Screw the TSA!

[guardian]

What worthless organisation. It is a complete sham and waste of time and money.


I just had to get that off my chest today.

[CreekDog]

1. Forced X-rays, that's TSA

and it's indefensible. and not even all that useful. :wtf:

:hi:

[flamingdem]

27. Don't worry the cancer will show up years later, no problem!

Scientists from UC San Francisco and Colombia University have criticized backscatter machines as potential contributors to breast and skin cancers, etc. because the calculations were incorrect for dosage!

Instead of the numbers TSA gave it is over 20 time more because the dosage is all concentrated on the skin, not throughout the body.

So they are lying idiots, and who would trust their calibrations.

What if they don't like a passenger, would you put it past them to give a double dose?

England has these as MANDATORY now. You won't be entering England without being imaged.

[NeedleCast]

28. Silly

You get for more radiation exposure from the actual flight than you do from the X-ray.

[CreekDog]

30. not to specific parts of your body --especially if they take the average 10+ images

:hi:

and i'm sure you don't know what i'm talking about.

[NeedleCast]

I fly frequently

Never in the pre- or post- TSA era have I had a specific body part X-rayed, nor have I ever been asked to step through an X-ray machine or back-scatter machine more than once.

Not really sure I understand your comment. I don't support TSA and generally think they're a waste of time and money but the "danger" of the X-ray is practically none.

[CreekDog]

39. right, you are judging TSA procedures by your own experiences

TSA's procedures certainly include more than what you've experienced:

(average of 10+ xrays taken of that part of the body according to Popular Mechanics).

[NeedleCast]

43. Are you speaking of special situations?

Like the person in the cast above? Do you have a link to the Popular Mechaics article?

[CreekDog]

46. yes, here's the link

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/the-problem-with-prosthetics-and-airport-security

there is no opt-out for this.

someone who has lost a limb to cancer is forced to subject themselves to xrays to that body part, on average, 10 for a certain type of amputee and more for other types.

[NeedleCast]

50. I'd agree that this process is a poor one

the process for amputees with prosthetics needs to be changed, I wont argue that.

That being said, we're talking about using a special X-ray machine. Did you read the FAQ on the CastScan machine? Even at 10 Xrays per flight, it's still a negligable amount of radiation. Plus, in the case of people with prosthetics, you're not X-raying a living part of the body. That's different in the case of poeple with casts of course, but see information below.

Again, it appears that even in the worst case scenario, the radiation is the equal of a few minutes to half an hour of flight time.

Q: What is the difference between backscatter x-rays and medical x-rays?
A: Backscatter x-rays only penetrate approximately ¼ of an inch before the rays are scattered, whereas medical X-rays transmit completely through the body. For comparison, the CastScope emits less than 10 microRem of radiation per scan and a typical medical X-ray emits 10,000 to 100,000 microRem per scan.

Q: How much radiation exposure is produced from 1 scan of the CastScope? Is it safe?
A: One scan is equivalent to approximately 10 microRem of radiation. This is equivalent to the exposure each person receives in about two minutes of airplane flight at altitude or each person receives every 15 minutes from naturally occurring background radiation.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) developed a standard for X-raying human subjects for security purposes using back-scatter X-ray technology. The National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) states that a person receiving 1000 microRem (100 scans) per year is still considered a negligible individual dose. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and NCRP have advised that the CastScope is safe to use on anyone ages 5 and up regardless of gender or any medical condition.

[CreekDog]

54. Are you a medical professional or scientist with expertise in physiology?

Not to be overly critical, but I see a fairly elementary error in how you are reacting to the data/dosages.

First, you are treating background radiation exposure dosage spread over the whole body as if it that's equivalent to a similar dose to a small area of the body, ionizing just below the surface of the skin. That's wrong and it's why UCSF scientists, including one whose Nobel Prize was in this field, are questioning and concerned about the backscatter x-rays and these are far worse than those.

Second, you've made an amazing and wrong conclusion about it not being a part of the body. Prosthetic limbs by necessity include a part of the body that not only attaches them, but sits inside them. Those parts, often vulnerable, often because of the medical reasons the amputation occurred are subjected to 10 scans or more per one way trip. The person described in the article flying for 10 round trips per year, would have 200 scans.

