[hirako2000]

The comparaison with liquid ban and scanners isn't good rather, since they could argue that flight hijacking poses a far greater risk than a van hijacking.

But as we are on it... I'm not in favor of x-ray nor liquid ban, it is to note forcing an x-ray scan is illegal in many juridictions, travelers should be given the choice of going through traditional search if they wish to. So here as well the comparison makes no sense since x-ray isn't mandatory to travel. And it is a questionable measure due to potential health consequences for frequent travellers put through it.

No liquid is another absurdity that came up at the height of anti terrorism efforts, one guy managed to concoct an explosive with a small quantity of liquids and all liquid containers above a certain threshold got banned. At that rate bans could apply to all sort of common things to want to carry with us. Such as clothing since some clothes can be made highly inflammable. All it would take is one creative criminal to somewhat succeed with that and we will have to swap our clothes with airport issued garnements. It's a stretch, but since we have no choice, i bet most of us would tolerate the absurdity once in a while so that we can get to travel.

I think x-rays make economical sense for airports so it got adopted. Ban on liquids didn't get much push back because it made security checks simpler for airports and leads to far more water bottles sales past the checkpoints. Airports are first a business.