantaneously known makes for a permanent conclusion.

For me, personally, I don't care about the exposure as long as it doesn't take me a lot of extra time to get through the airport. To see how the system thinks it's solving problems, and casts off criticism, and how it has in the past - I think that's a big problem.

I was flying on a very regular basis around 9/11, and saw the change in security measures. I never once felt like the odds of anything bad happening were remotely worth worrying about. I was pulled aside so many times to have my laptop inspected that it was ridiculous. That's just the way it is. You can't ever eliminate the "bad guys" from trying to harm you, but you can easily go above and beyond their potential trying to be the "good guy".

Ken Fitzgerald
11-29-2010, 10:31 AM
David,

And you have not been able to site any respected scientific study or reference or group to verify your opinion. FDA regulations are based on scientific data and studies.

You earlier stated it was unreasonable to say there was no deaths as a result of cancer caused by radiation.

I would suggest it is just as unreasonable to try to spread fear among people with an minority publicly stated opinion that doesn't' appear to be based on recognized and respected scientific evidence.

It would be a wiser choice to place one's safety based on the professional opinions of doctors and scientists specialized in that field IMHO. That's where I will place my chips in this big gamble in life.

If you don't like the idea of scanners, take private transportation.

David Weaver
11-29-2010, 10:49 AM
You can come to where I live and attempt to park and drive, see if you have the same opinion.

The burden of evidence should be on you to prove that there is no increased incidence if there is no measurable benefit, but you keep trying to saddle it on me.

Perhaps you can do some reading from the NIH, the EU and the EPA. Since you cannot accurately measure data for small chronic exposures, it has to be extrapolated. The EPA's statement is as follows:

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/402-f-06-061.pdf

"In other words, it is assumed that no radiation exposure is completely risk free."

They go on to describe that the risk from very small chronic doses may also be very minimal, but they do not state that it is "none".

That is not difficult to parse. I will wait for you to document a confirmed source that says there are no mutogenic effects from the scanners and there will never be any incidence from it. Not "it doesn't look like" or "it will not be measurable". Those are far different from "doesn't exist".

I also would gladly read any source that definitively, by proof, states that the lives saved by scanning is with 100% confidence (or even 95%, the 2 standard deviation gold standard) will be greater than the deaths due to cumulative mutogenic effect.

Since the data has to be extrapolated for the exposure, you can't state that it's known either way.

Until then, this is headed toward a downward spiral where your viewpoint tends toward "trust the government and the published side of the equation that bends toward them, they have a spotless record", and "don't walk out your door". :rolleyes:

Scott Shepherd
11-29-2010, 10:58 AM
It is an unreasonable statement to say that it introduces no additional cancer deaths if there is any dose of radiation. It may be relatively less than sun exposure or radiation exposure at altitude, but it isn't none. Justifying by relative severity is relativism at its best (or worst).



I think it's ridiculous to say that it's relativism. You are actually getting LESS radiation by going through that than you would be if you stood in the line in the sun.

It's a huge story about nothing in my opinion.

Don't like it, get the pat down. No one's forcing you to go through it.

Ken Fitzgerald
11-29-2010, 11:02 AM
David,

When I take vaccinations, I might not see an immediate effect but I am assured by medical and scientific professionals that there is an effect. I realize and accept some small possiblity of adverse reactions or results. It must work, however, as I haven't developed "lock jaw" yet.:D

As a result of the airport body scanners there could well be a preventative effects of which we will never have knowledge.

You must live in a world of fear or constant frustration if you truly don't live by having trust in others. You have my sincere sympathies. I am neither parnoid nor delusional. I will trust my fellow citizens until given reason to do otherwise.

A small explosion would be less likely to have a mass effect in store as suggested earlier. In a confined space like a train or airplane the effect would be more predictable have a greater result. In a train or subway, the effect would still not be as great and absolute as the damage to an airplane that would result in it's crashing and killing everyone.

I will place my trust in the scientists and doctors and my government before I will trust it to "good luck, karma" or the custody of some zealot or demented mind.

I will post no more. Those of us posting here aren't going to change our outlooks so there is no reason.

