TSA is this news?

What about UK ?
It seems to be a bit unfair highlighting the TSA and the US over this. The pat down search only applies if you refuse a body image scan -in the UK you have apparently have no right to refuse the scan - and may still be physically searched afterwards.

From the Manchester Airport Web site

Following trials of “imaging technology” (also known as security scanners) in Terminal 2, Manchester Airport has now extended this enhanced security measure to Terminal 1 & Terminal 3.
Please note: From the 1st February 2010, additional Government legislation came into operation at this airport, which states that any passenger who refuses to use the scanner will be denied travel.

Similar statement on Heathrow Website

You have to be able to hold your hands away from your sides.

If you use a stick .....

Would any security agency really try to target the disabled for an invasive pat-down?

And do would-be terrorists not know this?

[HighFlyer]

The longer this process is in place, and the more I read stories like the below the more disgruntled with 'security' I am getting.
http://calorielab.com/labnotes/20101120/tsa-pat-down-breast-cancer-survivor-prothesis/

I am ALL for security and keeping us safe in the air. I am NOT in favour of the bravado I feel that security screening has become. There was a very interesting article in last months CNN Traveller (I think?) on the multitude of individuals who had received compensation after enduring some horrid experiences at the hands of UK security (the wheelchair user who was refused to fly after failing to walk through the screener when told, the woman who filed after repeatedly being chosen for screening because she was an attractive and lone woman, etc, etc).

I'm not precious about my body and I don't really care about going through the scanner and whether someone can see me naked but I totally believe that we ought not to groped at will in the name of security. I seriously wonder if the scanners can accurately detect explosives if they are hidden well inside a body cavity as I believe the scanners are skin deep, as per: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/ ... 7847.shtml

Benjamin Franklin says it all to me in these wise words...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

The issue is not security per se but the way the TSA, or more accuratly some of its STAFF, are doing these so called 'enhanced' patdowns.

Some of the reports I have seen over here (am in the US at the mo) are more about the invasive nature of SOME of the searches - runing fingers around bra lines and waistbands etc.

Maybe if a few Senators and Congressmen/women and the high-ups at the DHS and TAS were on the receiving end of an enhanced search then maybe they would actually do something.

Also if a few US citizens complained more to their elected representatives that might help too.

When travelling through Zurich last week I heard a US traveller bemoan these 'stupid european security rules' as he was taking his shoes, belt, watch etc off he was flatly (but politly) told that they were a USA requirement and were identical to the screening he had when he LEFT the USA.

However, SOME pax don't help either with their own attitude problems or stupidity.

The issue is not security per se but the way the TSA, or more accuratly some of its STAFF, are doing these so called 'enhanced' patdowns.

Some of the reports I have seen over here (am in the US at the mo) are more about the invasive nature of SOME of the searches - runing fingers around bra lines and waistbands etc.

Maybe if a few Senators and Congressmen/women and the high-ups at the DHS and TAS were on the receiving end of an enhanced search then maybe they would actually do something.

Also if a few US citizens complained more to their elected representatives that might help too.

When travelling through Zurich last week I heard a US traveller bemoan these 'stupid european security rules' as he was taking his shoes, belt, watch etc off he was flatly (but politly) told that they were a USA requirement and were identical to the screening he had when he LEFT the USA.

However, SOME pax don't help either with their own attitude problems or stupidity.

The bad guys strategy.

See this article:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/TSA_Misleads_Public_On_Scanner_Safety_203670-1.html

It refers to more research with warnings about the full body scanners.

Now, admittedly, there will equivalent articles stating how safe they are, but it's an interesting read anyway.

ON the same website news page, there are also articles about pilots becoming exept, unless they fail the metal detector, and later, they've done the same for flight attendants.

So, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that a potential terrorist gets a better chance if he/she first gets a job as a flight attendant...

The BALPA view - today's press release.

BRITISH PILOTS WARN ON BODY SCANNERS AND SECURITY - 'AVIATION COULD GRIND TO A HALT'

Having, until this year, gone on holiday to the US 3 times year (I know - very boring) and travelled there on business a few times I have always seen 'security' as something to endure.

