Its fearmongering now because you're referring them as nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation.
Of course passengers are in fact experts and well informed on TSA policy. Why not ask TSA employees instead?
How reliable are bomb sniffing dogs?
TSA has said that they have no set policy, and that this is not a failing on their part, but is actually a security feature. (The article was mentioned in this thread)
What TSA is doing
is molestation, or sexual assault. You argue that the context of the physical contact makes it acceptable, but from the psychological perspective being examined by an authority figure in a uniform in this way may be
more damaging, especially to victims of sexual abuse, rape, sexual assault or child sex abuse - of which there are hundreds of thousands. It is common for these individuals to have life-long difficulties with intimacy, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, hypervigilance and other mental health concerns. The current TSA policy makes passengers feel powerless, they are literally trapped at the checkpoint and are unable to leave once they enter the line. Anything could trigger a severe abreaction to the screening, from the scent of the screener's deodorant, to the color of his/her hair. The passenger likely won't know how s/he will react until the screening process has started, but according to TSA you will have to pay an $11,000 fine if you become uncomfortable with the process and don't want to continue.
There are hundreds of thousands of individuals with a trauma history in the US, many of whom struggle with mental health issues as a result; I believe that subjecting them to these experiences that retard their recovery or retraumatize them is illegal under the Constitution and the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Its fearmongering now because you're referring them as nude-o-tron x-rays and molestation.
Of course passengers are in fact experts and well informed on TSA policy. Why not ask TSA employees instead?
How reliable are bomb sniffing dogs?
From the article:
An aviation security expert on Tuesday speculated the bag had once been used for testing, and still had remaining residue when it was used as a "last bag." That's a piece of luggage meant to signal a plane has been unloaded.
So it's possible that the dog was correct, and there was explosive residue on the bag. It was left out due to human error.
There are a number of chemicals that dogs are trained to detect
So that answers the question of whether or not a dog can detect more than one substance.
So how reliable are dogs?
The problem with machines is they are expensive. As a suitcase full of bottles of honey proved Tuesday, they can also cause false alarms. Authorities shut down Meadows Field airport in Bakersfield, Calif., for a time after a machine mistakenly detected TNT in a Milwaukee man's suitcase. It turned out to be five bottles of honey.
Even machines don't eliminate false-positives.
Dogs can get tired, as the article stated, but so can the operators of machines who sit in a room under florescent lights staring at photos over and over all day.
But what if someone is taking a suitcase full of dog biscuits home?
It's a big difference between a dog showing, well, this smells good, versus saying 'Whoa, I think I'm near [explosives],'"
Dogs are trained to give a specific signal, usually sitting down next to the item, when they smell the substance they are trained to alert on. The handler is part of the team and is responsible for managing the dog and interpreting his/her behavior. (see:
Mythbusters episode on beating the dogs)