Dan Friedrichs
11-29-2010, 11:02 AM
It is interesting to note that no one has mentioned TSA's lack of efficaciousness. There have been numerous recent stories of people unintentionally bringing large knives, razor blades, etc through security without being caught.

Ken Fitzgerald
11-29-2010, 11:03 AM
Folks,

Don't let politics enter this discussion.

I will remove it from public view immediately should that happen.

Please...

mreza Salav
11-29-2010, 11:09 AM
Ken,

You keep telling us to educate ourselves and that the amount of radiation from these systems are safe according to the experts. I mentioned in my first post that what these "experts" say might change in a matter of time and what is considered safe by all standards today may not be as safe. I have historical evidence to back my claim here. It was about 30 or 40 years ago that they used the same sort of radiation (yes, x-ray) to treat some sort of skin diseases (even if it was on your head) and they thought it was safe. Not that it was the only option and you'd die from that disease (unlike many cancers). Today they "know" that exposure to that radiation could cause cancer indeed. A family friend of us (in his 60's) who had this sort of treatment is suffering from brain tumors (not just one but many) that have reoccurred after multiple surgery. And probably you know that exposure to x-ray is accumulative, meaning that the effects of it accumulates over time and your body "remembers" the exposure. That's why they say if you have 40 dental x-ray in your life span it is equivalent to having one chest ray (and similar comparison charts).
Even closer to current time, it was said (and perhaps it is still said) that the taser stunt guns used by police cannot cause death. But it appears that in fact many of the heart failures and deaths are directly (or indirectly) cause by the electricity shock of these guns. So much so that the police force in Canada (RCMP) has put more restrictions on the use of the gun.

What I am saying is that what science tells you today might change tomorrow (as it has happened many many times). I am in scientific community myself (although not related to health or security) and most of my travel is to attend scientific conferences and present scientific talks/research articles. I will certainly try to reduce the amount of travel as it gets more annoying to do so and I know many of my colleagues that do this. Isn't this strengthened security eventually going to hurt the economy and our way of life? I think it is. And I am not going to say how easy it is to get some of those forbidden objects on the plane if one wants to (fortunately the would be terrorists haven' been smart enough!).

I choose the option of pat down instead of going through these machines as long as I have this option but I don't call those who think this is fine and a necessary step to have security uneducated who just like to complain.

David Weaver
11-29-2010, 11:19 AM
David,

When I take vaccinations, I might not see an immediate effect but I am assured by medical and scientific professionals that there is an effect. I realize and accept some small possiblity of adverse reactions or results. It must work, however, as I haven't developed "lock jaw" yet.:D

As a result of the airport body scanners there could well be a preventative effects of which we will never have knowledge.

You must live in a world of fear or constant frustration if you truly don't live by having trust in others. You have my sincere sympathies. I am neither parnoid nor delusional. I will trust my fellow citizens until given reason to do otherwise.

A small explosion would be less likely to have a mass effect in store as suggested earlier. In a confined space like a train or airplane the effect would be more predictable have a greater result. In a train or subway, the effect would still not be as great and absolute as the damage to an airplane that would result in it's crashing and killing everyone.

I will place my trust in the scientists and doctors and my government before I will trust it to "good luck, karma" or the custody of some zealot or demented mind.

I will post no more. Those of us posting here aren't going to change our outlooks so there is no reason.

In fact, I don't live in constant fear. I live in a world where I don't want to see knee-jerk reactions.

I don't avoid vaccinations, I don't avoid xray at the dentist, etc.

I also don't blindly follow one side of the argument pretending the other side does not exist, as stating that "trust the doctors" implies, as the groups of people stating the opinion I am repeating are doctors.

I also don't claim that people who don't see the government's point of view are zealots, and I recognize that taking a snapshot of what was "safe" 50 years ago vs. what is "safe" now would have you advocating a lot of things that have proven to be unsafe, things that were definitively stated by doctors and science. The very same thing is likely to continue until "we know everything about everything".

If you think there are no doctors or scientists questioning xray scanners, you need only to search David Brenner or UCSF Letter. It really doesn't cost you anything to read them other than a little bit of time, and it may help you understand why there is a group of people who would like to know more (who is far different than the group of people crying that they're going to die from TSA scanners), and they are not remotely as unreasonable as you'd like to imply.

