These full-body scanners that will start showing up at airports...

Matthew

Matthew

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
19,246
Location
kojc, kixd, k34
Display Name
Display name:
Matthew
Does anyone know the manufacurers? Model numbers?

I know there are a couple of different types - backscatter, and millimeter-wave. Each works differently. Backscatter actually uses ionizing radiation, and the millimeter-wave uses radio-wave technology.

The only info I've gotten from TSA is that they are safe, and the levels of radiation exposure are less than what you'd get in 10 minutes of flying, blah, blah, blah.

I've seen a couple of numbers on some medical websites, but not specific enough for what I'm looking for.

I've been trying to get actual numbers to see for myself. I'm trying to find out the actual radiaton levels, and the amount of time a passenger would be exposed (how long does it take for the scan to complete).

If I'm going to have to go through the x-ray machine with my carry-on, I'd like to know for myself what it could be doing to me.
 
All I want to know is which one of those male enhancement products works best. If they're going to take a picture I want it to be a good one.

Matthew said:
Does anyone know the manufacurers? Model numbers?

I know there are a couple of different types - backscatter, and millimeter-wave. Each works differently. Backscatter actually uses ionizing radiation, and the millimeter-wave uses radio-wave technology.

The only info I've gotten from TSA is that they are safe, and the levels of radiation exposure are less than what you'd get in 10 minutes of flying, blah, blah, blah.

I've seen a couple of numbers on some medical websites, but not specific enough for what I'm looking for.

I've been trying to get actual numbers to see for myself. I'm trying to find out the actual radiaton levels, and the amount of time a passenger would be exposed (how long does it take for the scan to complete).

If I'm going to have to go through the x-ray machine with my carry-on, I'd like to know for myself what it could be doing to me.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
All I want to know is which one of those male enhancement products works best. If they're going to take a picture I want it to be a good one.
Click to expand...

Heh - Now you've got me thinking about just what to hide that might trigger an alarm. Imagine being in the scanner and hearing someone from behind the wall yelling, "Hey guys!!! Get over here! You gotta see this!"
 
I'm waiting for the first pictures taken with one of these machines of Britney Spears or Paris Hilton to show up on the internet.

Oh, never mind, they've already bared all. :nono:
 
Apparently, people familiar with these devices are saying that they probably wouldn't have shown the kind of explosives used recently. What a waste of money....
 
Meanwhile the Israeli's continue to screen for terrorists and we continue to screen for weapons. How does this story end?
 
A commentator on the radio show MarketPlace made a similar observation the other day.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/01/06/pm-frum-commentary/

There are two ways to do aviation security: either look for bombs or look for terrorists. Looking for terrorists is easier. Out of 100 passengers, there can be at most 100 terrorists. But among them, these hundred passengers offer thousands of possibilities for secreting a bomb.


Not until John Q. Public and EveryJane Doe recognize the inefficacy of the present system of reactionary escalation will there be an end, imho.

wabower said:
Meanwhile the Israeli's continue to screen for terrorists and we continue to screen for weapons. How does this story end?
Click to expand...
 
sba55 said:
Apparently, people familiar with these devices are saying that they probably wouldn't have shown the kind of explosives used recently. What a waste of money....
Click to expand...

That is correct. They also won't show stuff hidden in folds of flab (say in the buttocks, or under the breast of a well endowed woman).

I wonder how many females will be pulled aside for a real strip search when these virtual strip-search machines show pads... yuck.
 
wsuffa said:
That is correct. They also won't show stuff hidden in folds of flab (say in the buttocks, or under the breast of a well endowed woman).

I wonder how many females will be pulled aside for a real strip search when these virtual strip-search machines show pads... yuck.
Click to expand...

LOL I read an older article where the writer went through one of the machines and was shocked at what it actually showed. One of the comments made by the screener/operator was something like "Where do you think they hide things?"

And I can see it now:

"I'm sorry ma'am, you're going to have to submit to a body cavity search. We just can't take your for it that that is a tampon that you are wearing."
 
