According to this article over at Bruce Schneier’s blog, there’s a new X-Ray system that can literally “see” through clothes (in the way that many of us imagined those old “x-ray glasses” advertised on the back of cereal boxes would work). And they’re planning on using it to scan people.
Riiiiiight.
Let’s scan the people, not the luggage.
Common sense, people! It’s not that hard!
They should scan luggage and carryons with X-rays, but not people. Using ionizing radiation on people for anything other than medical purposes is not a good idea. We would have no way of tracking the approximate accumulated absorbed dose. Any ammount of ionizing radiation can potentially cause delayed effects later in life, and infants, children, adolescents, and pregnant women would be at a significantly higher risk. By “backscatter” they mean that the radiation photon has interacted with a molecule of the body, causing it to bounce back. Any time you have an interaction, a molecule can become ionized, and thereby, change its properties or destroy its function. If it hits, say, a water molecule, no big deal, it will just pull an extra oxygen atom and become peroxide, which will not kill you. However, if it hits a molecule of DNA, the cell code could be changed, resulting in cell death, or worse: cancer. Now, you have to produce enough backscatter for the scanner to pick up and make an image. Thats alot of interactions. Did I mention dose is something that accumulates? The more you get exposed, the more chance of cellular damage and cancer. So, if they start using these in airports, they better be ready for a gradual but significant increase in cancer among air travellers, especially frequent flyers. They also legally have to warn every traveller of the risk because radiation is a hazard. Also, the opperator would be at great risk from constant exposure to the backscattered radiation. Not to mention the expense of equipment.
The risk to health and the subsequent cost of the machines and in healthcare and lawsuits should prevent them from using something like this ever.
Senior Airman Richard Sabo, USAF Radiology
That’s a VERY good point – thanks for pointing that out, Richard!
I’m of the opinion that they can do this only if the is a public demonstration of this using
GW Bush as the “test article” and if the resulting picture is posted on the Web for all to see.
The amount of x ray exposure due to passenger screening is miniscule compared to what a passenger is exposed to during flight. In fact the amount of x ray exposure in one screening is about that which is absorbed during 5 minutes of flight at 35,000 ft altitude. More important there is low dose x ray screening technology that can deter terrorists yet not invade privacy as it is very much like medical x ray images which do not display body surface details as the “backscatter” x ray machine.
I don’t know why people get so worried about their bodies being seen. I mean, so what, the screener may see the outline of your boobies (heeeheeeheee) or how small your wee-wee happens to be. Is being that self conscious worth not knowing if you are safe on a flight?
As far as the health risks, yea I guess it is an extra dose of radiation every now and then but this is an alternative to being patted down. So you have a choice of either being fondled or ogled. You pick. If you want to bag this because of health risks, maybe I should mention that you are flying 30,000 feet above the earth in a sardine can with a pilot that has been awake for 15-20 hours, is flirting with the flight attendant, and probably had a couple at the bar before taking flight. Are you really that concerned about your well being?
The only thing I have to say to the “be safe on a flight” argument is this:
We can’t even keep weapons out of prisons, where people are under 24-hour a day lock-down. How can we possibly imagine that we can keep them off of planes? It’s just a waste of effort. That money and effort could be better spent in other ways.