TSA screenings decrease chances of finding a problem.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

"The new, invasive passenger screenings at airports are more than just expensive and unsettling. They decrease the chances of finding a problem and averting an attack!

The transportation security (TSA) government agents are tasked with detecting a very uncommon event--the one among millions of passengers who intends to do harm and who has the capacity to succeed. A notable new line of defense the TSA is rolling out, which is also its most expensive and ineffective one, is the physical examination of passengers at airport security checkpoints.

It is well known in psychology, but evidently unknown in government, that rare events--that is, very low frequency events like a passenger with explosive underwear--are very hard to accurately perceive. Watching passengers day after day after day, human screeners are very likely to miss seeing objects that very rarely appear. So the best way to make TSA agents ever less likely to succeed in finding such a threat is to make them screen huge numbers of passengers.

There's more. With such massive screening, there will also be many "false positives"--that is, cases in which a potential threat is identified but turns out to be not really a problem. The TSA agents will find harmless prosthetics, medical implants, deformities, illnesses, personal idiosyncrasies, and a whole host of similar variations. After extensive follow-up, the people thus singled out will be allowed through to the airplane. But the TSA agents will see so many cases of these false alarms, these false positives, that it will interfere further with their ability to recognize the true threats".

Read more; http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/secrets-longevity/201011/scientific-reasons-not-screening-all-airline-passengers

I believe these screenings are not only a violation of our rights, but a waste of time.

[RandomThoughts]

1. You assume the intent of the activities is to make air flight safer.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

3. No. I think is to make people think they are safe,

to intimidate and to make money from the scanners.

[lob1]

2. I don't believe for a minute that they are as harmless as they claim.

All kinds of x-rays are dangerous...except these, if you believe the makers.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

4. and they are being run by people with doubtful training.

I would like to know how often these machines are calibrated? How many techs are there at the airport to monitor these scanners? Where are they putting the used blue gloves between gropings?

I know that the settings on the metal detectors are different at every airport because my replaced joint sets some off and not others. Same joint but different machine. So like I asked, who's calibrating these machines and how often?

[lob1]

5. Good questions. And a small child gets the same dose

of radiation as a 300 pound football player. I dose fits all. But the ones that'll probably show up with cancer first are the TSA people. I don't believe they're adequately protected, either.

[BlueIris]

6. Good point about the TSA agents' own risk of cancer from the machines.

I wonder if they are aware of the risk they run doing these jobs?

[lob1]

7. Maybe that's why they're untrained. If they actually knew

the danger, they wouldn't do it.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

8. That's a good point.

Imagine a pregnant TSA worker standing by this machine for most of the day.
I wouldn't even go near a microwave when I was pregnant, lol.

[LisaL]

9. And what does TSA plan to do if they actually were to find

a terrorist with a functioning bomb during the pat down or a scan?
Considering all the people who are going to be standing around during such event.