That's not an absolute.

Back to the subject. Is there another technology other than the backscatter that may deliver similar results? If not then I don't see wanding and pat down being taken out of the equation.

It's absolute enough - the same things could be said about broken bottles and tray tables.

No, there isn't other technology but groping the passengers is not the answer. No guns, no bombs, passenger should be free to go.

We are talking about technology to deal with current standards not policies.

We are talking about what we talk about.

I see a huge difference in terms of privacy. There's quite a difference between looking at someone's clothes in a bag and looking through someone's clothes, seeing them naked. (On a screen that's probably going to be in the view of the traveling public.)

I'm totally against the use of backscatter machines. Aside from the fact that I don't think security personnel should be seeing me naked, I'm against being shot with radiation by the government.

Sure, everyone says it's "just a small amount" but that's bunk. We go through security pretty often around here, and all of those little "doses" of radiation add up.

Our reproductive organs are pretty sensitive to radiation. Men's testicles don't have any protection from it. How many times can you get shot with radiation before your sperm is all messed up?

And if we were going to use these machines consistently, we'd have to use them on children, as well. Do you want to subject your child, in his/her developmental stages, to dozens of "safe" doses of radiation? I wouldn't.

We have no idea what kind of effects this type of large scale radiation dosing would have on the public. We're not talking about a half dozen people who work in a top-secret government lab, we're talking about tens of millions of people getting hundreds of millions of doses each year.

This reminds me of the time that some of you may also remember, when shoe shops had these foot X-ray machines so that you could see how well the shoe fit. Those were found to be a serious health hazard, although I imagine they also probably used a higher level of radiation than these newer machines.

There has been a big change from the original image projected. The image now would just be an outline with opaque images identified.

Wonderful attitude, guess thats why there isn't much discussion here just arguing and bashing.

We understand the concern, screeners work near these machines all day and are exposed to the radiation more than the passengers. I would want to see that levels are safe and there is no accumulative effects from the machines.

As a point of reference the the present X-Ray machines are tested on an annual basis and must be put out of service if even the curtain is damaged. The entrance and exits are covered by two sets of lead lined rubber covered curtains which prevent any exposure. By the way the amount of radiation produced by the X-Ray machines is 50 times smaller than one chest X-Ray and is contained within the chamber.

Remember, these are different x-ray machines than the proposed backscatter machines.

I don't get one chest x-ray per year. My traveling would have me exposed to these machines around 50 or more times per year. There's no way I would want to receive that kind of additional exposure.

Understood.

And remember that the chest x-ray is localized, whereas the backscatter machine is a head-to-toe blast.

The gist of this thread was to discuss if technology at hand would afford the reduction of secondary screening while keeping the same or increasing security. Since screening devices have become a lucrative business hopefully the technology is on its way which will be acceptable all the way around.

DARPA- Funded Technologies

Low-Level Scattered X Rays and Computer Image Processing - Nicolet Imaging

Under development by Nicolet Imaging Systems of San Diego, California, this technology uses extremely low doses of scattered x rays, in conjunction with advanced computer image processing techniques, to detect weapons, explosives, illegal chemicals, and other contraband concealed under a person's clothing. An individual being scanned stands in front of the system for approximately 3 seconds. Almost immediately a computer-enhanced image appears on a monitor displaying the outline of the person and any concealed objects. Multiple views such as front, rear, and sides require individuals to turn their bodies for additional scans. The system is suitable for fixed-site configurations in controlled areas, such as prisons.

This technology requires only a fraction of the radiation level previously thought necessary to detect concealed objects. Each 3 second scan exposes a person to 3 microRem of radiation. This level compares with the 10 to 20 microRem per hour that a person receives from naturally occurring background radiation, 500 microRem per hour received during a commercial airline flight at 35,000 feet above sea level, and 30,000 to 300,000 microRem received during medical x ray examinations.

Through a process known as Compton scattering, the low-dose x rays collide with and bounce off electrons in the body or another object. When the x rays penetrate materials composed of elements with a low atomic number, such as body tissue, they are more likely to bounce back, causing the image on the monitor to appear light. However, when x rays pass through materials with a high atomic number composition, such as metal or bone, the radiation is more likely to release energy through the photoelectric effect, producing a dark image on the screen. Thus, a concealed handgun would appear as a dark mass against the light background of a person s body. Because of the low dose used in this method, most of the radiation reaches only the skin or penetrates a few centimeters into the body. The bones of the lower legs are the only internal structures likely to show up on the monitor, because they are so close to the skin.

http://www.comeandtakeit.com/mmwave.html