Matt Meiser
11-29-2010, 11:58 AM
Luckily the FDA has a perfect track record on keeping us safe.

The problem with the current security practice is that its reactionary--some guy got on a plane with a bomb in his shoes so now we check every shoe. Some guy got on a plane with a bomb in his underwear so now they are checking everyone's underwear. By definition they are going to stay a step ahead of us. They aren't stupid, now that that method has been figured out they'll do something else. A friendly agent told me to expect 100% screening of my CPAP machine. I've never had them check that my laptop battery and hard drives were legit.

I'm not entirely convinced these guys actually want to bring down a plane with a bomb. Way more effective at terrorizing people is to make them THINK they were going to bring down a plane with a bomb. Think about it. Say they blew up a plane over the ocean. It would just disappear just like a plane did last year and we'd never know. Even over land there would be much unknown, especially if it fell from 35,000 feet. But make people think you could have done it, get the bad guy on TV and make people and the TSA panic.

From what I read, the underwear bomber shouldn't have every been let on the plane under existing security practices. His appearance and behavior were suspicious and no one did anything. I thought the FAA should have grounded Northwest/Delta for a few days for a thorough review and retraining. Instead we are the ones getting punished. Maybe they could do some customer service training during the downtime too :rolleyes:

If you think about it, Dan does have a point--the old-school security measures to prevent a hijacking are basically moot with the cockpit doors. Procedure says they don't open that door. What harm does my legal-before-9/11 keychain knife to now? Or even someone with a handgun?

If they really wanted to harm a plane, there's no reason to carry something onto a plane as a passenger when there are thousands of "trusted" people entering the airport property with all sorts of goods and materials on a daily basis. No reason to have something at all on the plane other than have a guy open a door while his friends block the way. Or even to be on the plane--there's a lot of remote wooded areas in the flight paths of Detroit. Lots of windows under the flight paths into Chicago. Maybe we should set up a perimeter around every airport and search every vehicle entering that perimeter along with random searches of homes? I mean if you don't like it, move somewhere else, right?

The most effective thing we could do wouldn't even involve the airport but is political so I won't mention it.

Ken Fitzgerald
11-29-2010, 12:20 PM
David,

If I really felt that someone else didn't have a right to a dissenting opinion, I'd have been deleting your posts in this thread. I certainly believe people have a right to disagree.

I wasn't referring to people who disagree with the use of security scanners when I used the term "zealots".

At the same time, I feel it's irresponsible to yell fire in a theater until we know there is a fire. We will never get a 100% agreement on any subject in today's world. It will never happen on the security scanner argument. Therefore I prefer to go with the majority opinion.



Mreza,

Science is ever evolving. No man knows today what he might know tomorrow...and that includes scientists doctors, etc.
(I underlined "might" because at my age...I might not know as much tomorrow as I do today but that's the personal consequence mainly of longevity and living life too hard in my younger years.)

One example doesn't mean science hasn't made improvements in standards.

My point is to educate oneself. Don't take the opinion of one person, one article, one study or a convoluted thread at SMC. Take the time to read and make a decision for yourself. No insults intended...ever in any of my postings. But one article..or one example....doesn't set a trend or a good average or a thorough understanding on any subject.

Over 50 years ago my feet were x-rayed (fluoroscoped) to check the fit while I tried on a new pair of shoes. We know better today.




There are a lot of subjects, law, literature, art, woodturing etc.,for which I am forced to rely on the current knowledge of the experts. I will rely on them today.

I know this. I don't believe we can afford to do nothing and I trust this method over the suggested alternatives I have heard discussed.

There will be no logical conclusions arrived to by this thread except folks wil disagree......and disagree.....and disagree.

Hopefully we can do it in civil, respectful manner.

I will post no more in this thread but will watch it.

Please keep it civil and without politics.

I'd hate to have to move it from public viewing. I really don't enjoy such things.

Eric DeSilva
11-29-2010, 2:00 PM
Ken, a few things to think about.

