I am not a scientist, but I inspect machinery with electronic detection techniques that to the average observer appear to be very complex and hard to understand. That is because they are. ETD and even the X-ray of bags is no different.

When my tools show a problem within the machine, I always first double check the operation of my equipment before I automatically assume the machine is bad. I run multiple non-evasive tests to confirm and determine severity. The absolute last thing we do is take the machine apart and look inside.

It seems with the TSA that they get one bad test, and it is hands on immediately. There is no question that there may have been a problem with the test, let's just take the "machine" apart and see what is wrong with no thought of the comfort or humiliation of the tested.

I follow meticulous procedures, as I am certain that you do as well, to minimize error from contaminated data, proper reading and measurement of samples and maintaining calibration of devices. In general, should an anomaly be reported by the equipment, it is my FIRST thought that the test may be faulty and that possibility eliminated. It seems with the TSA their machines can never be seen as fallible, just like their people. We must be led to believe in their perfection and if we question it or their procedures, it is further evidence that we are indeed the criminal that they suspect us to be just because we had the audacity to buy a ticket to get on an airplane.

Class A ***hole on a power trip.

That would have got me arrested right there, which is why I seldom endure the TSA any longer.

Do you have any pointers about how to explain the concept of scientific controls without using the word "control"?

And yet, at least once, they completely missed five pounds of undisguised, unhidden C4 high explosive, still in it's original wrapper clearly marked "C4 HIGH EXPLOSIVE", when an Army non-com somehow forgot that it was in his bag at Fayettville.

Though I am not a scientist, I prefer to use the word "baseline" when discussing control tests; it seems to be easier for the average person to understand the concept when I use that word.

I see it differently. If anyone should be humiliated for groping someone else in public, it is the groper, not the gropee.

If someone in authority insists on groping my genitals under the guise of "security", I don't intend to pretend that that's a normal transaction.

"Calibration standard," "Standard result," or just plain "Standard" works as well. "Standards" are used in machine tool and precision tool calibration.

Yes, if I was doing a medical trial with a new drug , I would do the trial with multiple people with some of them (blindly-not knowing) they were taking a placebo

But apparently not for TSA employment.

?

OP did nothing wrong but was humiliated in public, scared by TSA, and subjected to interrogation including intrusive personal and professional questions.

OP was fully within his/her rights to refuse to answer every single one of those questions, and probably would have been (illegally) denied travel if that right were exercised.

Just because the OP didn't get arrested doesn't make what the wannabe jackbooted thugs do right. Doing screening at the checkpoint, not the gate as the flight is boarding, reduces the time pressure and public humiliation. And the whole procedure after positive alarms on the ETD is way overboard given that virtually all alarms are false.

Standards

Precision

Tool

TSA

That mix of words brings so many off-color comments to mind...

They are not doing this to "protect" the flight or the public. It's all part of a dragnet where they hope to identify folks that may have handled explosives, guns/ammo, fertilizer, glycerine, or other common things outside of the airport environment. It is all part of a dragnet, collection of names/personal data for a database so they can check up on you later.

I doubt it. It's more likely to be simple theatre, as the current set of employees can barely be trusted not to pee on the floor, let alone do important tasks like "don't steal from the passengers," or "take down names of people who generate false alarms from the ETD swabs."

There is one thing I will always trust TSA to do well, and that is retaliate against anyone who annoys them in any way.

Oh, agreed. But I don't believe that retaliation goes any further up the chain than the immediate taking umbrage at the idea that some traveling peon is questioning their "authoritah" and making sure that person "feels some pain."

I dunno... there have been multiple reports (I even saw one caught on a YouTube video) of TSOs demanding travelers' ID and writing down their particulars to put into some sort of "report". While I seldom doubt the ability of a US government agency to completely lose citizens' personal data, I do have to wonder what happens with the info in those "reports" - wouldn't there be some influence on the watch lists from them?