Technology over secondary
 

Serious discussion, please leave the policy bashing outside.

If the checkpoint lanes had a WTMD, EntryScan (puffer) type WTETD and back scatter WTX-Ray or combination or all three in one machine (the best) would the minor delay be worth it.

My opinion would be that the combination of all three of these technologies; metal, non metal and explosive detection should suffice to clear any person and the need for shoe removal, wanding and pat down could be eliminated except to clear an alarm. The need for a selectee system could be eliminated since all passengers would receive an extensive screening by a system which would be quicker and more precise.

In the long run the lines would probably be shorter since the only persons in secondary would be those who need to have alarms cleared. Screeners would be redeployed to operate the machines and possibly open more lanes.

I would think that most (indeed all?) of the 'innocent' travelling public would go for this. The key bit is the false positives. I would expect a considerable effort at testing the effectiveness of this arrangement to get the lessons learnt and make any possible refinements.

We should also test for fallibility (ie things getting through). I don't say that in order to prompt a furore over system weakness, but it would a) allow for an intelligent assessment of risk and b) provide an opportunity to narrow down the necessary action when a positive is sounded.

It is vital that this is done in a structured way, involving practitioners and members of the travelling public, as well as relevant security experts.

What cost would you put on this?

I might also add that, perversely, this could throw up some negative publicity - at least in the short-term. Delay is delay, in many people's minds, and the cause of it is often a lost detail. Those who perceive increased delay (and have not previously sufferred any problems with the security regime) might moan. Solve that with good publicity in advance.

I would have to agree with you there. That would place the workforce in more efficient roles to keep the lines running more smoothly. Then the torso patdown would only be necessary if the "puffer" alarmed. That would dramatically reduce the amount of complaints. Then again, the argument of too much technology may arise.

I don't think you could put all three technologies in a combination unit, since you are supposed to walk through the WTMD, and the puffers require that you stand there for a few seconds. That said, I would conditionally (I'm not very knowledgable on the subject of back scatter) support the use of this technology in lieu of secondary screening. Hopefully, the TSA would have the brains to buy more machines, to take advantage of the resulting reduced staffing requirements, to improve the situation with delays.

In all honesty with the use of the back scatter the WTMD could be eliminated since the back scatter could detect both metallic and non metallic items.

You mean we could wear our shanked shoes without problems? ^

Not at all in favor of the backscatter x-ray, definitely in favor of the other two technologies.

Come on, I was waiting for your comments and that's all you say? :confused:

Can you elaborate?

Looking very quickly at the idea of backscatter, I don't see a whole lot of difference between it and x-raying carry-ons, in terms of privacy. Could you please give an explanation, or do you also not support x-raying baggage?

All of the discussion here is opinion but you alarmed the WTMD but passed the WTETD and back scatter (proved it was nails or shank) then why not. One test should clear or prove another. I guess it would all depend on how the lane was set up. My opinion would be to have the WTMD first, a person alarms they can be given a second chance to divest something they forgot. then WTETD for explosives and then back scatter to clear alarms from WTMD and WTETD. If the alarms could not be cleared then a wanding/pat down could be used.

Again, my opinion.

There is no safe dosage of x-ray radiation. While the x-ray levels for the backscatter technology are low, they are still present.

WTMD will get metallic items. Chemical sniffer will get explosives. There are no credible weapons that fall outside these two categories.

I am still in favor of x-raying baggage, just not living things, including me. ;)

Ceramic or composite knives

Not credible.

How are they not credible?

A ceramic or composite knife will not deliver an aircraft into the hands of a hijacker.

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

"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..."

Let's do the math, shall we?

Using the numbers provided in the previous post:

There are 3600 seconds in an hour. This device would cause an exposure of 3600 microRem in 1 hour's time, which is 180-360 times the normal background radiation! :eek: That is simply not acceptable! There is no safe dosage of radiation! Exposing people to these amounts to search for non-credible weapons (ceramic knives) when non-invasive and non-carcinogenic options of searching for real weapons exist (guns and bombs via the WTMD and chemical detectors) is insane.

I wouldnt even know what to say if they placed X-RAY machines for the public.

I would be too scared to even work.

Bad enough I am already paranoid being around X-RAY in the bagroom and at checkpoint all day.

:eek:

Wow! People are unhappy about 1)getting shot up with x-ray radiation, for which there is no "safe" dose and 2)having their naked image projected onto a screen? I just don't understand what all the fuss is about...

You are around the machine. You are not being bombarded with x-rays like the baggage is. Big difference!

You can sit near the fire (safe) without sitting in the fire (not as safe). See the difference? ;)

Ha!

As the bag goes in the machine, the "lead" curtains are pushed up, thus leading the X-rays OUT and shooting into my body, CONSTANTLY!

But oh well.

I guess im not going to have kids.

Uh... no.

Take a geiger counter and see that there is no additional radiation hitting you.

Your future children are still safe. ;)

More to the point, are you advocating some kind of "scorched earth" policy for the travelers?? :confused:

Trust me, there is radiation escaping, especially when we put in long bags, the red light turns on that radiation is active, and we are standing in front of it loading because that is the only way we can load the bags in the bagroom, thus letting radiation hit us. Im sure the CTX does not have X-rays escaping, but im sure the basic X-RAY does. If i am not mistaking X-RAYS travel in 45* angles.

:td:

No, I do not agree, I was being sarcastic. I would not want to be around anymore radiation that what I am exposed to.

hmmm
 

I think someone should come out with a radar or mri type detection system

?? But you are not standing in the machine for one hour only 3 seconds so you logic doesn't make sense to me. If you are worried about any dose of radiation then I am surprised you are willing to fly. A flight from NY to LA will give you 3000 microRem and this is actual exposure, So 3 second in the X-Ray is .1% of what you will actually be getting on the flight.

There are two sets of curtains plus the beam is not directed anywhere near the curtains.