We have already heard of individuals being scanned multiple times because the voyeur couldn't resolve an "issue."

To answer your question ALOT.
To answer your other statement, you only get one shot at it. No dosimeters, those damn things are expensive.

Not true. There is only one shot with the current revision..

A guarantee that is worthless. You are not even in the USA. I think you are confusing the MMW with the Backscattter.

Oh, so that's the reason so many people who have gone through WBI get a frisk also. Thanks for the info.

And herein lies the problem.

I don't know Wimpie; I don't know you. I don't know which of you to trust. You say you work for TSA; I have no way to verify your claims. I have no idea who Wimpie's sources are, so I can't verify his claims either.

Of course, TSA's official communications channels have been less than clear (and sometimes contradictory) about the issue ... even if one only considers official statements, it's hard to know what to believe on this issue.

So you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical when TSA --- or anyone who works for TSA --- says "trust us on this".

As always: Prove it.

[QUOTE=DIFIN;14999065]let me ask you, how much x-ray or radiological training have you received?QUOTE]

Please, enlighten us.



More expensive than the technology? I know for a fact that's BS. Please, eyecue, enlighten us. How much does a dosimeter cost?

So, basically what you are telling us, is that ensuring your health and well-being in face of long-term contact with machines that have not been shown to be safe for human use over a long period of time is irrelevant to your employer?

Bob at the TSA Blog has stated that the reason the TSA will not release the actual size and resolution of the Nude-O-Scope images was because they were "proprietary". If these had actually been released, Bob would have been jumping up and down saying "See, I told you so!"

He has also chosen to ignore my repeated questions about future capability of the machines.






Jiff? I don't some screeners consider peanut butter a liquid?

Let us see our own images and prove it.

As for dosimeters, first, they are not expensive, second, what about "anything to keep us safe"?

eyecue, do you have me on your ignore list by any chance? I really honestly do want an answer to the question that many of us have asked you, on several threads, but you have overlooked it every time I have posted it.

Lest I be accused of harassment I will not ask it again at the moment, but I know that many posters are curious as to the answer.

Again, thank you in advance for your response.

Why don't you define ALOT?

What universities did you attend and what are your degrees in?

Or did TSA provide all the training in this area that you have received?

To the original post:

1.) This is the same stock image that TSA has released eons ago. It seems to show a woman imaged with millimeter wave technology. Backscatter x-ray images are far sharper and show more detail.

2.) It is EXTREMELY worrisome that TSA has only released less than a handful of pictures taken BY TSA THEMSELVES! To my knowledge there are less than 10 images available altogether.

3.) Definitely, critics of these machines (or artists) would be willing to donate a picture of themselves if TSA would let them publish a full-resolution image. Why is TSA not willing to do this? Does TSA think it might hurt their cause?

4.) The few low-res pictures that TSA has published all show how clearly these machines can identify dangerous items LIKE KNIVES AND GUNS. Yet it is exactly THESE items that these machines are NOT meant to identify. (A metal detector can do this better and faster). Talk about misleading the public.

Thanks for your attention.

I believe she uses a Nikon as well and does the same thing you are. But you got my point ... we're likely seeing a highly compressed JPEG while the screener is seeing a full resolution raw image.

To some people, 60 minutes is a lot of time. If you have a 3 hours layover, don't you feel like you have a lot of time to kill?

Do you enjoy asking questions you already know the answers too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimpie
I have it from very reliable sources that the resolution of the L3 MMW scanner is about 10X better than the published image, and the artifacts are pretty much gone. TSA will not allow L3 to publish a higher resolution image, as they have an agenda, primary of which is not to scare the kettles.
All cases where the press and others are allowed in the resolution room are simulations, specifically designed for the press and the kettles.
My guy says "you would be shocked by the current state of the art". The images you see are 5-7 years old, and after more than 50 software and hardware upgrades, and $10M in R&D, they approach the Rapiscan in resolution (about 0.1mm).
The Rapiscan resolution and image processing has also improved, but not as fast as the L3. Of course TSA is hiding the images, but some will leak eventually, and that will create quite a furor.


NO eyecue you're full of BS.

I teach digital imaging in medicine.........DIGITAL IMAGING has come a long way in the 18 years I've been using, working and teaching it.

One of the first things that radiologists started saying to me years ago when I was teaching them was........I'm seeing more now than I ever have.

That was 18 years ago........so just imagine how far we've advanced in these years to improve upon that digital image.

And I know how to manipulate that digital image to show detail or to remove it. So don't even think you're going to continue to say that this is BS that the image that is produced on any AIT unit be it MMW or backscatter can't be improved upon.

Continue to post your BS will only continue to show you don't know what you're talking about.

.

+1000000 ^

I'm not confusing anything. And my location has nothing to do with it. Your arguments hold no water.