Opt-out minors and enhanced patdowns -- looking for facts
Oct 29, 2010, 3:44 pm
#16
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
Oct 29, 2010, 3:58 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Oct 29, 2010, 4:22 pm
#18
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
because there was threats on cargo planes, which they don't today screen and still won't tomorrow, they are now stepping up the screening on passenger flights.
The level of stupidity exhibited sometimes is shocking.
Oct 29, 2010, 7:47 pm
#19
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,662
Depending on the age of your child I would say this:
It's not appropriate to expect the child to understand the difference between a child molester and smurf (if there is any). Therefore the child should respond appropriately: by screaming "bad touch" at the top of his or her little lungs. Since children can get away with that sort of thing more than adults I can't think of anything that would call more attention to the problem then some kid screaming about how the smurf just touched his privates.
It's not appropriate to expect the child to understand the difference between a child molester and smurf (if there is any). Therefore the child should respond appropriately: by screaming "bad touch" at the top of his or her little lungs. Since children can get away with that sort of thing more than adults I can't think of anything that would call more attention to the problem then some kid screaming about how the smurf just touched his privates.
Oct 29, 2010, 8:17 pm
#20
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
Depending on the age of your child I would say this:
It's not appropriate to expect the child to understand the difference between a child molester and smurf (if there is any). Therefore the child should respond appropriately: by screaming "bad touch" at the top of his or her little lungs. Since children can get away with that sort of thing more than adults I can't think of anything that would call more attention to the problem then some kid screaming about how the smurf just touched his privates.
It's not appropriate to expect the child to understand the difference between a child molester and smurf (if there is any). Therefore the child should respond appropriately: by screaming "bad touch" at the top of his or her little lungs. Since children can get away with that sort of thing more than adults I can't think of anything that would call more attention to the problem then some kid screaming about how the smurf just touched his privates.
Oct 29, 2010, 8:31 pm
#22
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: BOS
Posts: 814
If you are concerned about the radiation from the backscatter x-ray machine, then you should not be flying. The radiation exposure at the altitude most planes are flying is 150x that of these machines on a 4 hour flight.
Also, the image you get from the machine is not a pornographic image. It's an x-ray image. Look at this example: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PJnXQFoGJq...s1600/xray.jpg
The person looking at the images is in a separate room and cannot see the subject, too. The people doing the imaging aren't looking to get excited at the outline of a penis or x-ray image of breasts, they are looking to see if someone is concealing a bomb in their underpants like Umar "the pants bomber" Abdulmutallab did.
If you want to opt-out of the backscatter, then the only way to check for concealment of a weapon is to do the metal detector and a patdown.
I personally don't want to be felt-up by the TSA, so I'll take the x-ray backscatter.
It would be great if we could just walk on the plane like you get onto a city bus, but unfortunately there are people who try to blow up and/or hijack planes that must be stopped to avoid deaths.
Also, the image you get from the machine is not a pornographic image. It's an x-ray image. Look at this example: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PJnXQFoGJq...s1600/xray.jpg
The person looking at the images is in a separate room and cannot see the subject, too. The people doing the imaging aren't looking to get excited at the outline of a penis or x-ray image of breasts, they are looking to see if someone is concealing a bomb in their underpants like Umar "the pants bomber" Abdulmutallab did.
If you want to opt-out of the backscatter, then the only way to check for concealment of a weapon is to do the metal detector and a patdown.
I personally don't want to be felt-up by the TSA, so I'll take the x-ray backscatter.
It would be great if we could just walk on the plane like you get onto a city bus, but unfortunately there are people who try to blow up and/or hijack planes that must be stopped to avoid deaths.
Oct 29, 2010, 8:57 pm
#23
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,787
So what happens when they move on to trying to blow up busses. Do we scan before you get in the bus?
What about the mall? These bombs were being shipped to synagogues - should we start putting WBI in the vestibule? Sporting events are high profile - WBI to see the World Series?
At what point, AT WHAT POINT, do we stop collectively WETTING OURSELVES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND GET ON WITH OUR LIVES?
I know I feel safer. Don't you?
What about the mall? These bombs were being shipped to synagogues - should we start putting WBI in the vestibule? Sporting events are high profile - WBI to see the World Series?
At what point, AT WHAT POINT, do we stop collectively WETTING OURSELVES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND GET ON WITH OUR LIVES?
I know I feel safer. Don't you?
Oct 29, 2010, 8:59 pm
#24
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
No I don't much like that either, and I think its pretty disgusting that the choice now is between someone perv rubbing the kids leg until he touches his "resistance" and some other perv looking at the "resistance". But I think from a what sucks less standpoint with the prev-scope at least you won't have to explain to little johnny why its OK for the TSA guy to touch his balls.
