AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags

[Sandy Perle]

Sky Marshalls in addition to technology. Sky Marshalls are downstream, and we need upstream detection. A Sky Marshall may be viable if a weapon is brandished, but would be uiseless with detonation of a passive device. We need to correlate all opportunities. For protection. If you talk with people in the UK, Tokyo or Madrid, as well as other areas, I think you'll hear a cry for more technology in security used, and not simply rely on human security (which often is minimal in results.

Sandy

Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless  

-----Original Message-----
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:47:20 
To:sandyfl at cox.net, radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags

There may not be any 100% security, but there are
wasys to waste 100% of your money and resources.

I am saying that this system will probably do little
to make us safer.  I would feel safer with sky
marshalls.  I guess you keep missing that part of my
message.  

Of course, if you are in the business of selling the
government equipment, the more the better.

--- Sandy Perle <sandyfl at cox.net> wrote:

> So your position is to throw up your hands and say
> that nothing can improve security. I have repaetedly
> said there is never a 100 percent conclusion. That
> doesn't mean to give up. If you don't believe the
> body scan is better than current ridiculous
> detection, then we'll just disagree. I fly a lot, an
> awful lot, and I would like every bag to be
> inspected and every person scanned. I want to reduce
> the human error. My life and others are within their
> control.
> 
> Sandy
> 
> Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:05:12 
> To:sandyfl at cox.net, radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays
> Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags
> 
> I am saying that this is probably a waste of money. 
> Obviously, you did not understand my comments on the
> use of sky marshalls.  Would any of the programs
> have
> prevented Timothy McVeigh?  Do you think the
> terrorist
> of Sept. 11 would have found away around these
> systems?
> 
> Terrorism is not new, all of these devices are
> flashy
> and high-tech, but they do not address the root
> causes
> of why radical people commit terrorist acts.  This
> is
> where our resources should be put, not sending
> armies
> all over the world, and tell the public this new
> gadget will make us safer.  
> 
> We have low paid people operating high-tech
> equipment.
>  I certainly do not feel any safer.  
> 
> --- Sandy Perle <sandyfl at cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > John,
> > 
> > So, what is your bottom line point? Don't increase
> > security, no profiling, no electronic checks, no
> > hands-on checking, no body scan. What are you
> really
> > trying to say? If your point is don't do anything,
> a
> > very dangerous prospect.
> > 
> > Sandy
> > 
> > Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
> > Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:23:23 
> > To:Sandy Perle <sandyfl at cox.net>,
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Subject: RE: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport
> X-Rays
> > Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags
> > 
> > What enhanced security?  Terrorist are so dumb
> that
> > cannot get around this type of technology?  In the
> > 1970s and 1980s we had sky marshalls. 
> >
>
http://jobprofiles.monster.com/Content/job_content/JC_Military/JSC_PrivateSecurity/JOB_FederalAirMarshall/jobzilla_html?jobprofiles=1
> > That seemed to stop planes being hijacked to Cuba.
> 
> > Is
> > there a lesson here?  Low technology works well. 
> We
> > are amoured with machines and technology, without
> > looking at what works best.  
> > 
> > Yes, the terrorist have won.  As we outspent the
> > Soviet Union and won the Cold War, they are
> forcing
> > us
> > to spend countless funds on equipment to give us
> the
> > sense of security.
> > 
> > --- Sandy Perle <sandyfl at cox.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > John,
> > > 
> > > Agreed. There is never a 100% probability in
> > > anything except taxes and
> > > death! However, where technology can offer
> > enhanced
> > > security and peace of
> > > mind, then it should be evaluated and adapted as
> > > appropriate for the
> > > circumstances at hand.
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> “We must face the fact that the United States is
> neither omnipotent or omniscient — that we are only
> 6 percent of the world’s population; that we cannot
> impose our will upon the other 94 percent of
> mankind; that we cannot right every wrong or reverse
> each adversity; and therefore there cannot be an
> American solution to every world problem.”
> -- John F. Kennedy 
> 
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
> Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
“We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient — that we are only 6 percent of the world’s population; that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind; that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity; and therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
-- John F. Kennedy 

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html