TSA is this news?

Came across this:
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWe ... 643-1.html

Essentially, it's saying that passengers will now receive an intrusive patdown plus body scan is standard when travelling through US airports?

Have I got the wrong end of the stick, and this won't be all passengers? (Have I been on a different planet?).

What's worrying me is this - 1) I've put a lot of effort into teaching my 8 year old what is appropriate and by whom, and now it looks like some power crazed low life will have the absolute right to "pat down"?? These body scanners are another subject...

Anyone got any more clarity on this\?

From what I understand, if the airport has a few different security channels and you go through one that does not have a body scanner, you will just have to go through the usual metal detector. However, if you find yourself in a channel that has a body scanner and you refuse to go through it, you will be forced to go though a pat down.

The law states that once you start the security procedures you must finish them. (you can be fined barred from flying, or even arrested if you don't). :0 So, if you don't want to go though the body scanner, you cannot walk around and go though a different channel that has just a metal detector.

Basically, if you find yourself facing a body scanner, its the scanner or a pat down, otherwise you will not be allowed to fly. v(

I guess the trick is to try and work out which lane you want before you get there. At SFO Priority line, the left side could get you the scanner, the right side gets you the metal detector.

Saying that, the security check at LHR was a lot more intrusive than usual too this time.

So, I have to subject my child to a potentially dangerous scanner, or an intrusive pat down?

As for me, well I've lived this long...!!!

How much do the US value the tourism industry? I wonder how many "foreign" tourists this will put off in the long term...

[Darren Wheeler]

Won't worry me at all.

It's a matter of choice. No-one is being forced to fly and if it's a step too far, then there is always Amtrak.

Sorry for a long post but this is of import to any frequent flier.

It's receiving a lot of hits so you may need to reload this a few times.

Extract:

Our colleagues at UCSF, dermatologists and cancer experts, raise specific important
concerns:
• A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at
risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of
melanocyte aging.
• B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesisprovoking
radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women,
who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer,
X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue
beneath the skin represents a similar risk.
• C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.
• D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer
patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin
dose.
• E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to
have been fully evaluated.
• F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical
risks to the fetus are determined.
• G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for
sperm mutagenesis.
• H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?

It is written by some serious experts in the field.

I am told by one who does know this subject very well that the 25kv scanners are very similar to the earliest mammogram scanners, except that these are whole body but concentrate on areas where greatest harm can be done.

It explains flight deck union views and IAPA view.

Here is a summary of USAPA's current position on AIT screening machines and Enhanced Pat-Down procedures:

• Pilots should NOT submit to AIT screening. The TSA has offered no credible specifications for the radiation emitted by these machines. As pilots, we are exposed to more radiation as a function of our normal duties than nearly every other category of worker in the United States. Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks.
• Pilots should employ the following method of avoiding AIT screening:

o Make every effort to use security access lines that utilize standard magnetometer devices. If security access points with magnetometer devices are not available, or if there is a change in the device being used once in line, pilots should elect to submit to a private TSA-agent pat-down.
o When submitting to a private, enhanced pat-down procedure, pilots must be sure that a witness, preferably a crewmember, accompanies them during the pat-down.

o After being subjected to an enhanced pat-down procedure, pilots must evaluate their fitness for duty.

"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance,"

Scope or Grope!

I too would prefer an anoymous scan rather than a pat down (soft or hard) by a total stranger.

So, I have to subject my child to a potentially dangerous scanner, or an intrusive pat down?

As for me, well I've lived this long...!!!

How much do the US value the tourism industry? I wonder how many "foreign" tourists this will put off in the long term...

Since i want to fly then I guess what has to be done has to be done especially if it means my plane not blowing out of the sky.

There is quite some difference between molestation and being patted down for security.

cheers

alex

Hmmm...

"Flying is a choice" - yep, and after my 2 rtn trips to the US already booked, I may exercise that choice.

"There's always AmTrack" - have they got transatlantic ships now too?

"Since I don't want my plane blown up" - well, I don't think there's that many people that believe this stuff actually measurably enhances security. It's a deterant, maybe, but it won't stop any determined terrorist - not much will, apart from making them less angry and liable to committing terrorist acts - but that's a whole new topic.

No, my concerns are pure and simple:-
1) I had childhood cancer, and although recovered, I'm concerned these bl00dy scanners might reactivate whatever did the damage in the first place.

2) That I must subject my daughter to these bl00dy scanners, with no confidence that sufficient research/testing has been performed to know if it's safe or not. Or, tell her to let some oaf touch her in the way I've always told her no stranger should ever do - I can't win.

For me, it's just another knee-jerk reaction carried out in the (now normal) US style - we're doing it, don't care what you think, we can do what we like.....if harm is done, that'll be the next administrations problem, and we'll all have got our pay-offs by then.


Oh dear - I'm ranting!!!

Actually, I am quite worried by this, and may really seriously consider just how many times I want to visit the US in the future - I know, they won't care, but it'll reduce family holiday options...

[Darren Wheeler]

How does the radiation from the scanners compare to the exposure you get from flying at 38,000'?

Darren

I can't find the source but I read that you would need to be scanned a good FIVE thousand times to get the same exposure as a chest x-ray.

Each scan is the equivalent of 5 minutes of normal background radiation.

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

There's a running story I've been catching whilst I'm out here in NY.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010 ... -resistor/

Basically the jist of it is John Tyner refused to have a body-scan, and recorded everything on his phone and put it up on his blog. TSA are now saying they are targeting him for investigation and could lead to prosecution up to $11,000. As you're probably aware, there is growing resentment for the TSA, and this hasn't helped their 'cause' either.

