Safe Scanning Technology?
Jul 17, 2011 | 7:37 pm
#17
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 642
Along with the other reasons already mentioned here, some TSA reps stated to Rep. Chaffetz when grilled on Capital Hill, that they buy both to keep the prices down. Those TSA reps and their 4th grade science kit have determined both machines are safe, so, they're giving some people cancer to keep the price down. That's the TSA for you.
Jul 18, 2011 | 4:09 am
#18
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
So in my mind there are two objections to the NoS. One is privacy and the other is safety (radiation). We use ultrasonics to see into the human body and consider it safe enough for a fetus. Can this technology be adapted to an airport scan? It would completely eliminate one of the objections to the body scanning, and could in theory find "buried" objects or be used to clear WTMD alarms.
Jul 18, 2011 | 6:03 am
#19
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
The most central problem of all these techniques is that they are an inappropriate methodology for the task at hand (detecting explosives). They cannot distinguish an underwear bomb from an adult diaper, or a tampon from a hidden pack of prohibited material. They will, inevitably, produce millions of false positive results, and the passengers privacy will be violated to "resolve" these alarms.
On the other hand, ETD is safe, non-invasive and actually does detect explosives.
Jul 18, 2011 | 7:04 am
#20
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
Except that as currently implemented, ETD swabbing produces untold numbers of false alarms on passengers who then must have their crotches rubbed. As far as we know, thousands and thousands have alarmed and been subjected to this treatment with NO incident of anyone being actually found carrying explosives. Even if there was one incident of success, such poor results argue against any reasonability of this test.
Whole body imaging, on the other hand, is not "fixable", because it is the incorrect methodological approach.
Jul 18, 2011 | 7:09 am
#21
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney (for now), GVA (only in my memories)
Programs: QF Lifetime Silver (big whoop)
Posts: 9,287
, SYD domestic occasionally and SYD international once) and have never alarmed. Nor have I ever seen anyone alarm it in Australian airports. +1000
Jul 18, 2011 | 9:27 am
#22
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
The currently used ETD equipment/protocol obviously has problems, and these should be addressed. Glycerin and nitroglycerin, for example, are very distinct molecules from a physico-chemical standpoint, and there are straightforward spectroscopic approaches to distinguish them. But the truth is the methodological approach of ETD is correct, and therefore there is a solution to the false positive problem of ETDs.
Whole body imaging, on the other hand, is not "fixable", because it is the incorrect methodological approach.
Whole body imaging, on the other hand, is not "fixable", because it is the incorrect methodological approach.
Jul 18, 2011 | 10:50 am
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kettle with Kryptonium Medallion Tags
Posts: 12,659
Jul 18, 2011 | 11:04 am
#24
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 79
The currently used ETD equipment/protocol obviously has problems, and these should be addressed. Glycerin and nitroglycerin, for example, are very distinct molecules from a physico-chemical standpoint, and there are straightforward spectroscopic approaches to distinguish them. But the truth is the methodological approach of ETD is correct, and therefore there is a solution to the false positive problem of ETDs.
Whole body imaging, on the other hand, is not "fixable", because it is the incorrect methodological approach.
Whole body imaging, on the other hand, is not "fixable", because it is the incorrect methodological approach.