No such thing as zero risk at airports

What's conveniently left unsaid in the debate about full-body scans and pat-downs is the delicate question of zero risk vs. acceptable risk. As James Fallows notes, certain risks are part and parcel of everyday life. We drive cars, cross streets, work out in gyms, take ocean cruises, live in earthquake-prone regions - there is a risk inherent in all these activities. Same with getting on an airplane.

In reality, we do accept a greater-than-zero risk of death from terrorist attack. Otherwise, we'd never fly -- or would strip everyone nude before boarding, do cavity searches, and carry no cargo. We accept the bargain for efficiency reasons (I'm not going to get to the airport six hours early to be searched). We accept it on "price of liberty" grounds (I'm not going to strip naked). But politicians can't come out and say that any risk is acceptable. Nor can they take the risk themselves of saying that security-theater rituals should be dropped, because of the risk of being blamed when the next attack occurs. Thus security-theater is a ratchet. You can add it, but you can't take it away.

Update: Of the Of the 50,000 travelers who went through LAX as of mid-afternoon, only 133 opted out of the full-body scanners, reports the LAT. Not much of a protest. Meanwhile, another potential dust-up is emerging over the TSA turning off some of the body scanners and instead using only metal detectors. Two scanners at Terminal 1 were not operating for at least part of the day (a TSA spokesman didn't know why). In the absence of any actual information, the Internet is burning up with speculation that TSA officials wanted to expedite the security process on the biggest travel day of the year - and in so doing, selectively chose when to go easy on security and when not to. This will never be a perfect process, although from my chair it's working out reasonably well.