Oct 29, 2010, 9:01 pm
#26
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SNA
Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 9,239
If you are concerned about the radiation from the backscatter x-ray machine, then you should not be flying. The radiation exposure at the altitude most planes are flying is 150x that of these machines on a 4 hour flight.
Also, the image you get from the machine is not a pornographic image. It's an x-ray image. Look at this example: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PJnXQFoGJq...s1600/xray.jpg
The person looking at the images is in a separate room and cannot see the subject, too. The people doing the imaging aren't looking to get excited at the outline of a penis or x-ray image of breasts, they are looking to see if someone is concealing a bomb in their underpants like Umar "the pants bomber" Abdulmutallab did.
If you want to opt-out of the backscatter, then the only way to check for concealment of a weapon is to do the metal detector and a patdown.
I personally don't want to be felt-up by the TSA, so I'll take the x-ray backscatter.
It would be great if we could just walk on the plane like you get onto a city bus, but unfortunately there are people who try to blow up and/or hijack planes that must be stopped to avoid deaths.
Also, the image you get from the machine is not a pornographic image. It's an x-ray image. Look at this example: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PJnXQFoGJq...s1600/xray.jpg
The person looking at the images is in a separate room and cannot see the subject, too. The people doing the imaging aren't looking to get excited at the outline of a penis or x-ray image of breasts, they are looking to see if someone is concealing a bomb in their underpants like Umar "the pants bomber" Abdulmutallab did.
If you want to opt-out of the backscatter, then the only way to check for concealment of a weapon is to do the metal detector and a patdown.
I personally don't want to be felt-up by the TSA, so I'll take the x-ray backscatter.
It would be great if we could just walk on the plane like you get onto a city bus, but unfortunately there are people who try to blow up and/or hijack planes that must be stopped to avoid deaths.
Oct 29, 2010, 9:08 pm
#27
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OOL/DOH
Programs: QF LTS WP, Avis Pres Club, HH Diam.
Posts: 3,192
If you are concerned about the radiation from the backscatter x-ray machine, then you should not be flying. The radiation exposure at the altitude most planes are flying is 150x that of these machines on a 4 hour flight.
Also, the image you get from the machine is not a pornographic image. It's an x-ray image. Look at this example: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PJnXQFoGJq...s1600/xray.jpg
The person looking at the images is in a separate room and cannot see the subject, too. The people doing the imaging aren't looking to get excited at the outline of a penis or x-ray image of breasts, they are looking to see if someone is concealing a bomb in their underpants like Umar "the pants bomber" Abdulmutallab did.
If you want to opt-out of the backscatter, then the only way to check for concealment of a weapon is to do the metal detector and a patdown.
I personally don't want to be felt-up by the TSA, so I'll take the x-ray backscatter.
It would be great if we could just walk on the plane like you get onto a city bus, but unfortunately there are people who try to blow up and/or hijack planes that must be stopped to avoid deaths.
Also, the image you get from the machine is not a pornographic image. It's an x-ray image. Look at this example: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PJnXQFoGJq...s1600/xray.jpg
The person looking at the images is in a separate room and cannot see the subject, too. The people doing the imaging aren't looking to get excited at the outline of a penis or x-ray image of breasts, they are looking to see if someone is concealing a bomb in their underpants like Umar "the pants bomber" Abdulmutallab did.
If you want to opt-out of the backscatter, then the only way to check for concealment of a weapon is to do the metal detector and a patdown.
I personally don't want to be felt-up by the TSA, so I'll take the x-ray backscatter.
It would be great if we could just walk on the plane like you get onto a city bus, but unfortunately there are people who try to blow up and/or hijack planes that must be stopped to avoid deaths.
yet all over the world, yes even in other countries which have had terrorist attacks and deaths of citizens from terrorist attacks - these clever TSA strategies are NOT used, and guess what (I know many will groan at my saying it, again) our planes are not falling out of the sky™.
Why? Because risk based strategies are being used... oh, and our intelligence systems are quietly doing what they supposed to be doing, not just letting school drop-out Vogons appear to be doing something useful....
Oct 29, 2010, 9:19 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Oct 29, 2010, 9:19 pm
#29
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
The comparison the of back scatter to cosmic ray exposure may not be valid.
This pdf report explains it better than I can and it is written by someone much smarter than me.
An excerpt is below:
(Formatting mine for readability.)
This pdf report explains it better than I can and it is written by someone much smarter than me.
An excerpt is below:
The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).
Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist.
Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist.
Oct 29, 2010, 9:27 pm
#30
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
