11.18.2010
Plastic Bags Banned in Parts of Los Angeles
County supervisors approved the measure 3-1 on Tuesday in hopes of preventing billions of bags from polluting neighborhoods and waterways. It bans stores from giving customers single-use plastic bags and would require them to charge 10 cents for each paper bag.I believe this is a smart move. It's more environmentally friendly, since an entire quarter of litter, as mentioned, is plastic bags. It will also increase the use of reusable and recyclable paper bags. They will cost 10 cents, but most supermarkets give you discounts around a dollar anyway, so it's not intrusive on your budget, and having any kind of cost on the bag will encourage people to bring their own, further increasing environmental sustainability. I was disappointed to learn that this was only in parts of Los Angeles. Maybe the trend will spread to the city, and hopefully to different parts of the state, and the country.
An exception exists for small bags used to keep fruit, vegetables or raw meat separate from other products.
The county says 25 percent of the litter it picks up is plastic bags.
The ordinance, which goes into effect starting in July, would apply to unincorporated parts of the county where an estimated 1.1 million people live. It does not include the 88 cities within the county, including Los Angeles. -msnbc.com
Angry Travelers Protest Airline Security Measures
Many travelers are currently upset about the invasive nature of airport security checks. But is it really as bad as people are making it out to be?
Many airports now use walk-through 3D X-ray machines, which detect anything dense on or inside a person, or in their clothes. Some fliers detest the idea that this machine can "see through their clothes," giving the TSA screener a quick look at the vague shape or outline of a flier's genitals, as pictured.
This is not the only option, however. Fliers who don't want to do this have the choice to be checked the old-fashioned way-- patted down and scanned with a metal detector instead. However, they contend that this method is invasive even still:
I also have a problem with the quote above: getting patted down is not getting raped. That statement alone is offensive-- not only to me, but I'm sure rape victims wouldn't be happy to have people who were patted down try to sympathize with them. These are two very different things and this person shouldn't have even thought of saying that. What other people who can phrase better are saying is that the pat-downs are too "aggressive," saying that they feel slightly violated afterward. I take issue with this, as TSA personnel should be regularly checked by other TSA workers or bosses to ensure they're patting down in a professional (and legal) manner. Any messing around on the TSA's part in this situation would be hugely disgusting and means for legal action.
However, a metal detector alone would not ensure safety on a plane by any means. Some chemical solutions with little metal can be used to rapidly heat something, and other solutions or materials can be used as fuel. Also different types of materials, such as glass, wood, and different plastics, can be used as weaponry that will not be detected by a metal detector alone. Patting down is necessary if one chooses not to be X-rayed, but it should be done respectfully and reasonably.
Even with patting down, however, a non-metal item could be smuggled onto a plane. In bodily orifices, a wooden, glass, or plastic knife or nail could easily be smuggled. A pat-down and metal detector would not find this, but a 3D X-ray machine would detect all 3, even glass even though it's clear, since the X-ray detects by densities.
An argument is that fliers pay to travel, so they shouldn't have to have their privacy violated. But this argument only takes the flier's self into account-- it neglects the fact that by paying for your plane ticket, you're paying for peace of mind that everyone on the plane will be checked, including you. I'd be a lot more comfortable knowing that everyone was checked the same, thorough way that I was.
In short, I'd rather have everyone get over their small momentary violation of privacy than have a plane crash.
This is not the only option, however. Fliers who don't want to do this have the choice to be checked the old-fashioned way-- patted down and scanned with a metal detector instead. However, they contend that this method is invasive even still:
“Am I really supposed to let a total stranger rub my private parts because I bought an airplane ticket?” said Miller, who runs the jewelry and fashion website, ILoveAccessories.com. “Would you allow your daughter to be patted down by a stranger and not feel like punching the person that did it? It leaves scars... just like a rape leaves scars." -msnbc.comI have a problem with these protests. People are forgetting that this is done for our own security. If this was used right after 9/11, I bet there would be little to no protests; now that fear has mostly subsided, people seem to be upset. Personally, I don't care if a TSA agent, whom I most likely will never see again in my life, sees my x-ray for a few seconds, out of hundreds of other people that day. The images aren't (supposed to be) stored-- some images were leaked from one airport, which should never have happened, but in all other airports, the images are deleted right after the person is cleared to enter the terminal. I don't feel the invasion of privacy is that bad if it's for my own safety.
I also have a problem with the quote above: getting patted down is not getting raped. That statement alone is offensive-- not only to me, but I'm sure rape victims wouldn't be happy to have people who were patted down try to sympathize with them. These are two very different things and this person shouldn't have even thought of saying that. What other people who can phrase better are saying is that the pat-downs are too "aggressive," saying that they feel slightly violated afterward. I take issue with this, as TSA personnel should be regularly checked by other TSA workers or bosses to ensure they're patting down in a professional (and legal) manner. Any messing around on the TSA's part in this situation would be hugely disgusting and means for legal action.
However, a metal detector alone would not ensure safety on a plane by any means. Some chemical solutions with little metal can be used to rapidly heat something, and other solutions or materials can be used as fuel. Also different types of materials, such as glass, wood, and different plastics, can be used as weaponry that will not be detected by a metal detector alone. Patting down is necessary if one chooses not to be X-rayed, but it should be done respectfully and reasonably.
Even with patting down, however, a non-metal item could be smuggled onto a plane. In bodily orifices, a wooden, glass, or plastic knife or nail could easily be smuggled. A pat-down and metal detector would not find this, but a 3D X-ray machine would detect all 3, even glass even though it's clear, since the X-ray detects by densities.
An argument is that fliers pay to travel, so they shouldn't have to have their privacy violated. But this argument only takes the flier's self into account-- it neglects the fact that by paying for your plane ticket, you're paying for peace of mind that everyone on the plane will be checked, including you. I'd be a lot more comfortable knowing that everyone was checked the same, thorough way that I was.
In short, I'd rather have everyone get over their small momentary violation of privacy than have a plane crash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)