You are right, it's bad and needs to be changed, you are wrong however, in some of your assumptions and the way you are wrong means that you are underestimating how bad this system really is.

Second, children over age 5 are exposed to these contraptions. Imagine that, a kid wearing a cast that's 6 years old, with a limb and bones are subject to these devices. What if the kid has cancer? I called TSA --no exceptions, no opt out --what if they have to fly to Memphis for treatment. Too bad. This is a travesty.

Finally one more thing: already being of questionable safety when used as it was designed, the whole program rests on the ability of TSA workers to use the devices properly.

If your child has a cast on their femur, do you trust the TSA agent to not point the device, multiple times at your son's testicles (remember, there's no cast protecting them)?

This is a travesty and a wrong being perpetuated on people, and children are victims who have no ability to stand up to it themselves, nor legally consent to its effects.

This is wrong.

[CreekDog]

47. and be careful to stop the thought in your head that's saying "I meant normal people"

:hi:

[flamingdem]

35. Read the studies done at Colombia University, I think they know more than you! nt

[NeedleCast]

37. Would you care to supply the study, I can supply a lot that says there is no danger

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-security-airlines-scanners-idUSTRE60553920100106

But the radiation levels are well below the threshold that could be considered a risk to an individual's health, said Dr. James Thrall of the American College of Radiology and chief of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

"All of the concerns that we have about the medical use of X-rays really don't apply to these devices," Thrall said in a telephone interview.

"The exposure is extremely low and the energy of the X-rays is also very, very low," he said.


http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/How-Much-Radiation-in-an-Enhanced-Body-Scan-110008919.html

Michael D. Story, Ph.D. is an associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas in the Division of Molecular Radiation Biology, he does research on radiation for NASA.

His overall assessment of the scanners? "The risk in this case for cancer is extremely low. An individual should not be worried about that at all," Story said.

http://news.discovery.com/human/travel-body-scanners-radiation.html

"Most people are unaware about the fact that there is significant radiation exposure associated with air travel because they are well above the Earth's atmosphere," said Robert J. Barish, a radiological and health physicist in New York City. "You'd get as much radiation in a whole-body scanner as you'd get in two minutes at 30,000 feet."

[CreekDog]

40. Why should anyone listen to you? You didn't even know the TSA procedures I was referring to

nor did you know the equipment used.

nor did you know that it involves multiple forced x-rays to a specific part of the body.

your credibility on this is completely gone now.

[NeedleCast]

45. LOL, Okay Mr. Expert

You're speaking of special proceedures for a very small part of the population, for very specific reasons.

The danger to the general flying population of the world is practically zero.

[fatbuckel]

48. It`s amazing how miffed people get if you don`t agree with TSA hating.

Still waiting for your studies,flamingdem. Face it, it`s not a pleasant scenario but until someone has a better idea.....so enough with the drama-queening.

[NeedleCast]

49. Shoot, I'm happy to join the TSA hating usually

I doubt that we get the service from them that warrant spending the what we do in tax dollars on that agency. I'm also generally opposed to full-body scanners. That being said, if you're going to be pissed at the TSA about something, the "danger" from X-ray scanners shouldn't be part of what you're pissed about...but of course DU loves it some fear.

[Angry Dragon]

2. But they catch terrorists every day

[Thunderstruck]

4. Has the TSA caught a single bonafide terrorist?

[Angry Dragon]

5. Nope, Nada, None

But they give a decent full body massage

[SDuderstadt]

7. How is the TSA supposed to...

catch someone who has been dissuaded from hijacking a flight by preventive measures?

[CreekDog]

41. how does harassing old ladies in wheelchairs help them catch terrorists?

or forced x-raying of young amputee moms, while simultaneously physically separating them from their young children.

the idea that allowing them to do this helps them catch terrorists --no, it helps them harass the disabled, which is mostly what they do.

hard to believe, but actually watch most of what goes on at a checkpoint. it's about subjecting those with physical differences to intense scrutiny.

[LibDemAlways]

57. It's harassment pure and simple. The government exerting authority over

the citizenry in the most vile way possible - by invading their personal privacy without reason or justification.

Years ago, before the groping started, I witnessed a sickening display at SEA-TAC in which an elderly Alzheimers patient was forcibly lifted out of her wheelchair to be wanded and given the bra strap treatment. Her daughter, a senior citizen herself, begged the goons to leave her mother alone. The daughter was crying and pleading. The mother looked terrified. Had no idea what the hell was happening. Today that poor old lady would be subjected to even worse abuse.

