"Canadians are going to have to consider that their human rights may be bent if they wish to fly on a commercial airline in a safer manner"

I think that there might be more than just human RIGHTS depending on how frequently one flies and how often one has to go through a detector when one goes from A to B.

One of the manufacturers of the scanning system can be checked out here:

http://www.as-e.com/products_solutions/smart_check.asp

It states the following: "Effective X-Ray Dose as measured per ANSI standard: Less than 0.1 µSv (10 µRem) per scan"

Flying from PG to Victoria return means an exposure of 20 µRem. That is the same exposure of about one chest X-ray.

Fly once a week for say 30 weeks a year, that becomes 600 .

That results in about 30 days of lost life expectancy on average.

Fly between PG and the USA that frequently then the dose becomes 1200 µRem for a total average life expectancy loss of 60 days.

Remember, that is average. Some bodies are more susceptible, others are less.

ALARA, a radiation safety specialst firm, recommends a maximum exposure of 500 µRem/yr for occupational maximums.

http://alaraconsultants.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8

The numbers I used are taken from this site http://www.uvm.edu/~radsafe/newsletter/bioeffect.47.html

Gus, flying is a choice, not a right.

Flying is not a choice in the north. We have no rail to the south (another broken promise) and my employer is not going to give me an extra two days of vacation to drive back and forth to Vancouver. And in a country like Canada, its not really a choice if I have to go to Toronto or Montreal for business.

Yes, when plane travel was new it was a choice. But now it is an intergal part of modern society. Having a phone is a choice, but its hard to get by in modern life without one.

I don't know about my privacy issues when flying, though. Yes I want to be safe. But do I have to be naked to do so? If we allow our privacy to be stripped (excuse the pun) at airports, where then do we draw the line?

Heightened security does not mean traveling will be any safer if procedures are not followed. It seems this man was acting strange at checkin, and was assisted by another man. He had no passport, paid in cash, oneway ticket and no luggage. Now these are all supposed to be red flags, but where ignored.

Driving to Vancouver now takes about twice the time it takes to fly when all the time involved in flying is considered such as driving to the airport, parking, being there 2 hours before departure, flight time, waiting 1/2 hour to retrieve luggage, rental car or public transport to final destination.
If not for Westjet the cost to fly to Vancouver would be prohibitive. Consider the old days of Canadian and Air Canada when it cost upwards of $800.00 for a PG/VCR return flight.
The airport security hassle is just getting out of control. A much more efficient people friendly system is long overdue.

Flying is a choice?

If that is correct, then so is driving, walking, sitting, shopping, working, etc.

Therefore, I disagree with you.

For me, flying is not a choice. I fly to do my business. If I could not fly, it would mean 10 hours to get to meetings instead of 3. That would make the meetings cost prohibitive and lower mainland people would end up doing the job I do simply. The same would go for many others living here.

BTW. I would have no problem if everyone flew nude. I am sure some people would.

Of course, the main thing is that even if people flew nude, it would not stop someone intent on getting on an airplane to take it down. Being allowed to keep clothes on and going through scanners makes it even easier.

Just think, the cover of one's passport could be the material for a bomb and the ink cartridge of a pen could be the material that ignites the bomb.

Where there is a will and imagination, there is a way.

Oh, btw, do not just look at passengers. There are tens of thousands of people who work in secure areas at airports throughout the world every day.

As can be seen from the latest case, the human factor is the weakest whether it is the inability to follow procedures or the intentional action of a mole who has been planted and working for several months and years and gets activated when the time comes.

Of course, for people like Stompin Tom, living is a choice.

Gus,

You still have not given any reason why it is not a choice.

Its your choice whether you step on that plane or not. They may be personal concequences, but it is still YOUR CHOICE.

But by reading your posts I see your firmly beleive that what you think is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what anybody else thinks.

You complain about the x-ray machine at the airport, but last time I looked nobody stood their and forced you by gun point to walk through it. You have the choice to turn around.

Gus,

it really bothers you to have somebody stand up to you doesn't it? I would hate to be your significant other.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/27/petn-pentaerythritol-trinitrate-explosive

Read the report linked above, and you can see why even a full body scan detector will not likely uncover the bomb.

Stand up to me? Does not bother me one bit. I like a challenge. Not to say you are a challenge, of course. There are some on here who are, and I will be the first one to agree with someone who has raised a sensible point. You rarely do in my mind. But then again, the same probably works in the reverse, I am sure.

