|
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
(Post 17062501)
ScatterX is probably closest to the facts. Find everything, check everything, don't worry about perfecting a perfectible system, too much trouble to get it right.
|
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 17054043)
You are correct. However, the technology IS being developed to allow the AIT to tell the difference between a gum wrapper and a knife, or a gun, etc. BTW, such software is also in the works for x-rays. Now, when these technologies are ready for use is another question. Personally, I believe we will see this used for x-rays before AIT. Just my opinion.
Which x-rays? Checked baggage, carry-on bag x-ray, WBI backscatter x-ray, cast-scope x-ray? |
I went through the MMW 5 times last year during my many trips....not safe. I'm only 24 and got a seborrheic keratosis on my scalp. You're not really supposed to get those until 50+ years of age...They are VERY rare in younger people. Also, SKs are known to be caused by radiation (notably X-rays)....interesting. Note: I do NOT make a habit of going out into the sun. Where else did the SK come from? Bottom line....MMW terahertz radiation is not properly calibrated by medical staff and may be too "focused" on the skin.
|
MM wave scanners do not have any known biological effects. Keep out of the Rapiscan (x-ray) scanners, however.
A little primer about radio and x-rays. Radio consists of radiated waves of different frequencies. These frequencies run from DC up to the far infrared frequencies. More than 100 years of research and experimentation has pretty much proven that "radio" waves have no mutinogenic effects on tissue. At lower frequencies, these waves pass harmlessly through tissue and apparently do no damage, even at very high power levels. At very high frequencies (microwave), these waves seem to be absorbed and there is a heating effect on tissue. Tissue destruction can occur if the power level is high enough, but even at these high levels damage is due to burning and destroying tissue, not mutinogenic effects, like cancer. High power microwaves are used to cook stuff, like TV dinners, because the waves are absorbed by water-bearing items and converted to heat. The same frequency waves at much lower levels appear to be harmless, causing only slight heating without destruction of tissue. At even lower levels, history has proven them completely harmless. We are constantly bombarded by radio waves, and can't escape them. Just think how many radio and television stations you can receive at your house, how many cell phone towers, microwave links, satellite dishes, etc there are in your locale. Even the automatic door openers at the market and bank are beaming microwaves at you to "see" you and open the door. Your computer emits low to medium frequency radio waves, in addition to the wireless adapter which transmits microwaves. Your TV emits spurious radio waves. Every CPU in your phone, car, digital appliance, etc emits radio waves of some frequency or multiple frequencies. Your microwave oven even leaks a small amount of microwaves. Your cell phone is a microwave radio as well. It is accepted in the scientific community that ordinary radio waves are harmless below a certain amount of power (expressed in W/CM2). Because of the heating effects of higher frequencies (microwaves), the safe power levels are much lower than at lower frequencies. Even above the "safe" limit, cancer is not induced. There are no known MUTINOGENIC effects. While I completely disagree with naked body scanners, and will never subject myself to one, the frequency and power levels employed are clearly a non -issue. Your cell phone and the wireless adapter in your laptop are thousands of times more powerful, and they are generally considered safe. There is no proof that cell phones are dangerous, although millions have been spent researching the matter, but there is no repeatable, scientific evidence. X-Rays, however, are a completely different animal. Their frequency is so high, that they are considered "energetic particles", not waves. They interact with tissue knocking atoms. |
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 17060547)
I think the problem of collecting sufficiently reliable data to use machines in the field as input to an adjustment is too hard. The main problem is that you'd have to synchronize the results of the patdown with the image data stream and I just don't believe that can be done reliably enough to count on.
.... the data streams are just too large and two hard to synchronize reliably. |
Originally Posted by nachtnebel
(Post 17271795)
There are platforms (more precisely, data centers) out there that conceivably could have the raw power to do this. However, it would be extremely expensive. So the net result is as you say.
|
Some (maybe) good news:
H.R. 3011: Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall certify to Congress that automated targeting recognition software is installed on all advanced imaging technology machines that are currently deployed in commercial airports for passenger screening and for any and all subsequent deployments of advanced imaging technology machines. |
Originally Posted by Wimpie
(Post 17275798)
Some (maybe) good news:
H.R. 3011: Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011 This could doom the Rape-I-Scans, as their ATR technology is not ready for prime time, and could take a lot longer than 90 days to get certified by the clowns at S&T. It sure would be good to see them gone.^ |
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall certify to Congress that automated targeting recognition software is installed on all advanced imaging technology machines that are currently deployed in commercial airports for passenger screening and for any and all subsequent deployments of advanced imaging technology machines. Brilliant move since I believe that ATR was originally developed to side-step problems with the original product. BTW, I was observing the process at an MMW lane the other day and it certainly was faster even though only about 25% were immediately cleared. What struck me was the 'gentleness' of the resolution love pats. No traveller was put into a specific stance and the pats weren't more that light brushes. Oh, and arm pits seemed to be off limits. That lane was definitly tuned for throughput. |
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.5.0.138 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
Originally Posted by Wimpie
Some (maybe) good news:
H.R. 3011: Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall certify to Congress that automated targeting recognition software is installed on all advanced imaging technology machines that are currently deployed in commercial airports for passenger screening and for any and all subsequent deployments of advanced imaging technology machines. |
Originally Posted by boatseller
(Post 17288775)
BTW, I was observing the process at an MMW lane the other day and it certainly was faster even though only about 25% were immediately cleared.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:23 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.