It's just a horrible situation. The government exceeding its authority with impunity and those in a position to do something about it looking the other way.

I have pins in my ankle from an old injury. The nude-o-scope would reveal them and I'd be pulled aside for the groping. No way. Not flying. My daughter has a scholarship offer to attend college next year in another state that would almost certainly necessitate flying there. While the opportunity would be fantastic, I can't see exposing her to the TSA crap either. It's terrible that it's come to this.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. quick way to cut $8billion+ from the budget... n/t

[SDuderstadt]

6. I'd love to see...

one of you guys develop an airport security system.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. the thing is we already had one...

and it could have been mildly modified to solve the problem. but no, we had to create a giant government clusterfuck to solve it...or at least let people THINK the problem is solved.


sP

[SDuderstadt]

10. Okay...

tell us how you would "mildly modify" it and explain why that would work.

[Angry Dragon]

23. How about we start with having private jets go through

the same procedures .......... no exceptions

[FLPanhandle]

9. Everyone bitches about the TSA (including me sometimes)

However, the reality is we need security screening at airports.

Remember the late 1960's, there were about 2 hijackings per month.

If you don't like TSA, think their security measures are a waste of time/money, then what would you replace it with?
No security at all?

[LibDemAlways]

12. I don't think anyone here is in favor of no security. How about

something resembling intelligent security?

Other countries manage to do just fine without resorting to TSA's ridiculous, invasive, unconstitutional tactics that make no one safer.

[SDuderstadt]

15. It isn't "unconstitutional"...

there are numerous exceptions in which warrentless searches are permitted.

[LibDemAlways]

17. The 4th amendment clearly states that

there needs to be "probable cause" to carry out a search. Explain how public gropings at the airport of random passengers meets that criteria.

[FLPanhandle]

21. How does any security screen meet that criteria?

By your definition, any security screening at all is a violation of the 4th amendment. Explain the difference

[LibDemAlways]

31. Isn't it a question of what's reasonable vs. unreasonable?

How is it reasonable that the genitals of a six year old must be fondled as a condition for boarding an aircraft? That's total bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Her genitals were not fondled...

her parents complained that the agent ran his/her hands along the girl's inner thighs and around the waistband of her jeans.

Please quit exaggerating.

[PVnRT]

51. Oh, well that's perfectly fine, then

[SDuderstadt]

24. See case law...

federal courts and the Supreme Court disagree with you. In the same way there are exceptions to the 1st Amendment, there are exceptions to the fourth amendment.

[FLPanhandle]

18. The most effective and intelligent security involves profiling

No silly nud-o-scope machines, no groping 6 year olds, no ban on liquids, etc.

However, imagine the howling of outrage here if the TSA implemented profile based security.

Anything else means everyone has to be treated the same from a 6 year old to a 95 year old. We bring the unintelligence upon ourselves by not admitting that everyone isn't the same threat.

[LibDemAlways]

25. That I agree with. Not every one is the same threat, and I think

that's actually the crux of the TSA problem.

[FLPanhandle]

32. Yes, but they are avoiding lawsuits and political fallout

If the 25 year old muslim guy sets off the metal detector and gets groped, but notices a 6 year old setting off the metal detector doesn't, then he's filing a lawsuit.

Then it's onto the TV to complain about being singled out.

Frankly, I'm with you. Not everyone is the same threat. We need to just admit it. TSA should use selective profiling as the basis for security and fuck the complainers.

[Blue_Tires]

58. Clearly you've never had the distinct pleasure of 'driving while black'

Because this is the first defense of profiling I've ever read on DU, and it reeks of the circa 2003 attitude of "I don't care who you search or how you do it, but I'm no terrorist so let me go through untouched!"

People aren't stupid -- You focus in too much on your ideal "likely threat" profile, criminals naturally gravitate to using a "least likely" demographic...

[Gormy Cuss]

22. The TSA is a gigantic waste of time and money because it's piss-poor security.

The domestic hijacking era end without the need for everyone to pass a strip search or prison-style patdown.

