Airports and TSA

[mreza Salav]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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-t...rrorist-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]

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]

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]

Hey Guys I got this this AM Looks like the solution to me.

Dave




Subject: Perfect Airport Security Solution...

[Rod Sheridan]

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]

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]

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]

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.