In that case I think the missus might pay extra for the pat down, if she gets to pick the one that will do the patting.

wsuffa said:
That is correct. They also won't show stuff hidden in folds of flab (say in the buttocks, or under the breast of a well endowed woman).

I wonder how many females will be pulled aside for a real strip search when these virtual strip-search machines show pads... yuck.
Click to expand...
 
So our risk exposure is political terrorism?

911 did one heck of a job at skewing the statistics (and rightly so) but prior to that who was the larger security risk on US-originating flights?
 
Matthew said:
Here's a picture that I think has been used to demonstrate the capabilities of the scanners:

http://i275.photobucket.com/
albums/jj310/dbpix/050110top2-1.jpg

Paste it into any paint program and invert the colors - they show a lot more detail than you think.

Keep that in mind when the TSA goons are looking at you with no clothes on.
Click to expand...

The leader of the TSA was scanned to illustrate how these worked and what they show.

homer-simpson,A-L-227181-1.jpg
 
Does her thong have a knot in the back? Why are her arms at her side in the normal picture and somewhat extended in the X-rated version?

Matthew said:
Here's a picture that I think has been used to demonstrate the capabilities of the scanners:

http://i275.photobucket.com/
albums/jj310/dbpix/050110top2-1.jpg

Paste it into any paint program and invert the colors - they show a lot more detail than you think.

Keep that in mind when the TSA goons are looking at you with no clothes on.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Does her thong have a knot in the back? Why are her arms at her side in the normal picture and somewhat extended in the X-rated version?
Click to expand...


I dunno - I figured it was just a sample pose to show what she was wearing while in the scanner.
 
Matthew said:
Here's a picture that I think has been used to demonstrate the capabilities of the scanners:

http://i275.photobucket.com/
albums/jj310/dbpix/050110top2-1.jpg

Paste it into any paint program and invert the colors - they show a lot more detail than you think.
Click to expand...

That's not a real scanner image. That's a Photoshop of a real nude model from a stock render model vendor, with weapons and belts copied from a real scanner image and then inverted. Drudge got fooled.

Hang on, let me go look for the source material again.

Here it is. The source model is from
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=41178

The belt is from the attached image. #1, and both attached images are indicative of what the screner may see.


--Carlos V.
 

Attachments

  • sscan2.jpg
    sscan2.jpg
    72.4 KB · Views: 46
  • TSA-Release-Images-2-050808-726403.jpg
    TSA-Release-Images-2-050808-726403.jpg
    45.8 KB · Views: 46
Last edited:
Unbeliever said:
That's not a real scanner image. That's a Photoshop of a real nude model from a stock render model vendor, with weapons and belts copied from a real scanner image and then inverted. Drudge got fooled.

Hang on, let me go look for the source material again.

Here it is. The source model is from
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=41178

The belt is from the attached image. #1, and both attached images are indicative of what the screner may see.


--Carlos V.
Click to expand...

I didn't know where the original came from - normally when I get an e-mail from somebody with stuff like this I check it out myself before I pass it along. This time it came from someone I trusted to have done the checks for me. Sorry for missing this one.
 
Haha, I got the TSA treatment this morning. Something in my backpack looked like a "blade". They took everything out and started looking through all the compartments. Then they ran everything through the x-ray separately, numerous times. Finally they figured out that the "blade" was a very small (3/4" by 1/2"), flat, individual portion of dental cement that my dentist had given me a couple years ago to cement a temporary crown in case it fell out. She said the reason it looked like metal was that it was apparently very dense and showed up black. I told them they could throw it out but they gave it back to me. I don't have any complaints about the woman doing the screening as she was courteous and professional. She just couldn't figure out what was causing the image and she thanked me for my patience later. Luckily I wasn't in any hurry since my flight is an hour late anyway.
 
I looked at the site for one of the scanners:
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/

that was mentioned in one of the earlier posts.

It looks like the claimed radiation exposure is pretty low, but it still all adds up over time. I haven't looked at the radio wave exposure levels and frequencies yet - I do know that cell phone radio wave exposure is in the news, though.