First, as far as not caring what other countries do... You should. Both recently identified bomb threats on airplanes were flights destined for the US that originated in other countries. What measures we implement here would have done nothing to mitigate those threats.

Second, the argument about flying as a constitutional right seems to me to be misplaced. You don't have an explicit constitutional right to drive either, but would you object to a mandatory pat down before you got in your car? (And, you can make the argument that a car can be a weapon as well--look at the record of car/truck based suicide bombers.) The idea that you have alternatives doesn't mean that this isn't a 4th Amendment issue--are you saying that the TSA could implement pat downs for any activity not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution? Where does it end?

Third, the idea that alternative transportation doesn't have security is somewhat puzzling. Why should we single out air travel--as opposed to the train or the metro? But, if intrusive security is--or should be--extended to those realms as well, then they don't exist as alternative options. Besides, while I take your point about 35K feet being pretty definitive, a train traveling at 60 mph is pretty definitive as well.

Fourth, I believe there have been recommendations from medical doctors that certain classes of individuals, including breast cancer survivors, not use the x-ray backscatter machines. Dr. Jane Orient, physician and Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has publicly stated that she believes the effects of the particular back scatter devices, which concentrate in the skin, have not been sufficiently studied, noting that if physicians wanted to use that technology, they would not be allowed to do so by the FDA. There was also a letter of concern written by four UCSF faculty members--John Sedat, Ph.D, a Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics with expertise in imaging, Dr. Marc Shurman, an internationally known and respect cancer expert, and Drs. David Agard and Robert Stroud, who are "UCSF Professors, X-ray crystallographers, imaging experts and NAS members."

Fifth, you might find this discussion--by a police officer--of the effectiveness of the TSA pat downs and training interesting reading: http://gizmodo.com/5696160/why-the-tsa-could-lead-us-to-public-rebellion-or-a-terrorist-attack. For those that don't follow the link, the basic premise is that TSA security officers don't know what they are doing when performing a pat down and that the pat down and luggage searches are intended to be punitive rather than enhance security.

As a parent of a small child, I have grave, grave concerns about putting my child through one of these backscatter machines. Sure, there is an alternative of the pat down. But, in my city, they advertise on the backs of city buses for TSA officers--I'm really not sure the selection process or training is such that I'm comfortable they are weeding out pedophiles and I'm not comfortable with one of those people groping my child when I'm trying to teach them that no one is supposed to touch them there.

Given all of this, I don't think it is unreasonable for anyone to ask how this actually enhances their security.

Derek Gilmer
11-29-2010, 3:02 PM
Compare and contrast our security measures at airports vs. israels (you would think their airliners would make for a much more politicially expedient target).


This is one part of my major objection to the current level of security. I've heard "experts" on both sides present why the scanner/pat down is good. At the same time. The other side has only to mention that someone willing to hide 500+ grams of explosives internally would skip right through either check point. On the other hand Israel and other countries that employ "profiling" as part of the security have had a good record for quite a while.

It is sad to me that on the whole the American populace is willing to trade in some to all of there dignity and have somewhat nude pictures take OR trade in some the idea of innocent until proven guilty by submitting to being patted down like a criminal in the name of security. But they are unwilling to give up on political correctness and build security that are of certain nationalities or that take regular trips to certain countries are much more likely to be a risk to flights than my 85 year old grandmother who has never left the backwoods of Kentucky.

If we are going to give things up to secure our country, lets give up being 110% P.C. first imho.

David Weaver
11-29-2010, 3:23 PM
Coming back from Nassau, I got singled out for a patdown, and I enjoyed it. When I told her so, she blushed! Aint a big thing to me. I think Americans have been too arrogant for way too long; flying everywhere with impunity. No more.
Bottom line is I want to get where ever Im going safely!

You may want to start looking at flying from the FBO then.

(unless you're like me and you thought the airlines were plenty safe before the TSA ever existed, then you're just as safe as you always were, but probably not more safe, just get a free massage)

Dave Ogren
11-29-2010, 3:43 PM
Hey Guys I got this this AM Looks like the solution to me.

