Las Vegas (General) - Airport Security Questions

Airport Security Questions

Dan Svatass

Jun 18, 2012
3:45am

Yes, in 2010, as the scanners were being deployed, legitimate questions could still be raised. It's now 2012, and those questions have been fully and completely answered through independent analyses.

The most recent I know of comes from the Marquette University College of Engineering. You can read it here. Yes, the scanners impose radiation on the body. But that radiation is far below every medical safety standard, You'll get many thousands of times of radiation more at elevation on your cross-country flight than you will from the scanner.

I know none of this will provide any comfort to the paranoid.

drmilled

Jun 18, 2012
3:47am

Block User

The paranoid will ALWAYS have something to complain/wail about.

alanleroy

Jun 18, 2012
6:39am

Block User

Yeah, it's all fun and games until some kid grows a tail.

sharper5

Jun 18, 2012
11:56am

Block User

https://epic.org/privacy/backscatter/radiation_hopkins.pdf

I hope the link works, as Ive never posted a link here, but this is an executive summary from 2011 from Johns Hopkins stating more testing was needed to even stand near the machines and an area exists (between up to 14 feet in height and 4 and a half feet behind) where the dose limit could be exceeded. Also, my understanding is that Johns Hopkins has never tested the machine, only the theory the machine is based on. Ill see if I can find that when I looked into it long ago. Another big point for me was the the TSA agents are prohibited from wearing dosimeters, a device that measures radiation. I was talking to a guy performing a pat down once and said, "Look, sorry to be a pain, but I dont know about these things." I mentioned the dosimeters and he said, "I know, our union is working on it"

Look, I dont care. Go through it, dont go through it. Maybe its safe, maybe it isnt. Im also against it as more unnecessary government intrusion. Plus, Im not a big fan of the TSA, especially after reading this:

https://dropbox.curry.com/ShowNotesArchive/2012/05/NA-408-2012-05-13/Assets/TSA/TSA-Staff-Report.pdf

Edit- Links dont work unless you cut and paste them. Sorry.

BobOrme

Jun 18, 2012
12:12pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote
Originally posted by: BobOrme
Could it be that the TSA doesn't want to be embarrassed like they were with the "puffer sniffer machines" that they started to put into airports before the full body scanners were available? I got air blown up, down and sideways all over me a couple times before someone realized they were ineffective and a waste of time. Many of the 6-figure machines had been built for airports all over the country, but they were never installed. Nothing like a "good" security investment being sold for scrap, and that's what happened to those machines.

If the full body scanners were so safe, every flight crew and airport employee would have to go through them every day. They don't. Ask all of those "really smart people" why that is a fact.

Couple points.

First, I take it that BobOrme also has no reason to question the testing methods of the organizations I cited above that all concluded that today's full-body scanners are safe. If he did, I'm sure he would have written about it.

Second, unlike the traveling public, flight crews go through rigorous, ongoing background checks throughout their employment. That's why TSA has concluded that it's not necessary to check them as thoroughly at the checkpoint, it's not some conspiracy to keep them from revealing the danger of the scanners. Moreover, flight crews still have to show ID and go through metal detectors before entering the secure area.

Third, airport employees are constantly subject to security checks. They too have to pass background checks before they get their badges, and they have to display those badges for inspection at all times. It's a fantasy to suggest they aren't subjected to security.

Misinformation and ignorance suck.

Blindly accepting selected information sources when the subject is government imposed mandates that affect some people but exempt other people from the same standards of treatment also sucks.

Hartsfield-Jackson alone employs almost 60,000 people. Most of those employees are hired and screened by contractors that own the businesses inside the airport. How intensive are the background checks for every McDonald's employee working inside the airport? Are they run through NCIC before being hired? Is that badge proof of actual identity by anyone having one? Exempting those folks from going through the full body scanners is more of a threat to airport security than forcing the general public to go through them in my opinion. I fly in and out of DEN for most of my air travel. The crew/employee security line is also the same line as 1st Class/Premium passenger line...to a metal detector, not a full body scanner. All of the 9/11 terrorists were flying 1st Class.

Again, the TSA does not want to be embarrassed like they were with the puffer machines. I'm concerned about radiation because my father's acute leukemia was likely caused by over-exposure to radiation. Another factor is it takes one person to wave you through a metal detector. It takes three people at the full body scanners. More public sector union jobs.

Dan Svatass

Jun 19, 2012
5:38am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: sharper5
https://epic.org/privacy/backscatter/radiation_hopkins.pdf

I hope the link works, as Ive never posted a link here, but this is an executive summary from 2011 from Johns Hopkins stating more testing was needed to even stand near the machines and an area exists (between up to 14 feet in height and 4 and a half feet behind) where the dose limit could be exceeded. Also, my understanding is that Johns Hopkins has never tested the machine, only the theory the machine is based on. Ill see if I can find that when I looked into it long ago. Another big point for me was the the TSA agents are prohibited from wearing dosimeters, a device that measures radiation. I was talking to a guy performing a pat down once and said, "Look, sorry to be a pain, but I dont know about these things." I mentioned the dosimeters and he said, "I know, our union is working on it"

Look, I dont care. Go through it, dont go through it. Maybe its safe, maybe it isnt. Im also against it as more unnecessary government intrusion. Plus, Im not a big fan of the TSA, especially after reading this:

https://dropbox.curry.com/ShowNotesArchive/2012/05/NA-408-2012-05-13/Assets/TSA/TSA-Staff-Report.pdf

Edit- Links dont work unless you cut and paste them. Sorry.

I joined this thread in response to sharper5's assertion above: "I dont go through the scanners either because I dont think they have been properly tested."