They also claim their scanner can handle up to 200pph. I'm assuming that's people-per-hour. Or about 18 seconds per person. To get someone in place in the scanner might be 5 seconds? That leaves 13 seconds for the scan and for a TSA guy to check you out and turn on the green light.

If you figure it takes 5 seconds at most to walk through a metal detector and 18 seconds to get scanned then each metal detector would have to be replaced by 3 or 4 scanners to keep the same capacity. Then they'll have to hire more TSA guys to manage all the scanners. Sounds expensive.

I wonder - will they only get one or two scanners per security station and rely on the metal detectors to pre-screen? Then pull those folks out of line and scan them? Probably not, because the scanners are supposed to catch the stuff that the detectors can't.

Or will they profile? Then send only select folks through the scanners? Probably not, profiilng is a dirty word.

I guess it's looking more like we'll all buy a ***load of scanners and have 100% compliance.
 
Matthew said:
If you figure it takes 5 seconds at most to walk through a metal detector and 18 seconds to get scanned then each metal detector would have to be replaced by 3 or 4 scanners to keep the same capacity. Then they'll have to hire more TSA guys to manage all the scanners. Sounds expensive.
Click to expand...
But even though you might walk through the metal detector in 5 seconds you still need to wait at the other end for your baggage which takes more than 5 seconds to go through the X-ray and usually more than 18. So really there wouldn't be much of a time difference that I can see.
 
Everskyward said:
But even though you might walk through the metal detector in 5 seconds you still need to wait at the other end for your baggage which takes more than 5 seconds to go through the X-ray and usually more than 18. So really there wouldn't be much of a time difference that I can see.
Click to expand...

Most airports I've been in that had the scanners had a much longer wait for the scan than the X-ray. And at many of those places your carryon is kept out of your sight while you're being scanned. In places like NY, that can easily end up having your carryons stolen. And TSA doesn't care, and claims not to be responsible.
 
wsuffa said:
Most airports I've been in that had the scanners had a much longer wait for the scan than the X-ray. And at many of those places your carryon is kept out of your sight while you're being scanned. In places like NY, that can easily end up having your carryons stolen. And TSA doesn't care, and claims not to be responsible.
Click to expand...
I think I've been through a scanner only once but I don't remember any special delay. Of course today I held up the x-ray line for a long time as they ran my bag, both packed and partially unpacked at least 4 or 5 times.
 
Everskyward said:
I think I've been through a scanner only once but I don't remember any special delay. Of course today I held up the x-ray line for a long time as they ran my bag, both packed and partially unpacked at least 4 or 5 times.
Click to expand...
I think you were probably going through the puffer machine that detects traces of explosives. I am pretty sure that no body scanners have been deployed as of yet.
 
smigaldi said:
I think you were probably going through the puffer machine that detects traces of explosives. I am pretty sure that no body scanners have been deployed as of yet.
Click to expand...
According to this they are.
The six airports where full body scanners are being used for what TSA calls "primary screenings" are: Albuquerque, N.M.; Las Vegas, Nev.; Miami, Fla.; San Francisco; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Tulsa, Okla.
Click to expand...
http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/news/blogpost/6716556/
 
smigaldi said:
I think you were probably going through the puffer machine that detects traces of explosives. I am pretty sure that no body scanners have been deployed as of yet.
Click to expand...

They have been deployed.

There are a couple in Baltimore (3-5 minute delay PER PERSON to go through), LAX, and some other airports. The one at T-4 at LAX has been removed, but others remain at the Delta terminal.

The nation of sheep has determined that they want these things, according to McNews this morning: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-01-11-security-poll_N.htm What's stupid is that 84% of those surveyed believe that these machines will stop explosives.... nothing of the sort will happen because (like the x-ray) these machines can not detect explosives at all. All they can do is detect anomolies, like prostheses, colomosty bags, feminine pads, tampons, and the like.

In the words of P. T. Barnum....
 
