Backscatter X-Rays Coming to Airports

TSMABob writes "Wired News reports that a recent, but expensive, technology of backscatter may grace airport security in the future. Nice Bombs Ya Got There is an article that explains how this technology is far superior to the metal detectors of today, pointing out that 'Richard Reid, convicted of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic jetliner with explosives in his shoes, walked through metal detectors at Orly Airport in Paris several times before boarding the plane.' Read More about backscatter x-rays and their ability to pick up non-metallic objects."

Comments

Medical implications

[wackybrit]

Up until now, x-rays have only been used on luggage and to scan your personal belongings which you put into the tray before you walk through the metal detector. Why? Because x-rays have been proven to be dangerous to living matter at high levels.

Of course, this doesn't stop them being used in an extremely diluted form, as in regular x-rays at the dentist or the hospital, but you cannot send x-rays more than a metre at these low levels because of spectral bandwidth diminishment issues (730 nanometers of bandwidth over more than a couple of feet diminishes beyond 100db/A - a useless level).

So, how can this scanner work? It uses a slightly varied version of the 'x-ray spec', known as "X-Ray2 (squared)". This is a new improved version of x-rays which have had the fatal bit removed. But, this is such new technology that we can't really be SURE of what's going on.

I recommend caution.

the wrong battle

[kisrael]

This is the wrong battle.

The danger to planes is going to be shoulder launched missiles from near airports. (Few planes are going to be highjacked now without a HELL of a fight, no matter what weapons the bad guys have, and explosives...well, who knows if they'll be identifiable even with a great view)

And the danger to the nation is in PORTS people...those thousands of semi-anonymous crates coming in ever day, with almost no inspection what so ever. That's how a little baby nuke would get into this nation, and Bush and Ridge are doing very little about it. (There was some good coverage of some technological helps to this problem in)

Unnecessary security

[sahonen]

This is almost as bad as the time I was flying between islands in Hawaii, and they made me take off my sandals (!) and they put them in the bomb sniffer device.

Fact is, 99.99999% of flyers (not a real statistic) have absolutely no illegal intent when they fly, and all of this overblown security to get that last .00001% makes me feel exactly that much safer. It's not worth the inconvenience and the increased airfares. Thankfully, my father's a private pilot (hopefully me as well eventually), so we can just fly Cessna Airlines wherever we want to on the mainland.

Re:You know what you're thinking...

[SurgeonGeneral]

Oh yeah, great argument man! I love the "what if" approach... I love the "if it saves one life" approach...

You know what man, why dont you sit dont and think up the most fucked up 1984 style brave new world epxeriement with baby manufacturing and psychic conditioning that keeps people in bouncey kastles endlessly feeding them through tubes and pumping oxygen into the air. I bet that would save 1 life. LETS DO IT!!!!! IT SAVES ONE LIFE!!!! WHAT IF SOMEONE DIES AND WE COULDVE DONE THIS AND SAVED ONE LIFE!!!!

Man, if you are so concerned about one life, why dont you volenteer your time and help one of the single mothers who suffers with their children while the government installs X-RAY machines so all rich people can travel to Honalulu in safety.

I have a feeling that instead your going to sit on a computer pounding out messages about saving lives by invading people's UTMOST privacy. Personally I dont want Bob Jones from Minnesota looking at my dick.