The question is who is the one "standing up" to whom and how sensible are they in putting forth their point of view.

If you have not been able to tell, what bothers me is people spouting nonesense. Cannot have reasonable discussions with unreasonable people. I enjoy reasonable discussion so that I can learn from othere people's thought. Not much to learn from yours.

As you can see from the above posts, Stompin, I am not the only one who disagrees with you. :-)

Now that we have finished the ad hominem attack, can we get back to the discussion, Stompin?

Flash says flying is not a choice in the North.

Seamutt agrees that heightned security procedures will not make travelling any safer if procedures are not followed. I agree entirely with that. Procedure was not the problem. The failure to activate the procedures appears to have been the problem and Obama has made the statement that people will be let go. That is yet to be seen, of course.

Resident agrees that a more people friendly system is required. Whether that is intended to mean body scanners or not, I am not sure.

Stompin Tom. The machine at the airport that I and others walk through is not an X-ray machine. It is a metal detector as are the wands.

Learning a little more about these kinds of things before writing your thoughts down would help the discussion a bit.

Stompin, I aim to please.

Here is a site that will explain the operations of such a device to you.

[url]http://science.howstuffworks.com/airport-security3.htm[/url

Gus,

you done whinning now?

Take some time and prove to me that flying is not a choice, its a right.

Wait, you cant do it because it IS A CHOICE.

Stompin. As I said, I let people know that they have said something I agree with.

You wrote: "I would hate to be your significant other."

I must say, I would hate you to be my significant other as well!! :-)

I am glad there are heightened security measures at airports. An issue of human rights? If it means not getting blown up on an airplane I would gladly endure any search procedure neccessary to ensure my safety. During one trip to the US I was body searched because I kept on setting off the metal detector. I didn't mind because it demonstrated the airport's diligence. Two female staff conducted the search and it was done in a very respectful way.

Gus.,

you might want to read your own links a bit better, but then again, your never wrong.

"AS&E's Z Backscatter is a patented technology based on the X-ray Compton Scattering effect. "

I find it funny how you base your full argument in an earlier post about the radion emitted, and use your own links and go on to tell us how much life you lose going through it, but never took the time to read the whole article about how it is actually an x-ray machine?

"Effective X-Ray Dose as measured per ANSI standard: Less than 0.1 �Sv (10 �Rem) per scan"

Here is your own like, maybe read it someday.

http://www.as-e.com/products_solutions/smart_check.asp

Stompin. Have you ever studied logic?

You are the one who came out with the assertion that flying is a choice. That was not me.

It is you who made the statement. It is you who must defend the statement, not I. If you are unable to defend it, then so be it.

You defend it in a reasonable argument, and I will respond in kind, in a reasonable counter argument.

Debating works with some very simple rules/procedures.

Stompin. Now you are getting ridiculous. Suffering a bit from short term memory loss, are you?

You posted: "You complain about the x-ray machine at the airport, but last time I looked nobody stood their and forced you by gun point to walk through it. You have the choice to turn around."

There is no x-ray machine at the airport here that I or anyone else has to walk through. That is the note I responded to.

Gus.

its real simple. Flying is an option.

Thats a FACT. you chose to say it isnt, how is it not a fact? Because you refuse to drive 10 hours to your meeting? That is a choice, but your to stubborn to admit it.

Others will take your job if you dont fly? That is a choice you have to make. Many people change jobs for lesser reasons, that is their choice.

So far all you have chosen to do is be stuborn and not admit that your wrong.

http://graveyardofthegods.com/articles/cantprovenegative.html

If you are not familiar with debating, read the above and make sure you read the following passage.

"Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all."

You made the assertion that flying is a choice. Or did you forget that as well?

Gus

Mr Holier than thou.

I quote you:

"Of course, for people like Stompin Tom, living is a choice."

You take the time to make that post. Now you follow up:

"Debating works with some very simple rules/procedures."

Here is a little something for you to consider, you play with fire, your going to get burned. You went out of your way to throw a shot at me, you then best be prepared to eat some crow.

Your condescending attitude is quite obvious to most who post here.

Guys, its not an assertion, flying is a choice.

Show me in the charter of rights where it says you have the "right" to fly. Its not in there, why, because its not a right, its a choice.