Whatever your view, it's interesting the tension between personal privacy and your right to certain things, and the need to protect everyone and make flying safe.

His blog post:
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/ ... tween.html

So, I have to subject my child to a potentially dangerous scanner, or an intrusive pat down?

As for me, well I've lived this long...!!!

How much do the US value the tourism industry? I wonder how many "foreign" tourists this will put off in the long term...

Since i want to fly then I guess what has to be done has to be done especially if it means my plane not blowing out of the sky.

There is quite some difference between molestation and being patted down for security.

cheers

alex

The thing is, none of the security measures in place have prevented the "next" incident. I think this is an exercise in making passengers feel safer, than them actually being safer. And they are already very safe.

>
What do about this? A recent poll by CBS news revealed that 80 percent of respondents support the scanner idea, 15 percent don’t. I suspect the 15 percent are the ones actually doing most of the traveling.
>

I suspect the moon is made of cheese, but just like our blogger have no evidence to back this up.

>
None of this guarantees that an airliner won’t be blown up. Nothing will do that. As a civilization, we just have to accept that. But I think the tradeoff is worth not being abused every time you fly, since the abuse isn’t effective security anyway.
>

So why bother with any security at all? No to non intrusive scanners, no to "aggresive" pat down? Or is there a different agenda at play here regarding profiling?

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.

The dental X-ray dose is typically only received by less than 100th part of the body; it is directed by a cone with the tube less than 200mm from the mouth. The dose to TSA areas of interest would be be reduced to 1/25th (approx. 0.1mrem) by distance alone. The attenuation by the lead apron to the much higher energy diagnostic X-rays is in the order of 90-95%. Much greater to low energy dental.
So the dose of a dental X-Ray, to sensitive areas, is actually less than the scanner! Not 20,000 times more!

The danger of the scanner though is exacerbated by concentrating on those particular areas; that is entirely in the hands of your trusted security operative....

More info. here.

I must admit that I used to be in favour of the scanners - they certainly make getting through security easier. The latest expert opinions have made me revise that.

I found the article in the Daily Telegraph

Also several others by simple googling.

Some people have concerns about the metal detectors and the wands too.

Others have concerns about the pat downs and how intrusive they can be.

What I cannot understand is how some people shout about invasion of privacy of the scanners yet appear to have no qualms about a total stranger actually touching them. Surely that is more invasive.

However it is vital that the scanners are properly and reglarly maintained and qualiy assured to ensure that the radiation is as diffuse as it should be and there is no dose 'creep'

All I can say is personally I prefer the scanner to the pat down.

Thanks for posting good information Bill. These scanners are a concern, there is some very reasoned posting on PPrune about the potential harmful effects on crew who also will have to pass through them numerous times. I too am concerned as a somewhat more frequent flier than most here.

More so, what we see in the US is a massive self-serving bureaucracy that has to keep introducing more invasive, and ultimately completely senseless, security, stripping away people's dignity and rights, just to justify their existence.

99.9999999% of passengers passing through present no threat. It really is time this effort was focused on the ones that do.

There's a running story I've been catching whilst I'm out here in NY.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010 ... -resistor/
Basically the jist of it is John Tyner refused to have a body-scan, and recorded everything on his phone and put it up on his blog. TSA are now saying they are targeting him for investigation and could lead to prosecution up to $11,000. As you're probably aware, there is growing resentment for the TSA, and this hasn't helped their 'cause' either.
Whatever your view, it's interesting the tension between personal privacy and your right to certain things, and the need to protect everyone and make flying safe.
His blog post:
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/ ... tween.html

Considering the amount of fuss and upset this whole business is causing, the terrorist's must be laughing theirselves silly and will, at this rate, never have to attempt to blow up a plane ever again, as they are frightening half the flying population anyway - job done!
Let the authorities bring on what ever security measures they want, neither they or any terrorist is going to stop me taking my holidays whenever or whereever I want. v(

[Darren Wheeler]

Let the authorities bring on what ever security measures they want, neither they or any terrorist is going to stop me taking my holidays whenever or whereever I want. v(

y) y) y) y)

Colbert on the TSA policies. Really funny, and nailed it imo:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... y-goldberg

There's a running story I've been catching whilst I'm out here in NY.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010 ... -resistor/
Basically the jist of it is John Tyner refused to have a body-scan, and recorded everything on his phone and put it up on his blog. TSA are now saying they are targeting him for investigation and could lead to prosecution up to $11,000. As you're probably aware, there is growing resentment for the TSA, and this hasn't helped their 'cause' either.
Whatever your view, it's interesting the tension between personal privacy and your right to certain things, and the need to protect everyone and make flying safe.
His blog post:
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/ ... tween.html

Considering the amount of fuss and upset this whole business is causing, the terrorist's must be laughing theirselves silly and will, at this rate, never have to attempt to blow up a plane ever again, as they are frightening half the flying population anyway - job done!
Let the authorities bring on what ever security measures they want, neither they or any terrorist is going to stop me taking my holidays whenever or whereever I want. v(

y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y) y)

What I cannot understand is how some people shout about invasion of privacy of the scanners yet appear to have no qualms about a total stranger actually touching them. Surely that is more invasive.

*cough*

No, not all all. ):

*cough*

No, not all all. ):

Depending on how good lookign HE is you mean?

*cough*

No, not all all. ):

Depending on how good lookign SHE is you mean?

Just correcting your typo or am i being sexist ):

*cough*

No, not all all. ):

Depending on how good lookign SHE is you mean?

Just correcting your typo or am i being sexist ):

There was no typo ! ): ):