"Enhanced" Pat Down

[edwinshap1]

you wanna know somethign scary? You can put two part epoxy in small tooth paste bottles and no one would know until you mix it together and glue something together. Someone could easily sneak liquids onto a plane, and it wouldn't be detectable. i think george carlin said it best, "it's to make people feel safe, that's all it is. they know they can't make an airport completely safe, so they do what makes it look safe to make people feel safe." And have you noticed not one serious threat has ever been caught at the security check point?

I admire it, but if we want to stop the terrorist we need some seriously different procedures.

 

[RangerStl]

I'm thinking of getting some of these.

https://cargocollective.com/4thamendment#802869/Metallic-Ink-Printed-T-Shirt

For this to be reasable on the back-scatter x-ray, wouldn't it have to be printed in reverse?

 

[billspad]

I think I have seen Ben Gurion on the TV criticizing the US for relying on technology too much and suggesting that the US should use El Al security techniques instead. What El Al does is "interview" everybody before they board the plane, asking questions and watching the responses for psychological indicators that help them identify potential terrorists. These potential threats are then further screened.

Personally I don't think this method would really be any better. US citizens would complain about the intrusive questions, the cross-examination style, the 'profiling' more than the pat downs. From what I understand a person is only subject to the pat down if they refuse to pose for the scanner.

The TSA has a version of this. There are people wandering around the airport studying passengers waiting to get through security. They're trained to watch people's actions that indicate they're up to no good. I have no idea if it works or how well it works. I can't figure out how you'd be able to tell a terrorist from someone who's terrified of flying or who's getting edgy because his flight boards in 15 minutes and he's waiting in line. Unfortunately we'll never know if anything works until it doesn't.

The solution is quite simple. Until January the current system will remain in place, be scanned or be searched. Starting January 10th if you fly you must submit to be scanned, if you refuse you cannot service nor board the plane, period. This applies equally to passengers, pilots, attendents, mechanics, baggage handlers, food service personel, ramp workers, etc. By January 10th the Holiday flying season will be over. Over the next six months the airlines, air freight companies that use commercial passenger airliners for transportion of packages, the airports, and the US government will pay for and install similar scanners to check all baggage and packages that ship aboard airliners.

Scanning pilots makes no sense to me. They're allowed to have guns and they have the keys to a vehicle with tons of metal and fuel. Checking to see if they have a bomb in their underwear seems irrelevant.

 

[dr wogz]

On aside note, checkeing the personnel isn't just for looking for "terrorist" activities, but is also aimed at cutting down on contreban & smuggling..

 

[eugenefl]

Don't Touch My Junk!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhEMRSp7vaY&feature=player_embedded

Best line: "Lordy Lordy, I declare, Big Brother's in my underwear!"

 

[rocketguy101]

I went to the airport this evening and got the "enhanced" pat down / groin grope five times. Then they told me I had to either get on a plane or leave the airport. Dang.

Don's original post reminded me of this story....

A "heads up" for those of you who may be regular Home Depot customer.

Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't
be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends.

Here's how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking 20-21 year-old girls
come over to your car as you are packing your shopping items into the trunk.

They both start wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their chest almost falling out of their skimpy T-shirts. It is impossible not to look.
When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say "No" and instead ask you
for a ride to another Home Depot or Lowe's. You agree and they get in the back seat.

On the way, they start undressing. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and starts crawling all over you, while the other one steals your wallet.

I had my wallet stolen September 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th,
20th, and 24th.

Also, October 1st, 3rd, twice on the 7th, three times just yesterday and very
likely again this upcoming weekend.

So tell your friends to be careful.​

 

[MarkII]

For this to be reasable on the back-scatter x-ray, wouldn't it have to be printed in reverse?

I have no issue with full body scans at the airport, but I was amused by the "in your face" approach that these products took. They gave me a chuckle. I have no idea whether or not the writing would actually be readable. The x-ray scans on the site were funny enough, even though they might have all been Photoshopped.

 

[Mike Di Venti]

you wanna know somethign scary? You can put two part epoxy in small tooth paste bottles and no one would know until you mix it together and glue something together. Someone could easily sneak liquids onto a plane, and it wouldn't be detectable. i think george carlin said it best, "it's to make people feel safe, that's all it is. they know they can't make an airport completely safe, so they do what makes it look safe to make people feel safe." And have you noticed not one serious threat has ever been caught at the security check point?

I admire it, but if we want to stop the terrorist we need some seriously different procedures.

Right.
The last time I flew Continental, they gave me these long plastic scewer type things with my sandwich. They were pretty thick. That flight I had one of those secondary searches just before boarding the plane for whatever reason.
I was thinking to myself the danger of what the flight attendant gave me to eat with. And they're worried about us bringing something onboard.

