To the editor,
The article “Not cool for school: Ridgites reject Golden’s plan to put body scanners in schools” is factually incorrect. In a rush to go to print, the reporter failed to gather accurate information for this prejudicial story. The technology described in the article is not what I am advocating to use in our schools. The next generation scanning technology I am proposing is leaps and bounds ahead of outmoded metal detectors, which are slow, bulky, intrusive and inconvenient. Your article is correct, however, in the fact that the technology detailed would definitely be wrong for our schools. We need to protect our students without making them feel as if they are passing through a TSA checkpoint on their way to class. This technology accomplishes just that and does not generate a body image as falsely indicated in the article.
This quick capacity smart sensor threat detection system I propose is recognized as the least intrusive object detection system on the market. The scanners are thoroughly vetted and approved for scanning individuals of all ages. To ensure safety, the state of the art scanners utilize pulse induction and magnetometers, and does not employ dangerous X-ray technology. It is so harmless, individuals with pacemakers or pregnant women can pass through without worry.
Industry insiders state that the system incorporates technology unlike the detectors used by the TSA. The proposed threat detection system uses two sensors: the first sensor, the magnetometer, is 100 percent passive and has zero emission of any signal used today. The second sensor, the induction balance sensor, has a Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal that is pulsed 12kHz, but only 10 percent of the time. The effective emission is 0.017 uW/cm2 maximum. The limit set by FCC to be “continuous exposure” with no harm is 200 uW/cm2. This system is 11,000 times under that limit. The emission is radio waves not X-ray, millimeter (mmWave) nor microwave. As previously stated, the system does not expose any harmful radiation of any type to users or those being screened. The technology is 100 percent unobtrusive and non-invasive. No imaging occurs that is neither revealing, has cultural sensitivities, nor negative implications. The photos taken is only to show the overlay of the detections that the sensors locate. The bottom line is the technology is safe, effective and considerate of the individual.
Additionally, corporations with strict human resource regulations have chosen this technology because it does not infringe on employees’ rights or privacy. It is unfortunate that your reporter decided to spread misinformation to incite fear in parents. This scanning system will quickly and accurately identify a student attempting to bring a dangerous weapon into school. The scanners have the ability to detect objects with iron, nickel, cobalt, copper and more.
These systems are inconspicuous, and have the ability to detect high-risk items in addition to firearms, such as knives, brass knuckles and improvised weapons. Sadly, our schools have become soft targets and current security protocols are not sufficient to protect our students. Incorporating this technology in our schools, along with a police officer, will give parents peace of mind and needed security for students. It is important that we utilize every possible safety measure to protect our teachers and students.
When you compare these advanced scanners with old-style metal detectors, the difference is like night and day. The inaccuracy of your article demands nothing less than a retraction. I am dismayed by this faulty journalism and biased reporting, but I will not let it deter me from pursuing all means necessary to protect our schools and our students.
Martin J. Golden
The writer is the state Senator for Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights Bensonhurst, and Marine Park
Editor’s note: Courier Life thanks Sen. Golden for sending the new information. The story which ran in print and online was accurate based on the details we had at the time.
Test the chancellor
To the editor,
One has to wonder why the new New York City schools chancellor is leaving Houston after only 18 months of leading the schools there. He will be receiving the same bloated salary that he has been getting there.
In reality, what does the chancellor do? The position in itself is far removed from the classroom. Chancellors often visit classrooms essentially for photo-op occasions. Naturally, the D-word, discipline, or lack thereof, never comes up. They’re happy with the status quo of blaming teachers for all the ills of the system and allowing students to practically run amok in schools.
Glad to see that the UFT endorses the new chancellor. Will they demand that he adhere to class sizes as stated in the contract? Far too often class size provisions have been ignored and that can only lead to more discipline problems, as if we didn’t have enough already.
Years ago we had the 600 Schools where the troublemakers attended after they were removed from their local public schools for literally creating havoc there.
Then organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union came along and claimed that these schools were racist and therefore they were ended.
This allowed disruptive pupils to be returned to the public schools.
Anyone who becomes chancellor should have to commit to teaching in our schools for a period of five years after they leave their position.
Better still, they should be teaching while doing their administrative work. In that way, they could see for themselves the conditions they helped to create and get a better understanding of what schools need to succeed.Ed Greenspan
Missing Dem Bums
To the editor,
The passing of former Brooklyn Dodger great Duke Snider on Feb. 27, 2011 seven years ago marked the end of the “Boys of Summer.” He was the last living regular day to day player who made up many of the 1950’s Dodgers winning teams. They included catcher Roy Campanella, first baseman Gil Hodges, second baseman Junior Gilliam, shortstop Pee Wee Reese, third baseman Billy Cox, right fielder Carl Furillo, and Jackie Robinson, who played several positions. Most have long forgotten that today’s Los Angeles Dodgers had their roots in Brooklyn, New York.
