Originally Posted by
TSORon
Originally Posted by OldGoat
Originally you said:
I asked you to provide data to back up the assertion that ETD systems are particularly good at identifying "something dangerous".
You did not provide data, instead, you changed your tune significantly and now say:
I'm glad you recognized your mistake.
It was a mistake only if one is willing to reduce the idea that alarms always indicate something dangerous. ETD alarms
indicate that there is a chemical present that is also present in explosives. In other words, something dangerous.
I believe the point being made, as well as the request for data, is to help determine whether the testing is effective or not. If the testing is effective at finding WEI, then people would likely be less resistant to it. As of now, the amount of WEI found through this testing appears to be negligible based on what has been reported to date.
I am personally of the opinion that any WEI found to date via this method actually falls within or below the actual margin of error and that searching people at random would likely give as good a result - and at a significant cost savings.
Ron: I don't know if you have access to any, or all, of the data, but with what you do know (or can observe in your position) and since the purpose is to find WEI:
- Take the amount of actual WEI found by this method and divide it by the number of passengers where the machine has alarmed and multiply by 100 for a percentage. (Effective percentage of postive test results.)
- Take the amount of actual WEI found by this method and divide it by the total passengers tested and multiply by 100 for a percentage. (Percentage of true positive test results.)
- Take the total direct costs of testing (equipment, swabs, personnel, etc.) and divide that by the number of actual WEI found by this method. (Average direct cost per true positive test result.)
My guesses are that 1 is small, 2 is very small, and that 3 is significantly large, especially when reviewed against 1 and 2.
My point? The cost / benefit ratios would not appear to point to this an effective test method for finding WEI - a primary goal of the administrative searches by TSA.
As all of life comes with risks, the struggle is to learn how to balance those risks against the costs and rewards. Sometimes it works out that the costs involved (ETD testing) exceed the reward (finding WEI via ETD testing) for the limited risk that is present (number of WEI found via ETD testing). The sad part is, the same could be said for the (in)effectiveness of the AIT scanners.