[CreekDog]

42. i would replace xrays of the body with something else

and reduce the number of people subjected to the intense scrutiny the current regimen does.

also, i would not, as TSA currently does, spend almost all resources intensively screening the same disabled and/or infirm people again, and again, and again --using all the tools in their quiver to make traveling for this group absolutely miserable.

[avaistheone1]

56. A system like they have in Israel. There system is highly effective.

[LibDemAlways]

11. Complete waste of taxpayer dollars. The most recent outrage was

the videotaped groping of a six year old girl who was later taken off for a drug test. Bunch of fucking morons engaging in unconstitutional and borderline immoral shit.


Few things in life get me as pissed off just thinking about it.

[SDuderstadt]

13. I dunno...

9/11 gets me pretty pissed off.

[LibDemAlways]

14. 911 was the result of Bush's failure to respond appropriately to

warnings about a possible attack. No way should every single airline passenger have to surrender his or her dignity just because Bush and his minions fucked up.

[SDuderstadt]

16. That is simply not true...

Bush deserves much blame, but there were numerous significant contributors.

[LibDemAlways]

20. Well the traveling public wasn't one of those unnamed

"significant contributors." However, the heavy hand of the government is now treating them all - everyone from the tiniest infant to the eldest senior - as potential terrorists who need to be groped. I hope the next time you travel you and your loved ones get the full on treatment you apparently feel is necessary for your safety.

[SDuderstadt]

26. I travel frequently...

I'm willing to bet you don't.

[CreekDog]

44. I travel frequently --and I'm treated the way the poster describes

every single time i fly.

and it's about to get worse (which i didn't think was possible).

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. carried out by people with box cutters

which were easily detectable at the time...

and against planes that were not secured against that sort of attack...

while we're here...do you honestly think that people will EVER be able to hijack planes with knives again? ya see, there used to be a contract between hijackers and passengers. don't fuck with us, just take us where we want or meet our demands and you will survive. not so much any more.

sP

[SDuderstadt]

29. Security rules in effect at the time...

allowed knives with less than 4" blades.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

34. i know...

i used to carry one in my tool kit. i simply do not agree that all this TSA mess is necessary or effective.

sP

[SDuderstadt]

36. Great...

then don't fly.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Typical strawman argument n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

55. how about we get to fly without the TSA

shoving their hands into the underwear of 6 and 96 year olds? Box cutters or really any method used by a small group to take over a plane will never happen again due to the violation of that contract-thing I mentioned earlier. Sure, they could blow a plane out of the sky but that will happen through baggage most likely as that is the weak link right now.

putting hands on people as a search method and hi-res nudie images are not needed. magnetometers, explosive sniffers and profiling will do much more than the pseudo-random searches they are doing now...and you know that, but you are choosing to be obtuse and sophomoric with your 'don't fly' BS.

sP

[leftstreet]

33. Yawn

FLRA Accepts AFGE Petition for Union Election at TSA

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire
The Federal Labor Relations Authority today accepted the petition from the American Federation of Government Employees to hold a union election at the Transportation Security Administration.

"AFGE argued, and the FLRA agreed, that the right for employees to elect an exclusive representative and the right to engage in collective bargaining are two separate and distinct rights," AFGE National President John Gage said. "We have always said the choice to unionize and the task of winning collective bargaining rights at TSA would be a two-part process.

"While we wait for the decision on collective bargaining rights that TSA Administrator Pistole has indicated will come soon, the election process can begin to move forward," Gage added. "TSOs have waited long enough for both formal representation in the workplace and for the same collective bargaining rights held by Border Patrol and Federal Protective Service officers, ICE agents, FEMA employees, DoD civilians—as well as those screening officers that work for TSA contractors.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/flra-accepts-afge-petition-for-union-election-at-tsa-107570868.html

TSA to hold union election

By Emily Long November 12, 2010

Transportation Security Administration employees soon will be able to vote for exclusive union representation.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority on Friday accepted a petition from the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union to hold an election to determine which group will represent TSA workers. Petitions filed by AFGE and NTEU earlier this year were denied by an FLRA regional official, but Friday's decision reverses that ruling. Both unions have been vying for exclusive representation of 40,000 TSA employees. FLRA will set the timeline for the election, count the votes and certify the results.

AFGE National President John Gage praised the decision, arguing Transportation Security officers have waited too long for union representation.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/111210l3.htm