No evidence airport security makes planes safer

[buckthesystem]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4332665a12.html

Airport security lines can annoy passengers, but there is no evidence that they make flying any safer, US researchers reported.

A team at the Harvard School of Public Health could not find any studies showing whether the time-consuming process of X-raying carry-on luggage prevents hijackings or attacks.

They also found no evidence to suggest that making passengers take off their shoes and confiscating small items prevented any incidents.

The US Transportation Security Administration told research teams requesting information their need for quick new security measures trumped the usefulness of evaluating them, Eleni Linos, Elizabeth Linos, and Graham Colditz reported in the British Medical Journal.

"We noticed that new airport screening protocols were implemented immediately after news reports of terror threats," they wrote.

"Even without clear evidence of the accuracy of testing, the Transportation Security Administration defended its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year," the researchers added. "Most of these illegal items were lighters."

The researchers said it would be interesting to apply medical standards to airport security. Screening programmes for illnesses like cancer are usually not broadly instituted unless they have been shown to work.

"We'd like airport security screening to be of value. As passengers and members of the public we'd like to know the evidence and the reasoning behind these measures," Linos said in a telephone interview.

With $US5.6 billion ($NZ7.47 billion) spent globally on airport protection each year, the public should be encouraged to query some screening requirements

[O'Dannyboy]

The evidence is that no planes have been hijacked or blown up. What other evidence is necessary? I suppose if one in a hundred planes were falling out of the sky they would feel they were accomplishing something? Perhaps there are some elements of their screening that need to be reviewed but other than that if they were to ease up on security they would find out soon enough that they were doing the right thing. It only take ONE plane to crash or explode before they realize they need to stay vigilant.

[rtwo]

There was also no evidence that it -isn't- working.

It's a useless report, because we don't have a record of methodology; we don't know what metrics were used; we don't know how data was collected and collated, nor what data. It's just not responsible to take this report seriously without knowing these basics.

[Guest]

That there haven't been any more hijackings/planes flying into buildings is enough "evidence" that it works for me. Why hand an enemy a target for free?

[stan4257]

That there haven't been any more hijackings/planes flying into buildings is enough "evidence" that it works for me. Why hand an enemy a target for free?

I don't fly a lot but when I do I want to feel safe, and if that means starting my journey earlier to go through the safety precautions then that is fine with me.

[buckthesystem]

So a few of you imagine that you "feel safer" after going through all those ridiculous, unnecessary "security features" in order to exercise your right to travel.

I'm sure that the majority see it for what it is: A waste of time and an exercise only in providing opportunities for pernicious control freaks to "get off" on weilding a bit of power over people.

What "security" is gained by stealing peoples' lighters, nail clippers, little pocket knives with a one inch blade etc? Or above all what is the logic in prohibiting liquids? This is utterly ludicrous and only has the effect of alienating passengers and making them really dislike airport staff.

Also, according to the article: "The researchers said it would be interesting to apply medical standards to airport security. Screening programmes for illnesses like cancer are usually not broadly instituted unless they have been shown to work". OK, now what will it do for "security" to "apply medical standards to airport security"? And what business is it of airline staff if a passenger has cancer?

Also, the bit about removing shoes is pertinent. As they said: "What can you hide in your shoes that you cannot hide in your underwear"?

And what is the point of taking 10 fingerprints?

I could go on all night about the unnecessary, silly control freak, punative, pointless "security measures" at airports.

[rtwo]

In response:

http://independentthinking.wordpress.com/2...-calls-it-news/

to the admin -- this is my personal blog. If there is something there that you prefer not be linked, let me know. thanks.