Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to blow up Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Friday failed, but he did succeed in taking 80 grammes of explosive PETN powder on board. The question being raised in the Netherlands is whether he should have been subjected to a so-called millimetre wave scan before boarding at Schiphol airport. The Amsterdam airport bought equipment that uses waves to scan the outlines of passengers’ bodies in 2007.

A millimetre wave scan creates an image that resembles a photo negative of a person’s body. The package of pentaerythritol tetranitrate under the Nigerian’s clothes would have been detected if this had been used.

But the equipment has been standing idle for over two years now. Schiphol is only allowed to test it with passenger’s express consent and the European Commission has suspended the implementation of the technology, which was originally scheduled for next year, saying it needed more time to review its pros and cons.

The technology is controversial because the scan is so detailed it makes a person look naked on the security staff’s screen. Politicians in the Netherlands have been debating the issue of privacy since Schiphol purchased the equipment. Last year Naïma Azough, a member of parliament for the Dutch Green party, challenged justice minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin to take the scan himself and prove it would not show his genitals. She also raised questions about who had access to the scans and if those of men and women would be reviewed by people of their own sex, as is the case with body searches.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, right-wing liberals and Christian democrats on Monday demanded the technology be implemented immediately. Christian democrat Sybrand van Haersma Buma dismissed the privacy claims as “tall stories”.

What do you think? Has the attempted attack aboard NW 253 made it clear airport security can’t be too tight? Or should scans remain voluntary to protect passengers’ privacy? And would you personally prefer a body scan or a body search before boarding a plane?

Americans know it as the Pottery Barn Rule: you break it, you own it. But when it comes to health insurance, everybody foots the bill for those who are the least careful with their bodies, in the Netherlands anyway.

A question recently raised by the chairman of the Dutch association of medical insurers, whether people who smoke, drink and overeat until they are ill are entitled to the benefits of collective heath insurance has led to strong debate.

One of the arguments for a ‘Pottery Barn’ system is people may be more motivated to improve their lifestyle if it costs them, financially.
But medical specialist, physicial Frank Visseren amongst them, have now come out against penalising people for unhealthy lifestyles. His argument? It just doesn’t work. According to Visseren, people are far more motivated to quit smoking, moderate their  drinking or diet and exercise when they feel they can draw on support from medical staff and friends – rather than be punished for failing to meet standards they might feel are out of reach.

What do you think? Are you sick of paying for the medical treatment of people who have only themselves to blame for their condition? Or do you think we should all share in the burden of people suffering, even if they have brought it upon themselves?

Dutch youngsters today are materialistic thrill seekers who feel uninvolved with society at large, a new survey-based book, Limitless Generation, claims.

Young people have become increasingly obsessed by looks, status, comfort, thrills and money over the last decade. Hedonism and individualism are on the rise while interest in society at large and the environment are waning, sociologists Frits Spangenberg and Martijn Lampert found. They based their findings on 25 years of research and thousands of hours worth of interviews.

At the same time kids are looking for guidance, the study found. “School offers young people less and less structure. And exerting authority has become taboo for parents,” said Spangenberg. “Adults have come to see children as partners at the negotiating table.

What do you think? Is it just a case of every new generation of adults complaining about “kids these days”? Or has there been a fundamental change in the way young people conduct themselves in the world? If so, whose fault is it? Are the parents to blame?