I think they have been tested properly, and cited the reports of those tests, which detail the testing methods. I asked sharper5 why he believed that the tests were not proper. He's now supplied words, but none of his words support his claim of improper testing.

sharper5, your first link provides two redacted pages from a Johns Hopkins report that appears to be hundreds of pages long. You claim it is from 2011, but no date appears on the pages. Moreover, it appears to be a proposal for additional testing. Perhaps this was part of the proposal that led to the 2010 Johns Hopkins report I linked in full above. I can't imagine why you linked this, it doesn't advance any of the topics discussed in this thread.

Your second link is similarly unhelpful. It is simply a report by the GOP members of a Congressional Joint Committee that is critical of TSA spending and management. It has nothing to do with your claim of improper scanner testing. It's irrelevant to what we've been discussing.

I don't understand why you would link to things that have nothing to do with your claim that today's scanners have not been properly tested. Perhaps you just felt the need to link to something, anything. Bizarre.

Dan Svatass

Jun 19, 2012
5:59am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Blindly accepting selected information sources when the subject is government imposed mandates that affect some people but exempt other people from the same standards of treatment also sucks.

Government imposed mandates? What are you talking about? People who the government forces to fly on airplanes? What are you talking about?

I'm not blindly accepting anything. I read things, and some of those things I find persuasive. I find the independent scientific analyses of today's scanners persuasive.

No one is exempt from aviation security. Most people experience it at the TSA security checkpoints at airports. Others, like pilots and flight crews, experience it when they seek government certification to perform a job. Still others, like airport ground workers, experience it when they too pass government security checks in order to access the sterile and secure areas of the airport. No one is exempt. Bob, and I can't figure out why you don't realize it. Perhaps you don't like realizing things that upset your biases?

Quote
Originally posted by: BobOrme
Hartsfield-Jackson alone employs almost 60,000 people. Most of those employees are hired and screened by contractors that own the businesses inside the airport. How intensive are the background checks for every McDonald's employee working inside the airport? Are they run through NCIC before being hired? Is that badge proof of actual identity by anyone having one? Exempting those folks from going through the full body scanners is more of a threat to airport security than forcing the general public to go through them in my opinion. I fly in and out of DEN for most of my air travel. The crew/employee security line is also the same line as 1st Class/Premium passenger line...to a metal detector, not a full body scanner. All of the 9/11 terrorists were flying 1st Class.

Again, Bob, you simply don't know what you are talking about. At all.

Airport contractors do not do airport security screening. That job remains a function of TSA. TSA does its own security threat assessment for every airport worker, even for the guy at the ATL McDonald's.

"The security threat assessment checks the person against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) and determines whether there are any outstanding immigration, terrorist or federal open wants or warrants issues pending against the potential employee. This threat assessment generally takes 72 hours to process.

Simultaneously, the airport conducts a background investigation, checking fingerprints and the individual for any of 28 disqualifying crimes. If the airport background investigation returns without issue the employee will be granted a SIDA badge and the airport operator will determine which areas the employee will have access to the secure and sterile areas of the airport."

Bob, you don't know what you're talking about. You have strong opinions, but they're not based in fact. Sad.

szelisk

Jun 19, 2012
6:15am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote
Originally posted by: sharper5
I dont go through the scanners either because I dont think they have been properly tested.

Really? I'd like to know what you know. Because everything I read says the opposite.

What flaws have you identified in the scads of government, industry, and independent analyses that show that the modern full-body scanners now deployed at airports throughout the USA are safe?

I kind of put my own suspicions to rest after the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and the U.S. Army Public Health Command all deemed TSA's scanners completely and utterly safe.

What makes you disbelieve their unequivocal work? Do you have some special training that should make us respect your suspicion of their testing methods?

I mean, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory sounds like a place packed with a lot of really smart people, no? They say they have over 3,000 scientists and engineers on staff. Wow! Read their report here

Can you explain why we shouldn't have faith in their ability to test these devices?

Chili, I have never seen someone in love with BO and his staff like you are.

roycpa

Jun 19, 2012
7:48am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: szelisk

Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Quote
Originally posted by: sharper5
I dont go through the scanners either because I dont think they have been properly tested.
Really? I'd like to know what you know. Because everything I read says the opposite.

What flaws have you identified in the scads of government, industry, and independent analyses that show that the modern full-body scanners now deployed at airports throughout the USA are safe?

I kind of put my own suspicions to rest after the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and the U.S. Army Public Health Command all deemed TSA's scanners completely and utterly safe.

What makes you disbelieve their unequivocal work? Do you have some special training that should make us respect your suspicion of their testing methods?

I mean, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory sounds like a place packed with a lot of really smart people, no? They say they have over 3,000 scientists and engineers on staff. Wow! Read their report here

Can you explain why we shouldn't have faith in their ability to test these devices?

Chili, I have never seen someone in love with BO and his staff like you are.

Szelisk,I'm not a fan of the TSA either, but to suggest that these scientific studies are the work of the Obama administration only serves to make the point that some people are completly paranoid. If only reason and science could rule our country, we wouldn't have been in this mess to start with. Roy

BobOrme

Jun 19, 2012
10:57am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot Bob, you don't know what you're talking about. You have strong opinions, but they're not based in fact. Sad.

Go to the ATL website and check out their employment section. Show me where there is any indication that employee screening done by contractors is subject to further scrutiny by TSA and/or DHS.

I don't understand why you have such absolute faith in any government run system. Unless, you are part of that system, and a personal ox is being gored by any criticism of it.

I do understand your need to post derogatory photos in some of your responses....

«‹4 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now