Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Safe Scanning Technology?

Register
Community
Wiki Posts
Today's Posts
Search
Vendor Directory

Safe Scanning Technology?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 13, 2011 | 7:57 pm
  #1  
homeward_bound235
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Greater New York City
Programs: Marriott Gold, Delta Gold
Posts: 43
Safe Scanning Technology?
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.
homeward_bound235 is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2011 | 8:05 pm
  #2  
StanSimmons
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 593
As far as I know, ultrasound requires contact. That is a non-starter for speedy scanning of people.
StanSimmons is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2011 | 8:15 pm
  #3  
Dudey
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 187
In some airports, they offer the "back scatter" scans which do not emit radiation.
Dudey is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2011 | 8:17 pm
  #4  
SFOSpiff
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SJC
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by Dudey
In some airports, they offer the "back scatter" scans which do not emit radiation.
I'm so baffled by this statement that I don't know what to say.
SFOSpiff is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2011 | 8:23 pm
  #5  
StanSimmons
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Dudey
In some airports, they offer the "back scatter" scans which do not emit radiation.
Ummm... you might want to do a little research on this.

The backscatter machines in the airports use X-rays. The millimeter wave scanners are the safer ones.
StanSimmons is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2011 | 8:26 pm
  #6  
Mabuk dan gila
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAN
Programs: PR Premier Elite
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by Dudey
In some airports, they offer the "back scatter" scans which do not emit radiation.
I'm guessing a TSO must have told you this????

Whoever told you this lied to you.
Mabuk dan gila is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 13, 2011 | 9:14 pm
  #7  
InkUnderNails
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
You mean like this?
InkUnderNails is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2011 | 5:14 pm
  #8  
Dudey
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by StanSimmons
Originally Posted by Dudey
In some airports, they offer the "back scatter" scans which do not emit radiation.
Ummm... you might want to do a little research on this.

The backscatter machines in the airports use X-rays. The millimeter wave scanners are the safer ones.
Oh, you're right. I got them confused. My bad.
Dudey is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2011 | 5:17 pm
  #9  
Dudey
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 187
What I also don't understand is if the millimeter wave technology is safer, why wouldn't that be the default option in all airports as opposed to having backscatter?
Dudey is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2011 | 5:20 pm
  #10  
TsaAbuseWatch
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: twitter:TSAABUSEWATCH
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by Dudey
What I also don't understand is if the millimeter wave technology is safer, why wouldn't that be the default option in all airports as opposed to having backscatter?
Because TSA doesn't care about safety.

TSA is about power.
TsaAbuseWatch is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2011 | 6:07 pm
  #11  
Combat Medic
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Originally Posted by Dudey
What I also don't understand is if the millimeter wave technology is safer, why wouldn't that be the default option in all airports as opposed to having backscatter?
That and there is some documentation that shows that th MMW machines might unzip your DNA. So while it is safer, I wouldn't call it safe.
Combat Medic is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2011 | 6:12 pm
  #12  
Boggie Dog
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,954
Originally Posted by Dudey
What I also don't understand is if the millimeter wave technology is safer, why wouldn't that be the default option in all airports as opposed to having backscatter?
Chertoff didn't represent the MMW company but did represent the Backscatter company and had a direct financial interest in TSA buying Backscatter.

He pushed for the purchase and did not disclose his personal interest until cornered on a news show.

DHS graft!
Boggie Dog is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2011 | 6:12 pm
  #13  
celticwhisper
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 353
Originally Posted by Dudey
What I also don't understand is if the millimeter wave technology is safer, why wouldn't that be the default option in all airports as opposed to having backscatter?
Also, Rapistscan...ermmm, I mean Rapiscan, is a client of Michael Chertoff's consulting firm. Not sure whether or not L3 is, so that would give Rapiscan and their backscatter cancertrons a leg up on L3 and their MMW gene-shredders.
celticwhisper is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2011 | 6:13 pm
  #14  
FlyingUnderTheRadar
1M
40 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 5,015
Originally Posted by homeward_bound235
So in my mind there are two objections to the NoS. One is privacy and the other is safety (radiation).
Actually there are three. Unfortunately, the third is often forgotten about. Yet it is the MOST important, EFFICACY !!! Without (which IMHO there is none) it the other two are moot.

Originally Posted by homeward_bound235
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.
Ultrasound requires skin contact. Further, to get good contact it requires lube. That said to get useful images it requires proficiency. That is not going to happen with the current crop of screeners. Which is why so much of the current technology is automated because of the lowest denominator of the TSO hired.
Last edited by FlyingUnderTheRadar; Jul 17, 2011 at 6:52 pm
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Reply
Old Jul 17, 2011 | 6:15 pm
  #15  
StanSimmons
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Dudey
What I also don't understand is if the millimeter wave technology is safer, why wouldn't that be the default option in all airports as opposed to having backscatter?
Because they already have a bunch of the backscatter machines. And there aren't any studies saying that the backscatter machines are unsafe... of course they won't let any third parties actually test the machines.

The MMW machines use a much higher frequency and lower power beam... but again they won't let any third parties test the machines.
StanSimmons is offline  
Reply



Advanced Search
Reply Closed Thread Share
Forum Jump

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.