Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Fisher1949, May 8, 2012.
I think all she wanted was to go on the plane, but she freaked out about her pump and made the news.
Not in the slightest. Consider it your own testimony in saying that you're fully aware that you've made statements for which you have no supporting evidence - which normal people call "spinning tales," or "lying."
oh, I'm so glad you used your question to point out that I don't have direct evidence of the testing even though I made that apparent previously. It's enlightening.
Still, the TSA's testing or lack of testing has no bearing on the points I've made on my first post. I guess derailing the discussion into the TSA testing their equipment is more important.
I think that accurately summarizes the motives of every last person the TSA has terrorized, abused, stolen from, and lied to since its inception.
In the utter absence of such testing would you say that a TSA employee insisting that it's safe to go through an untested scanner with uncertified medical equipment is a liar, or just stupid?
I disagree somewhat. I think in general people just want to get where they're going, but not every last person.
The turn this thread has taken demonstrates to me how nonchalant screeners are about our health and safety. Anyone who can't recognize the difference between statements made by a government agency and publicly available peer-reviewed research is a very real danger to anyone with a medical appliance (and the rest of us, but you get my point).
Can you reconcile your statements that such testing was carried out vs. your statement that you have no evidence that it was?
They spend all day standing next to uncertified and untested equipment - if they don't care about their own health, why would you think they care about anyone else's?
That's what they do Caradoc. None of them have any qualifications to actually stand as an expert on the devices, or the subject of creating explosives either, but they are lectured and instructed on them in a class. They are fully relying on, in fact putting all their faith on the information passed as totally 100% accurate. This information started with the contractor making and selling the devices, and then moving to the TSA personnel who assist with making purchase decisions and then on to personnel who will assist with the training of other personnel who will be working with and by these machines, day in and day out. I don't see any possible way anybody along that chain would have a reason to believe otherwise that the machines have been thoroughly tested or to lie about said.
Medical equipment and drugs go through years of studies, running the gauntlet of tests to account for factors far beyond the environment they will be used and maintained in. Unlike the scanners which are used in fairly uncontrolled environments. It is odd that the agencies to which the TSA repeatedly refers for having validated their testing constantly downplay and even make exceptions to statements about their part in and the specification of their testing.
With this said, nope, I see no reason to be concerned with their operational safety, maintenance, nor even their effectiveness. Well................................outside of the boat loads of evidence showing their failure rates.
Not really. Using my experience, insulin pumps have no problems when going through the scanner, or being near a scanner. There's no reason to believe the TSA "clerk" doesn't have similar experience and was using it when giving the recommendation she was asked to give.
Like I said previously, if the TSA and the manufacturer both neglected to test the scanners, then the past few years have been a live beta. In which case, I would assume reasonably that if the scanner did damage insulin pumps we would've seen this a lot more than this recent news story. And even this news story doesn't show that the pump was actually damaged.
Yep, easily. But you don't think I was given false information, you think I'm lying, so this question is superfluous to the discussion.
And your experience trumps a letter from an actual doctor saying NOT to go through the scanner... Interesting.
You've been given ample opportunity to cite the information you were given, and haven't. I happen think that's quite relevant to the discussion.
Does it trump a letter from an actual doctor?
How is it relevant?
I'll be back in 5 hours. Feel free to carry on with out me.
That's your claim, apparently.
If you were presented with a letter from the doctor (as the girl in this case presented her letter to the TSA employee who then directed her into the scanner) would you then direct them into the scanner anyway?
Another request for spoon-feeding? You made a statement. When confronted with the fact that it was untrue, you implied that you'd been given false information, but haven't said what that information is. The only logical conclusion is that such information simply doesn't exist.
Considering this involved a 16 year old minor a RESPONSIBLE agent, knowing this girl was told by her personal physician to avoid the scanner, should have told her that although she didn't think the insulin pump would be harmed by the scanner the girl should probably follow her physician's advice and avoid it. But then going through the scanner involves less work than doing a pat down which the girl agreed to have. Ironic that the TSA is charged with passengers safety but only when it comes to getting on a plane - if they ruin a medical device you need to live, oh well, not our problem.
Separate names with a comma.