The original Brooklyn Dodgers name was derived from Brooklyn residents who would dodge the hundreds of trolley cars which ran on dozens of routes for decades until their own decline and final death in the 1950s. The golden era of baseball in NYC took place in the ’50s, with a three-way rivalry between the American League Bronx Yankees, National League New York Giants, and Brooklyn Dodgers. All three teams claimed to have the best center fielder in baseball. On street corners all over town, citizens would argue whether the Yankees’ Mickey Mantle, Giants’ Willie Mays, or Dodgers’ Duke Snider was champ. Ordinary Brooklyn natives could ride the bus, trolley, or subway to Ebbets Field to see their beloved Dodgers. Working and middle class men and woman of all ages, classes, and races commingled in the stands. Everyone could afford a bleacher, general admission, reserve, or box seat. Hot dogs, beer, other refreshments and souvenirs were reasonably priced. Team owners would raise or reduce a player’s salary based on their performance the past season. Salaries were so low that virtually all Dodger players worked at another job off-season. Most Dodger players were actually neighbors who lived and worked in various communities in the County of Kings.
Television was a relatively new technology and the local movie theater was still king for entertainment. The Dodgers’ departure from Brooklyn coincided with many residents also moving out of town.
This year marks the 61st anniversary of the old Brooklyn Dodgers playing their final season in Brooklyn.
During the 1950s, Brooklyn Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley tried to find various locations for construction of a new baseball stadium, which he pledged to finance using his own funds. With limited seating and automobile parking capacity at Ebbets Field, he needed a new modern stadium to remain financially viable.
New York City master mega-builder Robert Moses refused to allow him access to the current day Atlantic Yards project site. This location was easily accessible to thousands of baseball fans from all around the Big Apple via numerous subway lines.
Thousands of fans who moved to eastern Queens, Nassau and Suffolk County would have had direct access via the Long Island Rail Road. Imagine how different Brooklyn would have been if elected officials had stood up to Robert Moses and allowed construction of a new Dodgers stadium in downtown Brooklyn. The 1950’s Boys of Summer might have played on with new players entertaining new generations for decades more.Larry Penner
o the editor,
Save Our Students. No Help, No Vote!
Both Democrats and Republicans have been unsuccessful in stopping school shootings because they refuse to negotiate — and the hell with our kids. How about the hell with you and your party?
The Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” was adapted in 1791. It is a derivative of a 1689 British law adapted as a right of the people to defend themselves from harm and from oppression.
The first American “military” was established in 1512 as an armed militia to defend against Native Americans and European aggressors who came to the “new world.” Each colony formed its own militia and men, women and children owned firearms.
Samuel Adams argued that Congress must not prevent peaceful Americans from keeping firearms for the defense of the United States. However, today’s American civilians do not defend the United States from their homes; they do so as trained members of our military under one central command. The Second Amendment does not apply today, but in an increasingly volatile and lawless United States, it may apply in the future as it did in the past.
Anyway, the Second Amendment is not the problem. The problem is our current political climate, including the NRA that is resolute (and wrong) in its thinking and misinterprets the Second Amendment for self-serving purposes.
I am against total gun control, but not against common-sense gun control as supported by the facts on the ground. I believe that the citizenry should be allowed to own firearms, but not for purposes of defense, but for purposes of hunting, target practice and gun enthusiasm.
Having made that controversial statement, let me immediately state that firearms owners must be mature, sane and qualified to own and fire a weapon – not only by hitting a target at a range, but also by completing a two-week bivouac course, complete with “enemies” and blank ammunition — knowing very well that “blank ammunition” can wound (possibly kill) at a short distance. A firearms owner subjected only to target practice is not properly trained.
There have been too many incidences where improperly trained firearms owners accidentally or wrongly killed (George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin), or left their weapon unsecured (Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy) which resulted in death (mentally ill Adam killed 28 — including school children, staff, his mother and himself).
Proper procedure for owning a firearm is to keep the firearm secure in one place and the rounds secure in another place, which makes the idea of protection moot since to protect one’s family, one would need to have the firearm “locked-and-loaded” and at the ready. Generally, the normal citizenry will not defend itself against common criminals, Islamic terrorists and armed mentally ill individuals, with a firearm. We must vote irresponsible lawmakers out of office and hope that the responsible ones (if there is such an animal) will protect us both legislatively and physically.
(1) There must be an age limit of 25 (the year we mature, according to British research) in order to purchase firearms and (2) individuals on a National Mentally Ill Registry, must not be allowed to purchase, own and discharge firearms.
I am a member of the NRA, but I may not renew my membership, unless the NRA reaches a level of maturity consistent with the reality on the ground. As far as politicians are concerned…I discounted them more than a half century ago when I realized that the goal of many is to continue loitering on the public dole. As Mark Twain said “Politicians are like diapers; they must be changed often…and for the same reason.”