Dave




Subject: Perfect Airport Security Solution...


http://65.55.72.119/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=e93314e7-fbd8-11df-b642-00215ad9659a&attindex=0&cp=-1&attdepth=0&imgsrc=cid%3a4E630F97521346B0A504199D8E832306%40Da dsDen&hm__login=daveogren&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.13.154.8&d=d3090&mf=0&hm__ts=Mon%2c%2029%20Nov%202010%2020%3a39%3a05%20G MT&st=daveogren&hm__ha=01_7797e40cdba7be7b7b364104679b1123789e2bbd 8748d2aa40d240cbf523f212&oneredir=1

Rod Sheridan
11-29-2010, 7:03 PM
I'm certainly not an expert on security of any type, however I'm curious as to whether checked bagage and cargo is X-ray inspected or visually opened for inspection?

I travel for work and often ship electronic test equipment and tools as air freight. It would be very easy to ship something in those packages.

As to not caring what other countries do, I think that's a poor outlook. It's often better to learn from the mistakes of others than have to make them yourself.

Regards, Rod.

Jim Rimmer
11-29-2010, 8:44 PM
A lot of interesting discussion here. I'm joining late because I've been traveling from the nation's capital to Houston. Here's my two cents:

The TSA crew at Dulles was not too bad; they just need some training in common courtesy. Since I have to wait maybe ten to finfteen minutes to get through, would it kill them to give me 30 seconds to gather up all the clothing I had to take off rather than rushing me, pulling my stuff off the conveyor, and ramming me with the other bags coming through. After all, they stop the conveyor a lot anyway, what would a few seconds per passenger do besides relieve stress for the passenger. Could the person with the canned speech about laptops and cell phones, etc. use a little friendlier tone. Sure, she repeats it 100s of times a day but a kind tone gets better cooperation. And instead of saying to me, "Take that sweatshirt off." How about, "TSA guidelines require you to remove the sweatshirt. Thanks." Doesn't cost anything and doesn't take but a few milliseconds longer to say.

I don't buy the "we should do what Israel does" argument. They have only one airline and one (maybe two, I'm not sure) airports. Other airlines fly there but the tightest security is on El Al. I've flown into and out of Tel Aviv and their system works. But there is a limited number of passengers compared to the US.

I wouldn't give a hoot about what the TSA is doing if I thought for a minute what they are doing was worthwhile. A couple of years after 9/11, ICE raided the big airport (Bush International) in Houston and arrested over 100 illegal aliens working behind the security area. If they could allow that many people to work in the secure area without so much as a cursory background check, why should I be subjected to such scrutiny?

I truly beleive that the ONLY reason TSA does what they do is because the traveling public expects them to do something. It's sad that the something they do doesn't really make us any safer at all.

Joel Goodman
11-29-2010, 9:58 PM
To me the radiation issue is somewhat of a concern. The airline pilots got an exemption and radiation exposure was one of their reasons for requesting the exemption -- that is that they fly so much and each time they would be exposed. The problem with the way that radiation safety is evaluated is that it doesn't take into account all exposure sources we face, and radiation exposure is cumulative; the airport scanner is "safe", the CT scan I just got at the hospital is "safe", the panoramic xrays the orthodontist ordered are "safe", the cell phone is "safe" etc., but all together it may be a different story. The total exposure may be over the safe limit. I don't know of a study that has looked at the total radiation a group of "average" Americans are exposed to. If anyone has seen one I'd be very interested.
I'm not sure if these scanners are making us safer. The fact that prisoner smuggle weapons "internally" gives me pause, as does the fact that the former head of Homeland Security, who has been advocating the need for these scanners, is now being paid by the manufacturer. Talk about the revolving door in Washington.

Curt Harms
11-30-2010, 11:29 AM
It is interesting to note that no one has mentioned TSA's lack of efficaciousness. There have been numerous recent stories of people unintentionally bringing large knives, razor blades, etc through security without being caught.

I had that experience. I had a cheap multitool in my carryon. One airport missed it, one airport caught it. The first time I forgot I had it, the second time I forgot to put it in checked baggage. I was given the option of mailing it to myself for $10. I could get a better one at Harbor Freight for less than $10. Told 'em to keep it.