Gus

here is some simple evidence that you should understand because its in your word:

"For me, flying is not a choice. I fly to do my business. If I could not fly, it would mean 10 hours to get to meetings instead of 3."

You see, you offered your own choice in your argument. You can fly for 3 hours or drive for 10. That is a choice you make.

Stompin. As I said, life is a choice. So is breathing, so is everything a human does.

So I will agree that it is a choice since almost everything, if not everything a human does beyond a certain age of cognisance is a choice other than those things that remove that choice by man-made laws. But it is also a right.

But you are positioning the "choice" relative to a "right" when you write: "flying is a choice, not a right."

Now the definition of "choice" becomes relative to a "right".

Is breathing a right or a choice? Or is it actually both?

Is going to a restaurant a right or a choice? Or is it both? When going to a restaurant, is it a right to have safe food served to you? Is it the duty of the restaurant that you have safe food served to you?

When something is offered to the public, is it a right or a choice, or both? Is it a duty to offer that product or service in a safe way?

So let us then deal with whether flying is a right. Your assertion was that it is not a right.

Prove it.

Gus

here is a link for you to follow:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/choice

Gus,

Its my assertion that its not a right.

Prove to me that it is.

another link for you,

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Stompin. It appears that you love ad hominem attacks. That is very common for an individual who cannot debate the issue without trying to demean the opposition in the debate.

Demeaning the enemy, making them less human is most certainly a tactic. But it is not a winning tactic. It is a running scared tactic.

Let us call it a draw. If you cannot play by the rules of the game, then it is no use playing. Ever play chess? If you do, accept the fact that we have played to a stale mate.

Why is this even a debate? Of course flying is a choice. Sorry gus. No stalemate here.

The airline industry provides a service and you have the choice whether to accept the terms and conditions of flying.

Gus, this is the silliest position I've seen you defend in some time. And that's saying something.

Most Meetings can be done by Video Conference , we do have the means so lets us them, it's like all the Idiots who went to Copenhagen to protest , so one more time flying is a Choice!

Gus,

You admit defeat when you take that stance. You realize that you have bitten off more than you can chew, that you have made many mistakes in this debate and now your not man enough to admit it.

I cant play by the rules? Now that is one of the biggest cop out I have ever seen. Please post me the Opinion250 rules on debate.

Mr PG.

I will give you that the subject of the argument is in some ways the silliest ever.

The original statement was actually not that flying is a choice. The full statement was that flying is a choice, not a right. There is a context to choice in this case.

There is something called "reasonable" choice. I typically take words in the context in which they were stated. I made a mistake, and I admit to that, by not dealing with the key part of the statement that flying is not a right. I thought others would be able to see things in context. Some posters obviously did. But some see only black and white.

I would even agree that it is not a right. The entire world can shut down all the airports and criminalize flying for the general public. Again, the notion of “reasonableness” ought to be introduced. Is it reasonable to do something like that? Remove the choice!! It is not a right, so human rights are not affected. Right?

Given that black/white view of the world, one can actually justify anything. Ultra rightwing and left wing dictatorships are quite good at doing that.

At the moment though, we have offers from airlines and those offers, in today's world, must be offers that are safe. They have a DUTY to provide safety to the public who CHOOSE to exercise their RIGHT to accept that offer. These are not private clubs. They are public services.

Airlines and their various regulating authorities are probably one of the most safety conscious industries in the world. There is a reason for that. They look out for the safety of their passengers due to regulation as well as insurance. There is a high loss potential when an aircraft goes down. That is one of their prime concerns.

Taking passengers into consideration when it comes to privacy or personal health is a very minor concern, comparatively speaking.

In comes homeland security in the USA set up some 7 years ago and we have another player added to the previous system. That is the part the system that actually failed in this case, as Obama relatively quickly admitted. This person was a suspect, a marked person. He could have been refused the “right to fly” by man made laws. He wasn’t.

As a result we watched someone allowed to walk through standard airport security and was not caught. To the best of my knowledge, no one of any expertise has come out to say, for instance, that had he gone through a full body scanner he would have been caught. That would be a highly questionable. There are statements by specialists in this field that say that this type of explosive is difficult to detect even with full body scanners. He carried 80 grams. In tests following he shoe incident, 50 gm can blow a hole in the fuselage and, if done at a high altitude, would cause a much larger hole which would be enough to bring a plane plunging to the ground.

