I'll be staying near my home for Thanksgiving. But if I did have plans to travel by airplane for the holiday, I think I'd be apprehensive about the new screening procedures implemented by the Transportation Safety Authority (TSA).
My concern is not with the scanning machines. The level of potential radiation exposure, even by the back-scatter units, is almost immeasurably low relative to what's in our everyday environment. Rather, I'm worried about screening errors -- false positive and false negative results, and about harms -- physical and/or emotional, that patients and people with disability may experience during the process.
Even with these new machines in full-future swing, it's easy to imagine that an imperfectly trained, inexperienced, or just plain tired screener might miss an irregularity, especially in the context of a steady stream of harried passengers rushing to catch flights. These operators might miss seeing weapons despite the visual "information" available, right in front of their eyes. The solution, to maximize the scanners' value and our unwanted exposures, would be through careful training and testing of the examiners. Still, we can't get around the fact that T.S.A. employees are human and sometimes nearing the end of a shift; better machines can reduce but not eliminate these kinds of errors.
My second concern is with the potential harm to patients and people with disabilities. Patients may be harmed physically, if screeners mishandle a pump or other device. A pat-down person might, for example, press too hard on a breast cancer patient's implant or expander and rupture that. Emotional trauma may be very real, and lasting. Most TSA screeners aren't accustomed, as are doctors and nurses, to seeing people's medical baggage -- colostomies, stumps and other disfigurements that are usually concealed under a person's clothing.
There's been a lot of attention to one case, that of a 61 year old man with a history of bladder cancer whose urostomy bag ruptured during an airport pat-down. The man described his urine spilling all over, and feeling humiliated. I think this a very understandable reaction. A person who's experienced significant illness with residual scars and deformities, may be unnerved by a stranger's brusque pat-down or look-over.
I don't think this is a civil rights issue. After all, we don't have to travel on airplanes. In my opinion, no one has the right to board a public vehicle without full screening if that's what the TSA advises for reasons of public safety. Nor is it a patient empowerment issue, in the sense that this is not about educating patients so they can better participate in health decisions.
The matter is to what extent we should and can accommodate the needs of people with health issues and disabilities. Unfortunately, in a cost-cutting, fear-laden environment, patients' emotional needs may be shortchanged.
What would help, clearly, is better sensitivity and training of TSA staff, as was suggested in response to the urostomy incident. But given the huge volume of travelers and enormousness of our complicated transportation system, it seems unlikely we'll get a satisfactory solution among all staff at all airports, at least not in time for Thanksgiving.
Meanwhile I hope the screeners will use the new equipment effectively, and that those individuals who plan to boycott the scanners with a National Opt-Out Day, will change their minds. The TSA employees have enough on their hands already, without a demonstration; it's in everyone's interest that the screening be effective, hopefully 100 percent, in this holiday season.
Follow Dr. Elaine Schattner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/medicallessons
Forgot your health physics, get as little radiation as possible over your lifetime?
"So, what is all the concern really about — will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama’s science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed “serious concerns” about the “dangerously high” dose of radiation to the skin. "
Given the choice between believing Janet Napolitano or a panel of medical experts, I know who I'll listen to.
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_stories/blaylock_TSA_scan_safety/2010/11/24/363489.html
"After all, we don't have to travel on airplanes." ~ there are tens of millions of people who do in fact have to travel on airplanes if they wish to maintain there jobs beyond the obvious (and now excluded) pilots and stewardesses. Do you advocate that these citizens simply quit?
"In my opinion, no one has the right to board a public vehicle without full screening if that's what the TSA advises for reasons of public safety." ~ and so now you put your complete faith and trust in the infallible TSA? So if they advised strip searches, cavity searches, colonoscopies, ob-gyn examines to board a plane....that's ok?
People say driving is a right I guess, because it is somewhat regulated. But that does not relegate it to "privledge" status.
The founders of this country couldn't forsee cars or airtravel, but they covered it in the 5th amendment. What good are "rights" if the government can control your movement by limiting your mode of travel?
The writer is correct in that most of us don't "have" to fly. And that's fine by me, because I will NOT fly until this sick combination of radiation and gropage is sorted out. If enough people agree, the airlines will feel it. Then they'll complain that the government is destroying their business.
Then you will see some changes. They want us to spend money on air travel. They also want to radiate us or honk our junk. Perhaps they can have their cake and eat it too, it all depends on how meek and obedient mainstream America turns out to be.
There are plenty of people that can't vote. If you don't fulfill the requirement of registering, you can't vote. If you are a convicted felon, you can't vote. Does that mean that voting is also a privilege?
I just have a problem with the concept of Americans relinquishing their right to move about freely through such a vague concept as "privilege" as it could apply to any given form of transportation.
Looking at the amendments, the very spirit is the affording of rights to citizens, not limiting our rights.
The right to move about freely is pretty basic. If you can't travel as your needs require, your liberties are severely restricted. Why most people refuse to realize that right beyond walking on foot, is a mystery to me. The common perception that our right to any other form of travel beyond walking defaults to being granted as a privilege by the government is just plain unAmerican. To assume the framers would have uncharacteristically sought to restrict future, more efficient forms of travel doesn't make sense.
Air travel is a life and death matter for some people, and certainly a component for the pursuit of happiness for most.
The need to travel doesn't mean that we are dependent on the government for anything beyond safety and order.
Something else to keep in mind there are lawsuits that are pending right now about the lack of an independent third party to verify how much radiation those machines expose a passenger to when they are working properly and under all adverse operating conditions. Something as minor as a lightning storm and a brown out can be all it takes to expose somebody to a higher than normal dose of radiation.
A grope from a burger-flipper is not security. It is the charade of security.
And if you don't know that unencumbered travel is a right rather than a privilege, you haven't read the 5th amendment to the Constitution.
https://contact.tsa.dhs.gov/DynaForm.aspx?FormID=10
We need to return to the pre politically correct years and do what is reasonable which is profiling.
I can tell you for sure that my 86 year old mom will never try and down a 737.
What works for Israel is BEHAVIORAL PROFILING. Can we start using that term, so as not to confuse the less attentive human rights activists?
You're in line. You've got a buttload of explosives. You're a bit nervous, and it stands out. Someone notices, and you are gently shuttled off to a back room for probing.
And if you take drugs to mask your anxiety, they'll notice that too. I would love that job!
John