Body scanners replace metal detectors in tryout at Tulsa air

supermama2

Wed, Feb 18 2009, 10:21 pm

JUST LOVELY! Exploding anger

http://www.usatoday.com/travel.....N.htm

Body scanners replace metal detectors in tryout at Tulsa airport

Body scanners like the one being demonstrated here by Duran Turner at Baltimore-Washington International Airport use millimeter wave technology to find foreign objects on passengers.
Enlarge image Enlarge By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY
Body scanners like the one being demonstrated here by Duran Turner at Baltimore-Washington International Airport use millimeter wave technology to find foreign objects on passengers.

By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — For the first time, some airline passengers will skip metal detectors and instead be screened by body scanning machines that look through clothing for hidden weapons, the Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday.

An experimental program that begins today at Tulsa International Airport will test whether the $170,000 body scanners could replace $10,000 metal detectors that have screened airline passengers since 1973. Airports in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Miami, Albuquerque and Salt Lake City will join the test in the next two months, TSA spokesman Christopher White said.

The scanners aim to close a loophole by finding non-metallic weapons such as plastic and liquid explosives, which the TSA considers a major threat. The machines raise privacy concerns because their images reveal outlines of private body parts.

"We're getting closer and closer to a required strip-search to board an airplane," said Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Privacy advocate Melissa Ngo fears that passengers won't understand that the scanners take vivid images that screeners view.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: San Francisco | Miami | Las Vegas | Salt Lake City | Transportation Security Administration | American Civil Liberties Union | Albuquerque | Homeland Security | Airports Council International | Christopher White | Barry Steinhardt | Bruce Schneier | Tulsa International Airport | Melissa Ngo

White said each scanner has explanatory signs on how the machines work and posters showing the image they create.

Passengers at the test airports will be instructed to go through the new scanners. Anyone who doesn't want to go through will be allowed to refuse and instead go through a metal detector and receive a pat-down, White said.

People in the scanner will stand with their arms raised and their face will be blurred out in the metallic-looking image on a nearby screen. TSA screeners view the images from inside a closed room near a checkpoint and immediately delete them.

"We've struck a very good balance between security and privacy," White said.

Christopher Bidwell, security chief at the Airports Council International trade group, said the scanner "really does not reveal as much as some people might think."

The scanners aim to address problems exposed by government probes in which covert agents got liquid explosives and detonators through airport checkpoints. A 2005 Homeland Security report urged better checkpoint technology.

Security analyst Bruce Schneier, a frequent critic of the TSA, said the scanners should improve security but warned that they take longer than metal detectors — 30 seconds vs. about 15 seconds per passenger. "There will be pressure to do the screening faster, which will be sloppier," Schneier said.

The scanners bounce harmless "millimeter waves" off passengers' bodies and use no radiation.

The TSA has done preliminary tests of the scanner on passengers who had just passed through metal detectors. Those tests found that the machines excel at finding hidden objects, White said.

Based on the results of the latest test, the TSA will decide at an undetermined date whether to use more body scanners in place of metal detectors.

TzenaRena

Wed, Feb 18 2009, 10:32 pm

Could any of these devices be harmful for pregnant women?

Atali

Wed, Feb 18 2009, 10:32 pm

I think I will have to take a boat next time I go to Australia shock

Atali

Wed, Feb 18 2009, 10:33 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

Could any of these devices be harmful for pregnant women?

"officially" they are considered safe, that is until they find out the effects in 20 years time

supermama2

Wed, Feb 18 2009, 10:34 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

Could any of these devices be harmful for pregnant women?

Well yeah, it's kinda' like an X-ray. Not exactly, but in the same field. The prob. is also w/ tznius b/c the tech can see the curves of your body Exploding anger

supermama2

Wed, Feb 18 2009, 10:35 pm

Atali wrote:

TzenaRena wrote:

Could any of these devices be harmful for pregnant women?

"officially" they are considered safe, that is until they find out the effects in 20 years time

exactly right!

willow

Thu, Feb 19 2009, 5:38 am

You are allowed to refuse it you know. I did when I was preg. I just got a private pat-down with a women security officer.

supermama2

Thu, Feb 19 2009, 8:30 am

willow wrote:

You are allowed to refuse it you know. I did when I was preg. I just got a private pat-down with a women security officer.

At this rate, I didn't assume that they would allow for a female officer but I'm glad to know it.

Atali

Thu, Feb 19 2009, 12:06 pm

Also, this strikes me as being a very bad idea for the economy. The airline industry is suffering massive losses since people are traveling less, and this will just make people avoid flying. It will also prevent tourists from wanting to visit the US and spend money here. If I were planning a trip to Switzerland to go touring and found out that the airport there would require this, I would seriously reconsider going. Therefore, America could lose a lot of tourists this way.

happyone

Thu, Feb 19 2009, 12:37 pm

Could it detect tumors? Might be cheaper than an x-ray.

Marion

Thu, Feb 19 2009, 2:56 pm

Atali, it doesn't strike me as though the USofA has ever really given a hoot what anyone else thinks or does. Even the current practices are enough to have me avoiding the US as much as possible. Toronto's almost as bad. Unfortunately I can't avoid Toronto.

Mrs Bissli

Thu, Feb 19 2009, 4:02 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

Could any of these devices be harmful for pregnant women?

probably less harmful than the amount of radiation you'll be exposed from frequent long-haul flights