It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TSA full body x-ray may be in violation of state laws

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Old enough to remember Buster Brown and the x-ray device for showing your foot inside a new shoe?

The device was in many stores for just a few years around 1950. Well it seems it did not take long for engineerig savvy folks to doubt the safety of the device that showed you and your mother that there was enough room for your foot in your new shoes. Many States passed strict laws regarding the use and maintenance of such devices. Most of the machines went out of service within a year of being installed.

It would be easier to research the existance of laws in place than try to enact new laws restricting the use of x-ray scanning equipment at airports. Lets ask our local officals to apply the Buster Brown laws to the TSA airport screening devices.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by whatwasthat
 


I was born in 1954 and I don't remember the machines but I have heard of them.I wasn't aware of laws being passed for their use ,but you could be on to something here.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 



Shoe Fitting X-Ray Device (used as late as 1981)
Museum Of Quackery ^



Shoe Fitting X-Ray Device In the late 1940's and early 1950's, the shoe-fitting x-ray unit was a common shoe store sales promotion device and nearly all stores had one. It was estimated that there were 10,000 of these devices in use. This particular shoe-fitting x-ray unit was produced by the dominant company in the field, the Adrian X-Ray Company of Milwaukee WI, now defunct. Brooks Stevens, a noted industrial designer whose works included the the Milwaukee Road Olympian and an Oscar Meyer Wienermobile, designed this machine.



The primary component of a shoe-fitting x-ray unit was the fluoroscope which consisted essentially of an x-ray tube mounted near the floor and wholly or partially enclosed in a shielded box and a fluorescent screen. The x-rays penetrated the shoes and feet and then struck the fluorescent light. This resulted in an image of the feet within the shoes. The fluorescent image was reflected to three viewing ports at the top of the cabinet, where the customer, the salesperson, and a third person (your mother?) could view the image at the same time.

The radiation hazards associated with shoe fitting x-ray units were recognized as early as 1950. The machines were often out of adjustment and were constructed so radiation leaked into the surrounding area.

By 1970, shoe fitting x-ray units had been banned in 33 states including Minnesota and strict regulation in the remaining 17 states made their operation impractical. Believe it or not, this particular shoe-fitting x-ray unit was found in 1981 in a department store in Madison, West Virginia. It was still being used in the store's shoe department! When it was pointed out to the store managers that it was against West Virginia law to operate a shoe-fitting x-ray unit, they donated it to the The U.S. Food and Drug Administration.





Not hard to find several references to the shoes store X-ray machines being outlawed in various states.


The path to action is for folks to research for laws in their States and take the information to the airport manager in "Capitol City" as Marge and Homer Simpson would say.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
The Federal Corporation trumps state law. If it doesn't already, it soon will. Just give the Boyars in congress a little time Comrade.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
It does not matter as The TSA is a wing of The US Dept Of Homeland Security and is considered to be Federal territory meaning that it is not subjectable to state law as all airports are considered to be international space and not subjected to the jurisdicition of the state that it sits in.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
It does not matter as The TSA is a wing of The US Dept Of Homeland Security and is considered to be Federal territory meaning that it is not subjectable to state law as all airports are considered to be international space and not subjected to the jurisdicition of the state that it sits in.




The battle for proper airport security is beginning to heat up again now that airports are strongly considering the potential for private security.

Currently, there are 17 airports in the United States – including Kansas City International Airport – that have replaced the traditional TSA screeners with individuals from private security firms. House Transportation Committee has been urging other airports to do the same. But NPR reports that it is not clear if travelers would even notice a difference.

Still, Mark VanLoh, director of the Kansas City International Airport, seems to be very satisfied with the results. "In my opinion, these contract employees – they're not federal employees; they're not guaranteed a job for life," he said. "If they don't meet the performance goals or maybe they're consistently rude, or maybe they miss objects that go through the machine, they are terminated. I can't remember how easy that would be to do with a federal employee. I don't think it is."

This could bode well for companies like ADT Security Services (a subsidiary of Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE: TYC)), which has offered its services to airports, among other industries.

When the TSA was created (via the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001), airports were given the option to use private security screeners. NPR reports that Kansas City was one of the first airports to hire private screeners after the attacks on 9/11.

But don't misunderstand: going private doesn't mean the TSA isn't involved. While its employees may not be the ones who personally screen individuals, the organization is still in charge of hiring the private security team. Furthermore, private screeners must work under TSA supervision and guidance.

Regardless, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, John Mica (R-Florida), insists that private contractors offer an advantage.

"The private screening under federal supervision works and performs statistically significantly better, so our main purpose here is in getting better screening and better performance, not to mention that we can get better cost for the taxpayers," he said.

If, however, your biggest concern has more to do with what the screener sees than who pays his bills, take note: Bloomberg reports that airports may soon test body scanners that are equipped with new privacy upgrades.



Read more: www.benzinga.com...



Certainly The TSA has the most stroke but they a likely also sensitive to criticism of using equipment that may be dangerous.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatwasthat

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
It does not matter as The TSA is a wing of The US Dept Of Homeland Security and is considered to be Federal territory meaning that it is not subjectable to state law as all airports are considered to be international space and not subjected to the jurisdicition of the state that it sits in.




The battle for proper airport security is beginning to heat up again now that airports are strongly considering the potential for private security.

Currently, there are 17 airports in the United States – including Kansas City International Airport – that have replaced the traditional TSA screeners with individuals from private security firms. House Transportation Committee has been urging other airports to do the same. But NPR reports that it is not clear if travelers would even notice a difference.

Still, Mark VanLoh, director of the Kansas City International Airport, seems to be very satisfied with the results. "In my opinion, these contract employees – they're not federal employees; they're not guaranteed a job for life," he said. "If they don't meet the performance goals or maybe they're consistently rude, or maybe they miss objects that go through the machine, they are terminated. I can't remember how easy that would be to do with a federal employee. I don't think it is."

This could bode well for companies like ADT Security Services (a subsidiary of Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE: TYC)), which has offered its services to airports, among other industries.

When the TSA was created (via the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001), airports were given the option to use private security screeners. NPR reports that Kansas City was one of the first airports to hire private screeners after the attacks on 9/11.

But don't misunderstand: going private doesn't mean the TSA isn't involved. While its employees may not be the ones who personally screen individuals, the organization is still in charge of hiring the private security team. Furthermore, private screeners must work under TSA supervision and guidance.

Regardless, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, John Mica (R-Florida), insists that private contractors offer an advantage.

"The private screening under federal supervision works and performs statistically significantly better, so our main purpose here is in getting better screening and better performance, not to mention that we can get better cost for the taxpayers," he said.

If, however, your biggest concern has more to do with what the screener sees than who pays his bills, take note: Bloomberg reports that airports may soon test body scanners that are equipped with new privacy upgrades.



Read more: www.benzinga.com...



Certainly The TSA has the most stroke but they a likely also sensitive to criticism of using equipment that may be dangerous.


I am completely uncomfortable with private interests controlling key elements of our infastructure as if TPTB want to conduct another airport rooted strike they will lauch from the private controlled ones and not those ran by DHS as all they'd have to do is promise a big payout for a company to look the other way.

No more private control over key elements of our infastructure as that serves as a greater national security threat then any bomb or terror cell could ever.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join