A possible solution to TSA pat-downs and naked X-ray photos
With this week being one the highest use of air travel, much is being said about TSA’s Backscatter X-ray (also known as “naked scanners” or “virtual strip-search) and their vulgar new “enhanced pat-down” technique.
For one, the backscatter X-ray is incapable of detecting explosives that might be hidden in a breast implant or inserted into body cavities.
Secondly, the amount of radiation to which travelers are being subjected is questionable. Some experts are disputing the government’s “don’t worry, trust us” approach and claiming that the new machines could pose a health hazard, exposing Americans to as much as 10x the amount reported.
And third, nobody I know is eager to be intimately fingered by a TSA agent.
My solution? Bomb-sniffing dogs.
EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) K-9s are already in use by the TSA to search aircraft and terminals, and to check out suspect bags or cargo. But combined with existing metal detectors, their use could be drastically increased as part of a layered low-tech/high-tech strategy to defeat jihadists at the passenger gate.
Dogs are capable of detecting PETN (the type of explosive used by the Christmas Day underwear bomber) as well as a variety of other munitions and contraband. And unlike detection machines, they are able to find explosives which have been shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.
And then there’s the issue of cost. Each of those full-body scanners costs $150,000 per unit. The cost of training a dog to sniff out explosives is about $60,000.
So why aren’t we using EOD dogs to bolster security at passenger checkpoints?
A good friend of mine owns a private K-9 detection service, so I chatted with him about the feasibility of my idea. He liked it, but also communicated to me some possible impediments to K-9 security implementation:
- The biggest reason: there aren’t enough bomb dogs here. Most of them are in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with their handlers. They pay high-dollar for EOD K-9s and handlers over there.
- Dogs have a “duty cycle”. They need to rest their sniffers periodically, making it necessary to have multiple K9s available at the location.
- Liability fears. Airport officials might overestimate a dog’s potential to bite.
So what we have is an opportunity for the government to increase security at our airports, decrease the invasiveness and radiation hazard to which travelers are subjected, AND positively impact the nation’s unemployment rate.
Seems to me this is one area where the government actually COULD create jobs by incentivizing K-9 training and handling, adding thousands of new dogs and new handlers to the workforce. How’s that for green jobs?
Plus, we know that jihadists really dislike dogs and would be highly offended at the thought of being sniffed by them. Win-win!
So, when traveling through airport security, would you rather be sniffed by a dog, have your naked photo taken (and receive a dose of radiation) by backscatter X-ray, or get felt up by a TSA agent?
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT




Damn! You nailed it!
This is a no-shit perfect solution. Some of the best anti-stress treatment in the world is nothing more than having a dog around. That means that we could create a security dog pack of real nice therapy dogs along with the bomb sniffing dogs.
Stole my thunder!! Dang!!! Now what I am I going to write about tonight?? Huh?
I recommend using Dachshunds. They have great smellers and love to hunt. They were bred to chase badgers into their dens, after all! They are tenacious.
Not to mention most kids (unless they've had a bad experience) love dogs and would view their presence as non-threatening.
When I went to Liberty Island in 2002 (the Statue and museum in the base were still closed post-9/11) there was a bomb-sniffing dog at the security checkpoint to board the ferry. As I went through the metal detector and collected my things, his handler had him sit and rest a few feet away. I approached, asked the handler if I could pet him, and he smiled and said sure.
I let the German Shepherd smell my hand, which he licked eagerly, and he got a few seconds of love from a dog owner. So another potential benefit of having the dogs around is that travelers may be able to get in a few moments of dog-provided therapy. 8^)
The only downside I see to your plan, FMP, is on the breeding side. Some breeds, notably the aforementioned Shepherd, due to their popularity (not just for these types of jobs, but in general), have suffered breeding issues in the past. Hip dysplasia used to be a HUGE concern amongst Shepherds. (I haven't researched lately, so I'm not sure if it still is.)
So if demand surges upward for more working dogs, breeders may fall into questionable habits which may ultimately render the dogs bred less effective should the breed develop physical problems that shortens their working life.
I'm all for a more layered approach, a la the Israelis, and your plan fits well in there.
The reason dogs are not used is so the Moose Slimes are not offended.
God Bless and Happy Thanksgiving!
you ever been on a plane? Walking down the terminal aisle past the overpriced ties, wondering if you're going make it to your destination?
I don't give a shit about backscatter radiation, or somebody seeing my sad pects. Better to arrive there alive.
Sounds like that's what all the other folks had to say over the weekend as well.
Looks to be a score against all the whiney bloggers.
And give that guy in the photo some barbells for chrissake. Needs to work on his 'flys.