A very interesting find, indeed, Global_Hi_Flyer.

The logic fail of TSA that NoS detects threats is laughable. I just didn't know they'd done such a good job of making the argument, though I'm not surprised.

As someone who reads images similar to those produced by NoS, there is virtually no way to distinguish between certain items on an image. I'm certain something the shape of a gun might be noticeable, but if I'm looking at a tumor of some kind on an x-ray there are some that all look very similar to one another and it requires additional testing to determine what is actually there. Now, the TSA will say something along the lines of, "We see an anomaly and then pat down the area to find out what it is." I highly doubt a "suspect" item will receive ETD. It will likely be "surrendered" and thrown in the trash.

However, my memory is that when the NoS was first rolled out, its stated purpose was to find non-metallic explosives like those used by the panty bomber. Never mind the fact that GAO disagrees.

They've carefully wordcrafted a current speech that it's to look for "non-metallic prohibited items" not necessarily "explosives". For one, I always had trouble getting my contact lens solution through, even declared as a medical liquid, so I would either put it in my sock at the back of my leg, or in my waistband. I was never hassled again. TSA created its own problem here. I think they decided to use these machines to look for anything an everything on a person, such as what I used to do. The problem is that they continue to miss stuff.

So, can NoS detect explosives? Sort of, but not actually.

What the court cases need to show is that TSA purchased these machines with the intent of finding explosives, regardless of the current newspeak used. The machines can't detect explosives, and yet the opt out "pat down" is more invasive in that it includes the additional step of using an explosive trace detection device. I think I'll email Affection right now...