The US was told way back in the 70's to reenforce the cockpit doors and we didn't do squat because it "costs too much".
I ultimately blame the industry and cheap security for 9-11 (among others) and the fallout we're dealing with now. The terrorist have won there war with us. We now have SEA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act. All big government that doesn't make us any safer, just poorer.

My family and I were going to fly down to FL. next June. Nope. Driving baby.
I won't fly again unless I have no other option.

End rant. Sorry.

 

[judo]

From the beginning of my x-ray physics classes, our instructor stressed upon us time and time again one lesson: Scatter is bad. The simple explanation of scatter radiation is that it is the radiation that it created inside your body as you receive an x-ray exam. All those high speed electrons directed through your body run into other electrons. That in turn actually generates more x-rays. Some of them exit your body and add unwanted darkeness (density) to the image. Good for you, bad for the image. Some of that radiation actually stays in your body. Good for the image, bad for you.

Imagine being shot by a bullet. I'm sure some of you have. I've heard it said that it is better for you if the bullet passes through your body rather than get stuck in it. Think of scatter like electron sized bullets.

I was trained that it is better for my patients to receive higher kVp / lower mAs exposures vice low kVp / high mAs exposures given identical quality images. Quick example: an exposure made with a technique of 100 kVp @ 6 mAs could also be done at 85 kVp @ 12 mAs. (15% rule: it takes a +/-15% change in kVp to make a noticeable change in image density. So to make up for a loss of penetrating power (lower kVp) a technologist must double the time of the exposure (higher mAs).

Patient size also matters. If you are trying to be "America's Next Top Model", your body will not create as much scatter. If you are trying out for "Biggest Loser", your body will create much more scatter.

A backscatter x-ray machine uses low energy photons to create an image. This is the stuff I've been trained to avoid. I'm afraid that if I have to fly, I'm going to opt out. I have no idea how millimeter wave radar gets it images. I'm curious to find out.

See also: Compton Effect. One group's opinion: https://www.wholebodycures.com/airport_x-ray_scanners.html

 

[bobkrech]

IMO there is no justificaton for exposing individuals to ionizating radiation when an equally effective non-ionizating radiation method exists for explosives and firearm detection.

X-ray backscatter is a non-elastice process: The incident x-ray interacts with matter generating an electron and a lower energy x-ray which is then detected. The energy of ionization disrupts the cell that scatters the x-ray, and can lead to a cell mutation. This is a remote, but real possibility. We are continually exposed to natural sources of ionizing radiation: natural radioactive decay and cosmic rays. Most cell disruptions are fixed naturally however a very, very small fraction are not, and can lead to a bad cell mutation resulting in cancer. This is unavoidable, but that's why most radiation experts recommend minimizing exposure to x-rays and other ionizing radiations.

The mm-wave or terrahertz body scanners do not used ionizing radiation, and indeed the wavelength of the radiation is longer than heat. It causes no adverse biological effects, but is equally effective in detecting guns and hidden explosives. Instead of complaining about the use of body scanners, the general public should insist on the use of safe body scanners, not ones that generate ionizing radiation.

The images are equally good, so why expose the public to ionizing radiation, and more importantly, expose the TSA screeners to them.

Bob

 

[RandyT0001]

The mm-wave or terrahertz body scanners do not used ionization radiation, and indeed the wavelength of the radiation is longer than heat. It causes no adverse biological effects, but is equally effective in detecting guns and hidden explosives. Instead of complaining about the use of body scanners, the general public should insist on the use of safe body scanners, not ones that generate ionizing radiation.

The images are equally good, so why expose the public to ionizing radiation, and more importantly, expose the TSA screeners to them.

Possible reasons:

1. Because these were cheaper.
2. Because the manufacturer made significant contributions to prominent Congressional committee members that oversaw the selection of scanners to be installed.
3. Because the manufacturer influenced the TSA administrator that oversaw the selection of scanners to be installed with dinners, professional sport game tickets, spousal employment, etc.

Take your pick. By the time the bad side effects are proven and accepted by the FDA, CDC, Surgeon General's office, FAA, etc. the "prominent Congressional committee members" and the "TSA administrator" will long be dead.

 

[JAL3]

On aside note, checkeing the personnel isn't just for looking for "terrorist" activities, but is also aimed at cutting down on contreban & smuggling..

That runs right into the 4th ammendment problem. Is being employed by an airline "probable cause" to assume you are up to no good?

 

[roadkill]

Good points Judo and Bob,

I've also seen a quotation from TSA/DHS/CIS intra-agency
memo that states 'pregnent women and young children should
avoid scanners due to health risks...'

Just can't remeber where I saw it, dang this
budding Altzheimers....

Randy, I'll take #4 - All of the above...

 

[Sandy H.]