The reaction to introduce full body scanners, in what I can tell from the information that is out there, is a knee jerk reaction. It is not well thought through. It is one of those things that one is dammed if one does and one is dammed if one doesn’t. One has to be seen to do the best they think they can do, even though in reality it makes no substantive change from the physical point of view. It does from an emotional point of view ……. Until the next time when someone walks through a body scanner with materials which will allow that individual to do the terrorism they intend to do. Mark my words, it will happen eventually.

Why? Because people are making the most common of human mistakes. They go after the effect, not the cause. It is a perpetual industry with perpetual terror brought onto the public.

By the way,

graveyard of the gods?

Thats your rulebook?

That says alot about you right there.

The mind reading scanner. No physical harm potential apparent.

http://current.com/1hk4m4c

From the link:

"As with all scanners, there will be some false positives.

"Still in the development stage, it is designed to streamline screening of people at security checkpoints enabling large numbers to be vetted swiftly.

"It would take imaging and sensor technologies to observe physiological changes that might indicate intent to harm, such as skin temperature, pulse, respiration and gestures," said Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman.

"She added it would be capable of distinguishing between someone with a hostile intent and a plane passenger, for example, who was merely stressed about missing a connection."

So now there will be psychologists working with the terrorist groups to make sure that their chosen dispatchers can fool that scanner.

I wonder what the manufacturers do to enure that the scanners are not bought by organizations that will use them to perfect their anti-detection techniques.

I just have to post a quote from Ron White...
"I got kicked off the high school debate team for saying "Yeah? Well F you!" I thought I had won, 'cause the other kid was *speechless*. I thought that's what we were trying to do"

Usually there is more than one method to get to a destination. Walk, drive, take a bus, take a train, take a plane...

That means one can make a choice. Each method involves a certain amount of planning and allotment of time.

But, they all can/will get one there, given enough money and time.

I don't know how such a simple matter can be made so complicated and argued about so persistently.

diplomat

nor do I.

To all of those who think that they might be hard done by with increased security.


Would you prefer that we just simply ignore the security threat that applies to Canada as well as other western countries?

Of course not, unless one is oblivious to reality (nice way of saying stupid and I am sure no one on here really is).

So to all of you who are complaining about the possibility of increase security checks....how about giving us some options that you obviously have thought of.

"Would you prefer that we just simply ignore the security threat that applies to Canada as well as other western countries?"

I have not read on here that anyone has made that suggestion.

In my opinion, the reaction taken to this latest breach, no going to washrooms one hour before landing, nothing on one's lap, hands visible, etc. was a very knee jerk reaction without much thought put into it.

There were enough protocols in place which should have prevented this fellow from getting on a plane in the first place. They were just not followed. We have discovered that the lists are not accessed at the airports.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/dec/29/na-foiling-an-underwear-bomb

The link from a story in a Tampa newspaper states in part:
"If passengers are required to undergo the sort of indignities necessary to find any possible explosive suppository or phony appendage, the airline industry is doomed and the terrorists will have won.

Better to concentrate on the very few radicals who have proved themselves susceptible to this particular madness."

That is exactly what the no fly lists are supposed to do. That is exactly what the Israelis are doing. Ben Gurion ariport in Israel is apparently the safest airport in the world. The Israelis have been called in to advise airports such as LAX in the past.

Here is another story from Tampa
http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/security-expert-get-inside-passengers-heads-not-just-their-bags/1062144

Finally, I will repeat the words of one of the posters on the Tampa site linked above because that follows my typical principle of dealing with a problem by addressing the root cause whenever possbile.

"IT WILL NEVER BE PERFECT. There will always be seams, and, UNITL WE FIND A WAY TO LESSEN THE TENSIONS THAT GENERATE TERRORISM, there will always be people quietly and patiently watching for them."

"...UNITL WE FIND A WAY TO LESSEN THE TENSIONS THAT GENERATE TERRORISM..."

That way is neither hard to find nor hard to do.

We already know what the problems are.

We know what has to happen first:

Everybody stays on their side of the fence.

How about giving up on trespassing and poking a stick in the eye of others?

How about everybody minding their own business instead of interfering in the business of others?

As soon as we show respect for their lands, cultures and religions the tensions will diminish, I am sure.

Don't do unto others that which you do not want done unto you.

Give it a try. The results will be amazing.

Happy New Year!

