Academic

How necessary are TSA's new procedures?

By Tung Yin

The new TSA procedures are being justified because metal detectors can't detect the PETN explosives that the underwear bomber and shoe bomber have tried to detonate mid-flight.  As TSA chief John Pistole said:

"We all wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary, but that just isn't the case."

He noted the alleged attempt by a Nigerian with explosives in his underwear to bring down a plane over Detroit last Christmas.

My question is, if we're going to be put to the choice of being zapped with ionized energy via the backscatter machines or being groped by the enhanced pat-downs, is there any reason we should be confident that TSA can actually detect these sorts of threats?  I mean, stories about TSA's failing to detect 60% of fake bombs during audits are not exactly reassuring.  I'd be more understanding about these procedures if there were studies showing that, by using the backscatter machines or gropes, TSA agents were able to detect, oh, 75% of fake PETN explosives in underwear or the like . . . .

Meanwhile, this Scientific American article has some good info on why we can't use dogs to sniff for explosives (which surprised me, after seeing a Mythbusters episode where a dog was able to sniff out fake contraband hidden within a poopy diaper!), as well as how it's easier to detect the metallic components in the explosives trigger than the explosives themselves.

Which suggests better metal detectors should be the solution?

Meanwhile, can we rig airplane bathrooms (and interiors) with sprinkler systems so that they will douse any flames?

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on November 22, 2010 (boomark / email).