[ RadSafe ] World?s Pilots Reject Naked Body Scanners> Over Radiation Danger, Privacy Breach

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Flying on a commercial aircraft is a privilege granted mostly by the
owners of the aircraft, which is dependent upon one's  ability to pay
and willingness to follow rules designed to safeguard both the property
of the owners and the lives and safety of other passengers and the
owners employees.  Due to the shared nature of airports and the
interconnection of different airlines and airports, security is a
function that is most efficiently handled as a regulated, mandated
function, rather than left to the whims of the individual airlines.  

One might argue that a particular level of security and the tactics used
to achieve it might be sub-optimal, and one might well be right.  One
might also complain that there is little-to-no way for the average
person to impact the decisions in this area, and one would certainly be
correct.  On the flip side, I would contend that the average person is
unlikely to have enough information and understanding of the situation
to have an informed opinion, and that adding uninformed opinions into
the process is not likely to help.  For example, the average member of
the public quite possibly has an opinion about the radiation dangers
associated with backscatter scanners, but that opinion is likely to
agree with those of the most knowledgeable people only through chance
(unless the member of the public took the increasingly rare position
that more knowledgeable people were more likely to be correct, and chose
to agree with them).  

As for alternative means of transportation; to the best of my knowledge,
there is an alternative way of reaching every place on Earth that can be
reached by commercial air.  Many of the alternatives are more expensive,
less convenient, and/or take longer, but there you go.  Also, all of
those alternatives have some restriction on the freedoms of the person
trying to use them, but such is life.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Clayton J
Bradt
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:46 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] World?s Pilots Reject Naked Body Scanners> Over
Radiation Danger, Privacy Breach

"Flying on commercial aircraft, like driving a car on public roads, is
not 
a right, but a privilege, dependant on the individual fulfilling a
number 
of requirements.  If an individual does not like the requirements, they 
are welcome to try to change them.  In the mean time, if they don't want

to get scanned or prodded, they had best look into alternative means of 
transportation." 


Mike, what alternative means of transportation did you have in mind?

You have hit the nail on the head, though:   In the land of the free and

the brave there is no inherent right to travel by any mode of 
transportation.  Even on foot, US citizens can be stopped and questioned

by government officials on the slimmest of pretexts; be demanded to 
produce identity papers, to explain where they are going and why, and
even 
be poked and prodded.  Any resistance or refusal to comply would likely 
result in the subject being taken into custody for further questioning. 

We should ask ourselves why travel should be a privilege to be granted
or 
denied by government bureaucrats.

Clayton J. Bradt
dutchbradt at hughes.net

>Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:00:33 -0800
>From: "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] World?s Pilots Reject Naked Body Scanners>
                 Over Radiation Danger, Privacy Breach (re-sending 
without>>)
                 MailingList"            <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>Message-ID:
 <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D036BD568 at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
>Content-Type: text/plain;               charset="utf-8"

>The point that seems to be missed here is that the reason for searching

people before they board a plane it to make sure they do not have >items

that will let them take control of the plane.  Pilots already have
control 
of the plane.  Indeed, in the post-911 search for security, >it was 
proposed that pilots be given guns (I do not know if any airlines
adopted 
this policy).  >

>Having read a number of comments on stories about these scanners, the 
overwhelming concern seems to be that someone will be seeing grainy 
>monochrome images of people "naked".  The radiation issue, if mentioned

at all, is almost always an afterthought, and stated in a way that
>makes 
it clear that the person expressing the concern has not bothered to
become 
informed on the topic.  >

>To me there is a fair analogy to the people, particularly women of a 
particular religion, who do not want to have their picture taken for a 
>driver's license.  Flying on commercial aircraft, like driving a car on

public roads, is not a right, but a privilege, dependant on the 
>individual fulfilling a number of requirements.  If an individual does 
not like the requirements, they are welcome to try to change them.  In 
>the mean time, if they don't want to get scanned or prodded, they had 
best look into alternative means of transportation. 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain
confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally
privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is
intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from
someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not
distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you
for your cooperation. 

_______________________________________________
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