Last edited:
All that will happen is the terrorists will detonate a bomb at a choke point....like where a couple thousand people are standing waiting to be screened to see if there are bombs. Hmmmmmm, lets see, a couple thousand people vs 237.

Not that I wish death upon anyone, but I hope that a terrorist uses one of these choke points to detonate a bomb. 20lbs of C4 in a backpack would do what?
 
I'd dearly love to know what the question asked, to yield that poll result, was; as we all know, you can get any poll result you want by framing the question carefully.
 
EdFred said:
All that will happen is the terrorists will detonate a bomb at a choke point....like where a couple thousand people are standing waiting to be screened to see if there are bombs. Hmmmmmm, lets see, a couple thousand people vs 237.

Not that I wish death upon anyone, but I hope that a terrorist uses one of these choke points to detonate a bomb. 20lbs of C4 in a backpack would do what?
Click to expand...
That has happened before and it WILL happen again. Terror is about terrorizing. Not about actually doing something strategic.
 
smigaldi said:
I think you were probably going through the puffer machine that detects traces of explosives. I am pretty sure that no body scanners have been deployed as of yet.
Click to expand...
And I saw one at DFW just a couple of weeks ago, had to go through it or get the pat down according to the sign at the entrance. This is assuming TSA is telling us the truth...they claimed it was an imaging machine.

This was after leaving customs to get to the domesitc flights.
 
If TSA wants people to believe that an electronic strip search is required to prevent explosives from getting on board, and they allow you to refuse those scanners, then will they be offering a pat-down or a real strip-search as an alternative? A pat-down can't 'see' what the scanner would show, and a real-strip search is more intrusive than the scan.

Right now, the pat-down is more of a hassle to travellers than the metal detector. If passengers decide that the pat-down actually is simpler than the scan, then everybody will just choose that method. They are going to have to come up with something that's worse than the scanner in order to keep us all in the scanner line.
 
Matthew said:
If TSA wants people to believe that an electronic strip search is required to prevent explosives from getting on board, and they allow you to refuse those scanners, then will they be offering a pat-down or a real strip-search as an alternative? A pat-down can't 'see' what the scanner would show, and a real-strip search is more intrusive than the scan.

Right now, the pat-down is more of a hassle to travellers than the metal detector. If passengers decide that the pat-down actually is simpler than the scan, then everybody will just choose that method. They are going to have to come up with something that's worse than the scanner in order to keep us all in the scanner line.
Click to expand...

From a different angle: if the populace elects for a pat down, that will require additional TSA'ers. I am of the unvalidated opinion that is one of the strategic goals with all of this security theater.
 
Maybe we need to see more of this kind of nonsense:

yeah, it's CATSA, but they seem to be as bad as TSA

When Cynthia Sutcliffe took her 85-year-old aunt to Ottawa Airport for a flight to Toronto on Dec. 28, she expected the 4-foot-10 woman would have a smooth and uneventful trip home.

Instead, the elderly woman was pulled out of the security lineup for the Air Canada flight and told to remove her boots and unzip her pants so a female inspector could poke her abdomen.
Click to expand...

Guarantee you that will happen in the US after we get whole body imagers.
 
kevin47881 said:
From a different angle: if the populace elects for a pat down, that will require additional TSA'ers. I am of the unvalidated opinion that is one of the strategic goals with all of this security theater.
Click to expand...

I think the addition of the scanners themselves are going to result in more TSAers already to operate them and to get passengers in and out of them.
 
wsuffa said:
Maybe we need to see more of this kind of nonsense:

yeah, it's CATSA, but they seem to be as bad as TSA



Guarantee you that will happen in the US after we get whole body imagers.
Click to expand...

The last time we took my 85yo mother in law to the airport, she bypassed the metal detectors. Her walker and artificial knee would have set it off anyway. She got the pat-down, even though she can't lift her arms much higher than her waist. She tried, but that's about it. Then they swabbed her shoes. She did comment that she liked that they cleaned her shoes for her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top