I'll add a #4 to Randy's list:

#4: The decision maker was not qualified to make the decision.

I have seen way too many people make major decisions without the proper training or qualifications. If you don't have enough background, all you can believe is sales hype. However if the same products were presented to Judo or Bob, they would see right through to the core issue. It could be #1-#3, but #4 is also too prevalent.

Sandy.

 

[Peartree]

I'll add a #4 to Randy's list:

#4: The decision maker was not qualified to make the decision.

I have seen way too many people make major decisions without the proper training or qualifications. If you don't have enough background, all you can believe is sales hype. However if the same products were presented to Judo or Bob, they would see right through to the core issue. It could be #1-#3, but #4 is also too prevalent.

Sandy.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner here. We can see that no person with medical or X-ray knowledge would have made this decision. On the technology side we often see congressional decisions that no rational person with an engineering background would make. Shoot, 95% of all congresscritters are all lawyers.

As always, follow the money.

 

[o1d_dude]

To paraphrase Samuel Clemens...

Congress critters = bloodsucking leeches

 

[RocketMonkey]

Safest commercial flight I ever took I didn't even have to go through a metal detector. I was on my way to Seattle to pick up a prisoner so I was armed and went around security. Felt nice and safe flying with a concealed sidearm.

 

[edwinshap1]

if the opposite of pro is con, what's the opposite of progress?
'nough said


it's all a joke the only way to make airplanes completely safe is if the airports did what the area 51 guards do. you step onto their land, they strip/cavity search you and send you away in cheap white clothes. otherwise stuff can get through too easily...

 

[judo]

To paraphrase Samuel Clemens...

Congress critters = bloodsucking leeches

Sir, you are a congressman and an idiot, but I repeat myself.
-also Sam Clemens

 

[roadkill]

the only way to make airplanes completely safe is if the airports did what the area 51 guards do. you step onto their land, they strip/cavity search you and send you away in cheap white clothes.

DUDE ! - How do you know ???
:y:

 

[stardust]

The Muslim Extremists are laughing cause they can just come across the Mexican Border...Next they will blow up a truck trailer, all trucks will have to be checked, then trains, then cars, and then all houses...then any one on the street ! parks! alleys!! Mailboxes!!! groceries!!!! WALMARTS!!!! THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!!!!!Ahhhhh

 

[MysticalRockets]

When I get one of the pat downs, I tend to instinctively reach for my wallet and pull out a 20 dollar bill.

 

[MarkII]

DUDE ! - How do you know ???
:y:

Two words, the second of which is "probe."

 

[spacecadet]

Safest commercial flight I ever took I didn't even have to go through a metal detector. I was on my way to Seattle to pick up a prisoner so I was armed and went around security. Felt nice and safe flying with a concealed sidearm.

YOU felt safe, but I'm not sure I would have, knowing you might shoot a hole in the aeroplane and kill everybody.

 

[roadkill]

YOU felt safe, but I'm not sure I would have, knowing you might shoot a hole in the aeroplane and kill everybody.

That myth got totally busted a couple years ago...

 

[RangerStl]

YOU felt safe, but I'm not sure I would have, knowing you might shoot a hole in the aeroplane and kill everybody.

As someone with knowledge in these areas (both commercial aircraft and firearms), I can say without reservation that shooting a hole in the side of the airplane with a handgun would not even cause the oxygen masks to drop right away. The pressurization system could keep up with the leak rate for a little while.

Nobody would be sucked out the hole. Nobody's blood would boil causing painful death.

A direct hit to a window would also not blow the window out, so nobody would get sucked out a window from one shot. Even if the window blew out, only the unlucky person sitting right next to that window would be in danger of being pulled from the aircraft.

All that being said, air marshals are issued frangible bullets, but not to keep from puncturing the airplane. A frangible bullet will still puncture the thin aluminum skin of an airplane unless the technology got a lot more precise than it was a couple years ago. They are to prevent unintended injury to other passengers from the bullet passing through the body of the intended target.

 

[SecretSquirrel]

The TSA is producing a 2011 calendar, Miss January is cute!

 

[spacecadet]

I'm still not sure it's a good idea for an airliner to have a hole in it.
Perhaps we just have a different attitude towards firearms this side of the pond.

 

[Ironnerd88]

Next time I fly, I am wearing my bath robe and flip flops. Easy access for "enhanced" pat downs with no need for the scanner :roll:

 

[RangerStl]

I'm still not sure it's a good idea for an airliner to have a hole in it.

Truly one would rather not puncture the skin of an airliner. I agree with this.

My point was to reassure you that, contrary to what is commonly believed and popularly portrayed, all the passengers are not in imminent danger of death from a small bullet hole in an airplane.

Perhaps we just have a different attitude towards firearms this side of the pond.

Of this I am absolutely certain.