Just to add some fuel to the fire about whether flying is a choice or not...what about the guy that has to be medivaced to Vancouver for an emergency? How's he supposed to drive? There is no choice here...gotta fly.
BTW gus...I agree with you. Flying is not a choice anymore. It's just an extension of our daily travel, whether we use a car, bus, train, airplane, subway, etc. They are all just part of our means of transportation. We take whatever is the quickest and the most convenient...can't drive to Hawaii. There are some places in Canada where the only way to get to them is by plane. It's not always possible to drive when there are no roads.
And, speaking of driving...everyone, please be safe tonight and don't drink & drive.

Happy New Year everyone!!!!

The security issue at airports is important. It is necessary to have security protocol followed by personnel and passengers. However, it must not be at the expense of the customer comfort or human dignity. Customer satisfaction needs to be taken into account.

Terrorism is a word that incites fear and may be misused to push "security" measures that have the potential to erode rights and freedoms. Flying may be a necessity for some, but it is still a choice. There is always a choice. If you feel you "must" fly then you are subject to the rules and regulations of the airline industry.

It is my firm belief that the airline industry has not done enough to balance security measures with passenger comfort. Customer service seems to be an obscure concept for some airlines.

Perhaps, the airlines need a better approach. The majority of passengers are merely seeking a mode of transportation from point A to point B. Although it is prudent to be security wise, is it really necessary to implement further restrictions on creature comforts? I personally believe it is ludicrous. I agree with gus that the measures that are/were in place are sufficient and that the real THREAT to airlines is that their own employees/security personnel WERE NOT FOLLOWING procedure or policy. The issue here is inproper/insufficient training of staff, imo.

If certain airlines have not caught on with basic security then they need to. Metal detectors, xrays, and human behaviour awareness training are all appropriate. So is having plain clothes security inflight.

Personally, if my job required me to be on an airline on a regular basis, you would think one would have a negotiated contract with the airline in some form. Perhaps a pass of heightened security clearance - just as key govt employees have special security clearances depending on their role within government.

(ps. gus if you didn't want the reaction from Stompin Tom, why did you rattle his cage? Seriously, a debate on a tangent? Or were you just seeking a reaction?

And StompinTom you took the bait...)

*rolls eyes*

Thanks for the sandbox entertainment.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Might as well just stay home, travel today is such a hassle what with road blocks from Counter attack to checking your garbage DOT, CO's, WorksafeBC doing spot checks. What a joke pretty soon you will be pulled over and your vehicle searched because a cop thought he saw you talking on a cell phone or turning up your I pod.

As for flying, forget it, by the time you get out to the airport check in two hours early, flight delays you could be near your destination driving. But wait a minute, if someone drives into the ditch, they'll close the highways for a few hours.

Might as well just stay home.

Commoner, I agree with your comments.

More importantly, I think your idea about a giving people who have passed a security check a “can fly card”, just as people are put on no-fly lists, is one worth pursuing. After all, that is the case for people crossing the borders frequently by car already.

Stompin Tom’s cage is easily rattled. Can’t help that on the internet. This medium is not one that allows body language to be considered when responding.

Was I seeking a reaction? I always welcome a reaction by way of “discussion” not by way of personal attacks. I think soliciting reactions to different opinions is what can make sites like this a site worth coming to. I was simply defending my view of the reality of choice and right in context. I was not debating the strictest meaning of choice and right. Just as when speaking the words “to” “too” and “two”, the meaning of other words also are dependent on the context in which they are presented.

Take the notions of “free will” and “choice”, for instance. In my mind, there is an interesting philosophical debate right there. When do we really have a choice? Sensibly speaking, less often than many might think. Too many of us surround ourselves with barriers which hamper us from making meaningful choices most of the time.

Do we have a choice to stop at a stop sign? Of course we do. In this community there are plenty of people who choose not to stop at stop signs. I can then argue that even when there is a law that we are confronted with whenever we are driving a car, and we really ought not to consider making a choice of whether to stop or not, we still have that choice and many in PG make the “wrong” choice frequently.

Of course, as you state, “the airline industry has not done enough to balance security measures with passenger comfort. Customer service seems to be an obscure concept for some airlines.”

So there is another type of choice. We can choose to make that observation and not do anything about it, or we can let the airlines know in several ways that this is inappropriate.

Finally, we must consider the question of whether Stompin Tom is actually a "stakeholder" in the matter. Does he actually fly relatively frequently? I think that ought to be a consideration when giving weight to an opinion.