You are both right. I looked again.
"CBP uses intelligence and a risk-based strategy to screen information on 100% of cargo before it is loaded onto vessels destined for the United States. All cargo that is identified as high risk is inspected, either at the foreign port or upon arrival into the U.S. "
You indeed can't physically inspect all cargo. But I also read, that all containers to go past radiation detectors, so they are screened for radiation.
Ok, but some cargo could be listed as Food, but really be CBR chemicals, not nukes, they might not be "screened/scanned/whaterver".
You should have the Mod change your headline.
FairOpinion said: But I also read, that all containers to go past radiation detectors, so they are screened for radiation.
A few days ago, here on FR, I read that only one port has one radiation detection machine that works. No, they are not all screened for radiation. Many have been screaming for years for more port protection.
Here's some from a 2 minute google search.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106597
A General Accounting Office (GAO) report released this week contradicts claims by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that U.S. ports are in "full compliance" with anti-terrorism standards scheduled to go into effect today. The report alleges that about 7 percent of all U.S. ports and more than half of U.S. ships have not even been reviewed, and that the process for reviewing some other ports is flawed. The big problem, however, is money: the LA Times reports, "experts said yesterday that inadequate government funding has slowed efforts" to secure the nation's ports. As in many areas of homeland security, President Bush has underfunded his own security mandates for U.S. ports, putting Americans at risk. American Progress's P.J. Crowley writes that as a result of underfunding, "a lot of the security improvements the Bush administration is touting exist on paper and not yet on the pier."
ADMINISTRATION'S RESOURCE DIVISION 'SELF-DEFEATING': Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander, says the administration's lack of funding for port security is part of a "self-defeating and dangerous division of resources between the U.S. military and homeland security." Referring to the billions the administration has spent overseas, Flynn points out, "For the cost of two F-22 fighter jets and three days of combat in Iraq…the nation's ports could be secured against terror."
http://hutchison.senate.gov/ccinfrastructure.htm
Port Security
The final question on this issue concerned port security. I wrote, "Ninety-five percent of our nation's overseas trade is carried via ship. Yet only two percent of inbound containers are checked by U.S. Customs at our nation's ports. How do you think we should protect our ports?" This issue is critical for all coastal points of entry in the nation, especially here in Texas where numerous ports line the Gulf of Mexico. The Port of Houston takes in more foreign tonnage than any other port in America and handles half of the petrochemical capacity in the country. Your survey responses indicate that you too are concerned about the security of our ports. Fifty-two percent of respondents felt that ships entering U.S. ports should be subject to as much scrutiny as airplanes coming into U.S. airports, while 32 percent felt that cargo aboard ships should be inspected at random.
__________________
Securing our ports: Failing miserably
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Saturday, March 5, 2005 |
Two years and several million dollars later, U.S. ports are not any more secure than when Homeland Security started doling out government grants, the department's inspector general concludes.
The IG's 70-page report offers a snapshot of a bloated federal bureaucracy at its worst.
Instead of focusing on the nation's 10 primary ports in California and New York -- which handle about 80 percent of all international shipping -- about $517 million went out in scattershot grants.