However, seeing the news last night showing a child having to take their top off etc I said to Mrs S 'Well, looks like we won't be going back there for a long time'.

She did make the point that it appears to be the rudest / most bullying / overbearing ****** who work for the TSA. Is that a qualification or one of the key competencies to be employed by them? If they had a bit more diplomacy, and dare I say it 'common sense', then these things may be easier to take.

Having said that, those behavour traits can also be seen with our own 'security' people.

As they say 'give someone some power, and they will always abuse it'

Here's the video about the 3 year-old who clearly didn't like being touched by the TSA officer.
http://www.vimeo.com/16865565

And expectidly there is this which has popped up - a range of clothes with metallic ink-printed clothes with the 4th amendment. Quite funny
http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment

You would get 20,000 times more radiation from a dental x-ray.

Urban myth I'm afraid - that or propagated by those with selective interest and little science.

A full mouth series of dental X-Rays gives a dose of around 3 millirem.
This dose is to the mouth only; one small area - crucially you would normally wear a lead apron to protect sensitive areas.

The whole body scanner is just that - it may be a radiation dose of only 0.01mrem if it is used correctly BUT - it is an average of 0.01 to the whole body. The problem is that it is selectively used to precisely those parts normally protected whenever possible in medical examinations.


.

OK - I don't claim to know anything about airport scanners but I do know a fair bit about medical radiation scanning and must comment on the above.

The Rem (and of course millirem) is a measure of dose equivalence not of direct radiation exposure. This means that it is a factor of radiation exposure x weighting factors depending on the radiation sensitivity of the tissues exposed. It is a useful tool in assessing the risk to a person from an exposure as it takes into account the dose and sensitivity of whatever area is involved. For this reason the figures quoted are directly comparable as a measure of dose equivalence (ie radiation risk) has already considered the areas exposed.

The Rem has largely been superseded by the SI unit of the Sievert (Sv) with 1mRem = 0.01 mSv
So 0.01mRem = 0.0001 mSv

A Chest xray is about 0.1mSv, Lumbar spine xray 1.5mSv and a CT scan of Chest , abdomen and pelvis about 18mSv.
Background radiation / day is about 3.1 mSv (as high as 7 mSv in Cornwall). IIRC a trans-atlantic flight has about the same risk as a chest xray.

The banana dose equivalent is often used by proponents of nuclear power as a way of quantifying risk from low exposure levels. Due to high levels of potassium in bananas and therefore the Potassium 40 isotope bananas are little bit radioactive. I think ingesting 1 banana equates to about 0.001 mSV which theoretically makes it about 10 times riskier than a body scanner if the quoted figures are correct.

As I stated above, I know nothing about airport scanners but would be very reassured if the dose stated was correct.

Having, until this year, gone on holiday to the US 3 times year (I know - very boring) and travelled there on business a few times I have always seen 'security' as something to endure.

However, seeing the news last night showing a child having to take their top off etc I said to Mrs S 'Well, looks like we won't be going back there for a long time'.

She did make the point that it appears to be the rudest / most bullying / overbearing ****** who work for the TSA. Is that a qualification or one of the key competencies to be employed by them? If they had a bit more diplomacy, and dare I say it 'common sense', then these things may be easier to take.

Having said that, those behavour traits can also be seen with our own 'security' people.

As they say 'give someone some power, and they will always abuse it'

y)

The boys top was taken off by his father, to prove he was not carrying anything undeneath, and to try and avoid the kid being patted down.

I have just got back from Vegas, and with several internal flights to SF, I didnt have any problems at security, no body scanner, (apart from the return from LAS-LGW) and no pat downs

The boys top was taken off by his father, to prove he was not carrying anything undeneath, and to try and avoid the kid being patted down.

Why should a boy have to be stripped, by his father or not, in front of a crowd? Whatever the reason, there are more sensitive ways to prove he's not strapped to a bomb.