brightnorm
Flashaholic
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Messages
- 7,160
Security concerns
The recently increased security alert reminded me of some disturbing facts.
Flight paths over the East coast's Indian Point nuclear reactor have not been altered despite long expressed concern by experts and the public. Airport high tech "sniffers" are only in place at some airports, and for checked luggage only, not for passengers or carry on luggage. Airport service personnel have access to planes with only minimum security precautions. Travelers wearing running shoes are considered a lesser security risk than those with conventional shoes despite their capacity for built in "ramps" that can hold large amounts of C4. The Port Authority of NY is not legally bound to observe new safety construction regulations at Ground Zero for the Freedom Tower, the world's tallest building. Funding for municipal anti terror efforts falls far short of stated needs, especially in some prime target large cities. Etc, Etc.
The public is told that we are at the second highest security level, that there is increased risk of attack and we must remain alert but we should "go about our business in a normal fashion". Some people have worked out a survival strategy based on portable evacuation kits and plans for family communication, while others have decided to shelter "in place". Some big city apartment residents, myself included have decided that quick evacuation is virtually impossible because of lack of private transportion and vulnerable subways jammed with panicked people, and that we are relatively helpless in the face of likely WMD attacks. The result, at least for me is the adoption of a fatalistic philosophy along with a determination to devise the best possible shelter-in-place survival strategy.
But there are limits to what private citizens can do. I would like to see some of these glaring loopholes closed as quickly as possible.
Brightnorm
The recently increased security alert reminded me of some disturbing facts.
Flight paths over the East coast's Indian Point nuclear reactor have not been altered despite long expressed concern by experts and the public. Airport high tech "sniffers" are only in place at some airports, and for checked luggage only, not for passengers or carry on luggage. Airport service personnel have access to planes with only minimum security precautions. Travelers wearing running shoes are considered a lesser security risk than those with conventional shoes despite their capacity for built in "ramps" that can hold large amounts of C4. The Port Authority of NY is not legally bound to observe new safety construction regulations at Ground Zero for the Freedom Tower, the world's tallest building. Funding for municipal anti terror efforts falls far short of stated needs, especially in some prime target large cities. Etc, Etc.
The public is told that we are at the second highest security level, that there is increased risk of attack and we must remain alert but we should "go about our business in a normal fashion". Some people have worked out a survival strategy based on portable evacuation kits and plans for family communication, while others have decided to shelter "in place". Some big city apartment residents, myself included have decided that quick evacuation is virtually impossible because of lack of private transportion and vulnerable subways jammed with panicked people, and that we are relatively helpless in the face of likely WMD attacks. The result, at least for me is the adoption of a fatalistic philosophy along with a determination to devise the best possible shelter-in-place survival strategy.
But there are limits to what private citizens can do. I would like to see some of these glaring loopholes closed as quickly as possible.
Brightnorm
