Practical Travel Safety Issues - New security measures and the stress of flying

This is sort of a "Freakonomics" question about unintended consequences.

Could more people die as a result of the new security rules?

The start-off point is that there has only been one death in the US from airline terrorism since 2001, and that was from an air marshall killing a person with psychiatric illness.

There have been some studies looking at air travel's health effects. Passengers' blood pressure can rise by 40-50 mm/Hg or higher just passing through the airport.

There are combined stressors: the need to be on time, carrying heavy bags, destination issues (visiting family, stressful business meetings), and the fatigue from jetlag or traveling in general.

Now add multiple long waits for security screening, increasingly intrusive pat-downs (virtual, physical), and the inability to bring even the most benign distractions (no books on flights from Canada to the US, for example.)

Could this actually lead to more heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks, migraines, psychotic episodes, or other stress-related illnesses? Add this to the need for full-body radiation before every flight (even if the TSA says it's at a safe level, let's talk about the "safe" CT scanners at Cedars-Sinai.)

Could the TSA's efforts to protect the public actually be causing harm?

I know that I often have to take a sedative before undergoing intrusive or abrasive security screening, many of my patients do the same. So there are some serious public health questions to be asked.

It seems impossible to prove that the security measures themselves could be the last straw in the manifestation of morbidity and mortality, but I think it's a legitimate question.

I can't answer your question, but I do see far to many medical calls here.

I can't answer your question, but I do see far to many medical calls here.

I do see...
people flying less (those who can afford it) because of all the extra hassle.

This is sort of a "Freakonomics" question about unintended consequences.

Could more people die as a result of the new security rules?

The start-off point is that there has only been one death in the US from airline terrorism since 2001, and that was from an air marshall killing a person with psychiatric illness.

There have been some studies looking at air travel's health effects. Passengers' blood pressure can rise by 40-50 mm/Hg or higher just passing through the airport.

There are combined stressors: the need to be on time, carrying heavy bags, destination issues (visiting family, stressful business meetings), and the fatigue from jetlag or traveling in general.

Now add multiple long waits for security screening, increasingly intrusive pat-downs (virtual, physical), and the inability to bring even the most benign distractions (no books on flights from Canada to the US, for example.)

Could this actually lead to more heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks, migraines, psychotic episodes, or other stress-related illnesses? Add this to the need for full-body radiation before every flight (even if the TSA says it's at a safe level, let's talk about the "safe" CT scanners at Cedars-Sinai.)

Could the TSA's efforts to protect the public actually be causing harm?

I know that I often have to take a sedative before undergoing intrusive or abrasive security screening, many of my patients do the same. So there are some serious public health questions to be asked.

It seems impossible to prove that the security measures themselves could be the last straw in the manifestation of morbidity and mortality, but I think it's a legitimate question.

You raise really interesting points -- and I can't begin to imagine how one would structure a study to begin to address them; I'd have to ask an epidemiologist. In part, at least, I wonder if anything could be made from emergency response records for large airports? That might give us some idea about acute stressors, but I'm not sure how we'd measure chronic stressors.

Thought-provoking, though.

~~ Irish

I have a masters in epidemiology, but I don't really know how one would structure a study: too many confounders.

I have a masters in epidemiology, but I don't really know how one would structure a study: too many confounders.

I have the journeyman's knowledge I picked up in college and the bits I've picked up day-to-day over the years on the job. (I'm in public health, but not in epidemiology, per se.) I guess I've a fair knowledge of statistics -- and when I started listing the variables in my head, my eyes crossed. What you say makes seat-of-the-pants sense, though, so it bugs me that there doesn't seem to be a way to quantify it.

~~ Irish

This is exactly what the terrorist want

This is sort of a "Freakonomics" question about unintended consequences.

Could more people die as a result of the new security rules?

<deletia>

Could the TSA's efforts to protect the public actually be causing harm?

I know that I often have to take a sedative before undergoing intrusive or abrasive security screening, many of my patients do the same. So there are some serious public health questions to be asked.

