Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
The ETD test is proven unreliable due to excessive false alarms. (I term the alarm false when no contraband is found) When a test alarms on common products such as body lotions then the test proves nothing.
It proves that those common items are made of things that the machine was programmed to look for. Maybe future technology will allow for better programming.
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
So what things might a young boy encounter that would possibly alarm ETD?
He's a heart patient. Nitroglycerin medication comes to mind.
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
Yet the screeners still moved their focus from the person who did alarm to a person who did not alarm. I don't see how that meets the "Risk Based Screening" objective. If the kid was a mule then wouldn't the mother take extra precaution to not contaminate herself?
The final question, what percentage of 9 year old boys, with flights originating in the U.S., are found to be carrying weapons of any sort?
Real "Risk Based Screening" would have an answer for that question
You answered your own question. The percentage of terrorist 9 year olds on American soil is pretty slim. I'm pretty sure that the Israelis wouldn't have ignored him if a similar situation occurred at one of their own checkpoints. If there wasn't risk screening, the boy would have been frisked. Is that what you'd rather have?