Man won't submit to security, TSA won't let him fly. Who's right?

[Dravin]

Ironically,this was the first reaction to 9-11. We recharged the Air Marshall program. However, after an initial influx, I believe the numbers of them dropped again...and the decision to tackle airPORT scecurity took precedence over airLINE patroling. Be interesting to see what our intelligence services have to say about this idea.

One thing to consider is that while a Air Marshall may be effective at stopping a hijacking they are going to be of limited effectiveness at preventing someone from pushing the boom button of the bomb they managed to smuggle on-board while in the lavatory. The methods you use really depend on the threat you are trying to handle.

[shdwlkr]

My only issue with the new scans is there is two types one that is basically harmless and one if you have certain health issues can mess you up.

I can understand since the last terrorist put it in his shorts the reason for the full body scans but I also realize that not all TSA agents are going to do a professional job while they feel you for stuff. There are several lawsuits with TSA already for improper body checks and even with the scans some agents are less than professional in comments.

Where it will end is any bodies guess. Sad that this had to happen but then we live in strange times and they are not going to get a whole lot better for a long long time.

[GeneC]

Just Something to Consider!

Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM

By Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, lecturer, and editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report.

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration’s new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and “enhanced pat-downs” brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.’”

So, what is all the concern really about — will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama’s science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.

The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed “serious concerns” about the “dangerously high” dose of radiation to the skin.

Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.

One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.

This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being “1,000-times less than a chest X-ray” and “far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight” are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.

We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).

As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase one’s risk of developing cataracts.

About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.

It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.

As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.

Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists’ real concerns about such issues.

This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen — “Let’s just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.”

When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.

[shdwlkr]

Here is my idea why not do as the Israel air lines do and only search those who need to be searched.

The scanners and increased risk of cancer I don't need. Don't need to be sexually inspected by a TSA agent who is wearing the same pair of gloves that they used on the last 30 passengers either. The risk of being given some disease because of a dirty pair of gloves is just as bad as the risk of cancer from the scanner.

The government has once again proved they can force common citizens to give up our freedoms for nothing in return.

Sorry but I don't see TSA as being the security of our air travel because we still here of things getting past them. TSA is just another level of too much government.

If you want real security then give the job over to the military as other countries have and be done with it. Israel seems to have a system that works and no one seems to be exempt from inspection like we have in this country. Why should airline pilots, and support staff be exempt from the x-ray inspection if it is so safe for the traveling public?

[HoosierGuy]

Just Something to Consider!

Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM

By Dr. Russell Blaylock

A quick Google search on this guy confirmed what I figured was true - another conservative. Trust him at your own risk.

This is all being overblown by the same people who are trying to get Americans to be anti-Federal government. Nearly every story I've seen on this issue goes along the same lines - This man or women is complaining, violation of their civil rights, this and that, and then at the end of the story "Although there are some complaining, the vast majority of flyers are not complaining and just want to get on the plane and to their destination for the holidays!"

People complaining about this issue (and it's not really an issue at all) are falling in to the hands of the puppet masters on Wall Street and Washington D.C., and those puppet masters are not in the Federal Government, they are found in big business.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here is my idea why not do as the Israel air lines do and only search those who need to be searched.

Because Israel also interviews every. single. flier.

When there are only a couple of major airports in your country, you can get away with doing that.

[GeneC]

A quick Google search on this guy confirmed what I figured was true - another conservative. Trust him at your own risk.

People complaining about this issue (and it's not really an issue at all) are falling in to the hands of the puppet masters on Wall Street and Washington D.C., and those puppet masters are not in the Federal Government, they are found in big business.

Yes, just ask my good buddy who died with only 1/3 of a brain because Atomic testing was deemed safe, oh yes PCBs and DDT and abestos all deemed safe.

"Let's put it this way," said the TSA's Melendez, "We would not put a piece of technology in an airport if it was dangerous to passengers and if it was dangerous to our workforce. The emissions from that technology are less than [what] anyone would get from just a basic cell phone conversation." He added that the technology does not penetrate the skin.

How many times have I heard this in my career, military and civilian. Same old smear job get's tiresome.

We all know that the answer to as to whether cell phone are safe is still out. Oh yes Avandia was safe as was aspartame. Believe your government who doesn't even have the ability to run a business with profit.

As far as scanning pilots what are you going to do find a gun? I hope so. If a pilot wants to bring a plane down, nothing you can find in a scan will be discovered as an extraneous weapon or explosive is not needed. I for one don't want pilots I have to depend on getting scanned once or twice a day everyday which would not result in any security benefits. Positive ID yes, scan no.

[Just_A_Guy]

Don't take him too seriously, TGFR. As soon as a Republican is in the White House again, Obama's apologists will suddenly remember their high-school physics lessons about how different kinds of radiation (alpha, gamma, etc) penetrate the human body differently and pose different kinds of risks. And they'll insist that the scans are in fact some sort of nefarious corporatist plot to poison the American people. (After all, DHS was invented by the Bush administration.)

And the world will all make sense again.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[GeneC]

Don't take him too seriously, TGFR. As soon as a Republican is in the White House again, Obama's apologists will suddenly remember their high-school physics lessons about how different kinds of radiation (alpha, gamma, etc) penetrate the human body differently and pose different kinds of risks. And they'll insist that the scans are in fact some sort of nefarious corporatist plot to poison the American people. (After all, DHS was invented by the Bush administration.)

