[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 239, Issue 1

Brennan, Mike (DOH) Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Wed Mar 10 16:10:14 CST 2010


Hi, Doug.

As I understand it, the Israelis have had a 100% baggage search for many
years, and much more sophisticated and in-depth identity verification.
I agree that their people are probably much better paid and trained that
the average TSA employee (though I believe I've seen an improvement in
that area during this tight job market).  I suspect that anyone who
"cops and attitude" towards the Israeli security people in one of their
airports might find their travel plans impacted.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:03 PM
To: 'David Ehle'; 'Dan W McCarn'
Cc: 'Peterson, Ken'; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 239, Issue 1

Maybe it is a bit more simple....
And sadly, a bit of NIMBY creeping in..

1. Everyone wants to be 100% protected from terrorist attacks on any
plane.
2. Everyone gets frustrated by the delays caused by these searches -
especially when it involves themselves.....

The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of people doing the
security
checks are not intellectually equipped to assess whether someone needs
screening or not, so everyone gets it (but if you show any resentment,
you
will get "special treatment"......). What can you expect of a workforce
on
close to minimum wage?

In Israel, they have specialists doing the screening. Result is a system
that is minimally intrusive and efficient (from what I hear).

You get what you pay for......

Regards
Doug
___________________________________
Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor
D&M Operations Support
jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com
Mail: c/o Therese Wigzell,
Schlumberger,
Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of David Ehle
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 3:44 PM
To: Dan W McCarn
Cc: 'Peterson, Ken'; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 239, Issue 1



I think that part of the reason feelings flow so strongly on this, one 
direction or another, is that at the back of our minds we are doing 
informal risk assesment and risk management.

To way oversimplify (due to the fact that I'm not qualified to talk
about 
the discipline in any more than the most general terms) the basic idea 
behind dealing with risk is to asses the level of risk, the impact of
the 
risk, the costs of different ways of reducing, mitigating, deferring or 
mediating the risk, and then compare the original probablity * original 
impact to the modified probability * modified impact. If the "mitigated"

values produces a more acceptable value then implement the "mitigation" 
strategy - otherwise its a waste of time and resources.

In terms of airline security there seems to be big differences in the 
values different people are setting on the risks, impacts, and costs.

Since we are doing these assesments in our subconscious rather than 
putting in real numerical values and applying rigor to the matter, we
end 
up with an emotional/non-objective answers - like it doesn't "feel
right." 
Being human we then let the front brain take over and come up with all 
sorts of "rational" justifications for the discomfort in our bellies.

My suggestion is that these matters be discussed in terms of real risk 
assesment and managment - otherwise no real discussion can occur due to 
hidden disconects in value. One side might think an apple is worth $.45,

the other $1.25. One side might presume that everyone agrees that a life
= 
$liberty, while another might use the EPA standard of $6.9 million.
(2010)
Lacking disclosures and valuation both sides can think they are talking 
about apples, but in fact really be talking prunes and pears.

Anyone who can be so obviously off about the value of an apple must 
obviously be out of their minds so we get very frustrated with them and 
the discussion becomes heated. (see I DID make it back to my original 
point eventually ;)

backing out slowly...

David.
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Dan W McCarn wrote:

> (This is my last posting on the subject.)
>
> Ken, what "essential liberty" is at stake here?
>
> "Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" is the phrase from the
> Declaration of Independence.  Note that "Life" comes first...
>
> But I agree that almost any method to enhance safety, technical or
> otherwise, should be examined, short of focusing on any one specific
group,
> race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc.  The Baader-Meinhof-Gang
(Rote
> Armee Fraktion) and Action Directe were indistinguishable from other
German
> or French citizens, so only a random search would have detected them
> carrying weapons, etc.  Their invisibility was the reason they
survived so
> long, and only through excellent intel were they ultimately
taken-down.
>
> Another issue here is while travelling and using a public means of
> transportation, do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I
don't
> think so!  And I don't think that the courts think that, either.  That
is
> why searches can occur.  While I lived in Austria, I would be stopped
by
the
> police about 2-3 times per year and be required to produce all of the
> required documents.  These were random checks. In the USA, there must
be
> probable cause before the police can stop you.
>
> I've noticed that the bus drivers in Santa Fe, New Mexico
systematically
> refuse service to individuals who are publically intoxicated or
belligerent,
> and they always call-in when they refuse service.  Pilots of
commercial
> aircraft have, and sometimes exercise, the same power to refuse a
passenger
> based on behavior or perceived risk.
>
> It is a privilege to fly or ride the bus, not a right.
>
> Dan ii
>
> --
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 2867 A Fuego Sagrado
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> +1-505-310-3922 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peterson, Ken [mailto:Ken.Peterson at us.fincantieri.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 13:09
> To: Dan W McCarn
> Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 239, Issue 1
>
> Dan,
>
> "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin
>
> I have read that the Israelis do a wonderful job of transportation
> security, not through the use of technology or invasive searches, but
by
> using trained observers and psychology.  Maybe we (sorry - "we"
meaning
> the USA) could learn much from them.
>
>
> Ken Peterson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:13 PM
> To: 'Brennan, Mike (DOH)'; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Cc: Peterson, Ken
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 239, Issue 1
>
> Dear Ken:
>
> I agree with Mike on this one.  Also remember that the shoe bomber
came
> from
> overseas... Since we are so interconnected, it is the obligation of
all
> governments to help assure flight safety at all levels, and many
> regulations
> are international e.g. IATA transport regs.  This means that a bag
> checked
> at some obscure airport should have the same scrutiny as a bag checked
> (or
> brought onboard) at a major airport.  This provides consistency
> internationally.
>
> http://www.iata.org/index.htm
>
> I offer as an example my exempt check sources that I occasionally
travel
> with: I provide this following statement along with a calculation to
> demonstrate compliance and a few telephone numbers to NRC and the
> manufacturer of the sealed sources.
>
> "The enclosed check / calibration sources are not considered
radioactive
> material for transport because they do not meet the test for DOT
> "Radioactive Material" as defined in 49 CFR 173.403 as well as IATA
> 10.4.2.1"
>
> Otherwise I would have to ship them under UN2910 regulations including
> labeling.  If anyone would like a copy of the statement that I enclose
> in my
> baggage, I'd be delighted to provide it!
>
> Air travel is a privilege, not a right.  The same is true for a
drivers
> license.
>
> Personally, I don't mind being selected-out for close inspection; I
> always
> tell the folks conducting the inspection with a smile that "You mean
I'm
> special!?" and almost always get a smile back.  A couple of times it
was
> to
> clarify objects in my baggage, almost always my Ludlum Model 19, and
> once, a
> saddle for my horse!  The smell of the horse on the saddle may have
> caused a
> false positive from the sniffing dogs and it had an unusual shape.
>
> Where have I been selected for close inspection? The USA, Germany,
> Belarus,
> Kazakhstan and China so far.  That seems pretty international to me!
> And,
> as often as I have flown into and out of Schwechat in Vienna (30-40
> times),
> I've never been searched. It must be my Austrian accent!
>
> Dan ii
>
> --
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 2867 A Fuego Sagrado
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> +1-505-310-3922 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan,
Mike
> (DOH)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:58
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 239, Issue 1
>
> 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
> **********************
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood
> the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> Information including any attachments contained in this electronic
> submission may contain information or technology the export or
> re-export of which is restricted by U.S. export laws and
> regulations.  By viewing this e-mail and any attachments, the
> recipient agrees to the following:
> (1) the recipient's use of the this e-mail and any attachments
> shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations,
> including, without limitation, U.S. export laws and regulations,
> and (2) the recipient may not transfer or otherwise export or
> re-export any information or technology contained in this e-mail or
> any attachment except in full compliance with the export controls
> administered by the U.S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu



More information about the RadSafe mailing list