[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 239, Issue 1

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, Ken.

If you have to pay money, it isn't a right (one of the things that
distinguish "rights" from "privileges" is that rights are paid for
collectively rather than individually, and the coin is often much more
valuable than money).  It is a clear fact that traveling by commercial
air is handled as a contractual agreement between the carrier and the
(intended) passenger, subject to non-trivial levels of regulation
designed to serve a number of agendas.  At the moment, many of those
regulations are aimed at preventing people from bringing things aboard
planes that would let them threaten the plane or passengers.  I think
there are a lot of things that could be done to make the system more
effective (a national ID system, for example, with biometric
verification, for example), but that is another discussion.  

As for frisking little old ladies: Your objection shows a lack of
imagination.  Do you think that someone who is willing to bring down an
airplane would balk at using an elderly person as their delivery system?
And if you don't think that senior citizens can hate strongly enough (or
can be brought to that point by manipulation) to use their own deaths to
make a point, you see a different world than I do.  As for the "only on
international flights" argument, I invite you to refresh your memory as
to where the 9/11 planes took off from, and where they were going.  

The system could be much better, and more efficient and cost effective.
If used properly the new scanners can actually be a step in the right
direction.  I find it annoying that the puritanical body taboos of the
few are given such deference, and that they often try to co-opt
completely spurious radiation health arguments.

I agree with you that terrorists follow the best risk-to-return ratio.
For the last eight years the best ratio has been roadside bombs in Iraq.
As the number of Americans available in that venue decreases, it is
entirely possible some groups will try for more difficult targets, such
as airplanes.  It is a fair investment to make their job more difficult,
and I think the new scanners are a step in the right direction, though
years late.  And, if it is the only step, we are in trouble.    

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Peterson, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 2:06 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 239, Issue 1

Mike,

I take exception to point (1).  Air travel is not a privilege; if you
can pay the fare and don't have a bombmaking background - you have every
right to fly - and not be hassled in the process.  I fly 75K miles per
year, and I resent tax dollars wasted in creating bigger bureaucracies
and money pits like the TSA who give authority over me to those who
don't deserve or earn it.  

I believe frisking 80 year old ladies before they get on the Burbank to
Phoenix flight is stupid and futile.  I am tired of countless delays,
removing shoes, packing my nail clippers, arriving at the airport two
hours before a flight to stand in endless security lines.  I welcome
these scanners if they are unobtrusive and one can briskly walk through
them without delay.  

While I think international flights are another matter, for domestic
travel, arming the pilots and armoring the cockpit door is all the
security we need.  Once the goal of using the plane as a guided missile
is thwarted, and the only possible result is killing 100 passengers and
a dozen people on the ground instead of killing thousands and destroying
visible landmarks - the risk to reward ratio goes way down, and the
terrorists will look elsewhere for targets. 

Ken Peterson
**********************