And the world will all make sense again.

Darn, I couldn't choose Thanks and Laugh so here's both! THANKS AND LAUGHS

[shdwlkr]

Just_A_Guy

So I am guessing that the gas chambers used in WWII were a good thing as they only were used on less than humans anyway.

Sorry the way we are checked for plane rides is just a total waste. Did they catch the Christmas bomber last year? Did they catch the shoe bomber? If TSA and HSO were so good we would not need to be scanned at the airport because these people would never have made it to the plane.

Think what you want, but I can tell you this there is more negative things going on in this country right now than you can even imagine. As to which party is in power makes no difference neither care about the common American anymore. They haven't in decades if the truth be told.

So you blame the Republicans and I will blame both parties and I wonder which of us is closer to the truth?

have a nice day

[GeneC]

Yeah, let's not do it the right way. Let's do it the government way.

Care to explain the gas chambers relevancy? Never mind there isn't any.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just_A_Guy

So I am guessing that the gas chambers used in WWII were a good thing as they only were used on less than humans anyway.

Paging Dr. Godwin . . . Paging Dr. Godwin . . .

I think you misapprehend my intent. All I said, was that we can't implement the full Israeli approach in the US. That's it.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

Paging Dr. Godwin . . . Paging Dr. Godwin . . .

I think you misapprehend my intent. All I said, was that we can't implement the full Israeli approach in the US. That's it.

Well you poked fun at partisanship as well in a later post, but yeah the pathetic appeal pretty much came out of nowhere.

Though I do have one question for you JAG. Why are you okay with clubbing baby seals?

[shdwlkr]

The gas chambers a solution to getting rid of a problem that some folks created. Do you really think that the new scanners are not a problem? I don't know about you but cancer is not a fun thing to have to deal with. Have you seen the levels of x-ray being used? are they safe? who says they are safe? Just a few things to keep in mind.

As to doing it the government way, what do you think the x-ray checking of passengers is? Did any person come up this that isn't in the government?

Do we need some sort of safety yes but what is the right way to do this haven't been shown yet as how do you protect against someone who is willing to die just to kill anyone they can. Since you seem to have some answers to the question why not let the rest of us know your wisdom as I am just a simple christian who believes in his bible that things are going to get much worse before they begin to get better.

[Dravin]

The gas chambers a solution to getting rid of a problem that some folks created. Do you really think that the new scanners are not a problem? I don't know about you but cancer is not a fun thing to have to deal with. Have you seen the levels of x-ray being used? are they safe? who says they are safe? Just a few things to keep in mind.

And this has what to do with the fact that Israel's procedures and techniques may have application problems due to differences in scale? If you are commenting on the thread in general that's fine, but as it stands your comments appear to be fully focused on JAG's objection that using Israel's approach has complications and in no way actually addresses them.

Well you do comment a little on JAG's joke about partisanship and pointing fingers based on ideological alignment but your response suggests you missed, or choose to ignore, that it was a joke and that he wasn't laying blame at any political party's feet.

Since you seem to have some answers to the question why not let the rest of us know your wisdom as I am just a simple christian who believes in his bible that things are going to get much worse before they begin to get better.

Sarcastic appeal to piety. A classic combination of pathetic and ethical appeal.

[shdwlkr]

The whole point is that yes something needs to be done to protect the traveling public but are the current measures the best that the greatest nation on earth can come up with. If you are saying it is then you have missed the point not me.

What should be done I am still wondering on that one. If exposing your citizens to large doses of radiation are the correct thing to do then what happens when we get large numbers of cancer cases from those who fly a lot. I don't know if it will happen or not but there are enough questioning the level to make one with a brain to wonder just what is the level being used and what effect does it have on the person with medical issues, is older, maybe pregnant or already has a reduced immune system. Just some of the things I am looking for answers.

We are all allowed to our opinions and mine are more conservative then many. I also tend to ask questions about everything that I come in contact with just because I like to know answers to questions.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm just wondering what on earth I said that sounded like "I support the use of these scanners".

My point--and my only point, other than my pot shot about partisanship--is that if we're going to pontificate about the virtues and success rate of the Israeli system, then we'd darned well better understand exactly what the Israeli system entails.

Israel doesn't just screen the people who look like terrorists while giving--say--Ashkenazi Jews a free pass. The most innocuous-looking passenger in Israel gets more scrutiny than you are ever likely to get from the TSA (it's of a different type, certainly; but is nevertheless far more labor intensive, requires far more education and intelligence on the part of the ordinary inspector/agent, and--history demonstrates--tends to be far more effective).

Attack me for not offering workable solutions, if you will. But you know what? Offering impossible "solutions" like wholesale implementation of El Al procedures on American soil, isn't much better.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[shdwlkr]

Never said you did never intended that I thought you did

More along the lines of what is a good solution to a problem that if someone is intent on killing you they would put the bomb inside themselves and will the scanners pick this up? That is my point everything we do seems to be gotten around by the terrorists who are hell bent on killing us. So how do we use to protect the population?

that is my point in this whole matter nothing more nothing less.

Sorry if you thought I was attacking you as that was not the intent as that solves nothing.

Have a good night and don't worry about it we are looking at the same issue just different directions of the same issue. How do we protect our people.

[Mahone]

but are the current measures the best that the greatest nation on earth can come up with

[Dravin]

Certainly you want some Freedom Fries to go with that.