It seems impossible to prove that the security measures themselves could be the last straw in the manifestation of morbidity and mortality, but I think it's a legitimate question.

I don't take sedatives, but it's been obvious to me ever since 2001 that the most stressful part of flying for me is getting through security. My whole goal is to get through without yelling at anyone who can put me in jail. I have a very low boredom threshold, am very impatient with stupidity, and loathe standing on line, etc. I deal with it by arriving insanely early, getting through before the lines form and so that there is spare time for dealing with unexpected disruptions, working precisely to the published rules, and then going and chilling in the airline club.

But it is the single thing I really hate about flying. And it's spilling over into the rest of life: I was offered Wimbledon tickets last year and didn't take them in part because going to the tournament would require passing through a bag search with rules about what you could and couldn't take. For what was supposed to be a fun day out, it wasn't worth it. And increasing numbers of public events and locations are now implementing such things.

wg

It's possible. In the month after 9/11, many people who would otherwise have flown instead got in the car and drove. Statistical analyses indicate that this caused more deaths than it prevented, because driving is much riskier than flying. In fact, the numbers I've seen suggest that the number of excess deaths in the month after 9/11 due to this shift alone exceeded the number of people who died on 9/11 as a result of the attack itself. This shows how the response to an attack (to introduce extra security) can actually do more harm than the original attack. It's a sort of self-inflicted wound.

My whole goal is to get through without yelling at anyone who can put me in jail. I have a very low boredom threshold, am very impatient with stupidity, and loathe standing on line, etc. I deal with it by arriving insanely early, getting through before the lines form and so that there is spare time for dealing with unexpected disruptions, working precisely to the published rules, and then going and chilling in the airline club.

wg

Universal law of brute force: A Smith and Wesson beats four aces.

One never really can win an argument when ones opponent has the government granted authority to shoot you. Even if you are right.

Knowing this creates stress. You can be right, but you are still wrong if the authority decides you are wrong.

So we try to move through these situations with a minimum of interaction, but on occasion, do to no fault of our own and for reasons that are not obvious, someone decides to assert authority under an often ridiculous pretense. We try to ignore it, but our logical selves resist and try to affect correction. This is not a good move. We should just nod our heads, say I am sorry, it will not happen again, thank you for telling me that. But we don't. We try to correct the system. A system built on on illogical premises.

And in this confrontation, we lose. We always lose. Repeated losses train us to not be confrontational.

The end result is nude body scanners, un-warranted pat downs, confiscation of harmless personal property, barefoot walks in public hallways, semi-stripping and searches all in the name of safety. In the end giving in and giving up is easier.

Until the end, when you think back on how it might have been and may wish that you could figuratively put the toothpaste back in the tube. But, and never ever forget this, only if is a 3.5 oz or smaller tube placed in a zip lock bag.

Universal law of brute force: A Smith and Wesson beats four aces.

One never really can win an argument when ones opponent has the government granted authority to shoot you. Even if you are right.

Knowing this creates stress. You can be right, but you are still wrong if the authority decides you are wrong.

So we try to move through these situations with a minimum of interaction, but on occasion, do to no fault of our own and for reasons that are not obvious, someone decides to assert authority under an often ridiculous pretense. We try to ignore it, but our logical selves resist and try to affect correction. This is not a good move. We should just nod our heads, say I am sorry, it will not happen again, thank you for telling me that. But we don't. We try to correct the system. A system built on on illogical premises.

And in this confrontation, we lose. We always lose. Repeated losses train us to not be confrontational.

The end result is nude body scanners, un-warranted pat downs, confiscation of harmless personal property, barefoot walks in public hallways, semi-stripping and searches all in the name of safety. In the end giving in and giving up is easier.

Until the end, when you think back on how it might have been and may wish that you could figuratively put the toothpaste back in the tube. But, and never ever forget this, only if is a 3.5 oz or smaller tube placed in a zip lock bag.

so true. they have got us in submission. i have given up on brushing while flying. it all goes in the belly. i only hand carry want i don't want stolen.