ABC: U.S. Airport Full Body Scanners Too Unreliable to Use, Germany Says

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, Sep 2, 2011.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    The mainstream networks are finally catching on ....

    ABC: U.S. Airport Full Body Scanners Too Unreliable to Use, Germany Says

  2. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I'm sure TSA will ignore facts and push on wasting more taxpayers monies regardless of what is right.
  3. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Thanks for posting this, Mike. ABC is a bit late to the party, but at least they showed up. Now the media is pricking up their ears and as the ATRs rollout, and these false positives result in a lot more pax getting stuff felt over that they don't want felt over, there should be a general clamor arising in the next few months. Unless of course, the sensitivity of these things have been dialed waaay back by software to avoid that. In which case the security theatre people decided that pure theatre is all that really is needed. Risk-based = "yeah, it's risky to fly". Perhaps a return to wtmd? accompanied by effective ATR on those with bulky clothing/dresses or skirts/metal parts....
  4. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    I >3 that these things are now referred to, in the American press no less, as "American body imaging scanners".

    And to nachtnebel's point, I had previously reported on witnessing an exceptionally high false positive rate.

    Yesterday, through the same airport I noticed zero post scanner pat downs, and as I was arriving and wasting time before heading out to wait in baggage claim I had time to observe a lot more than on my previous tour entering the "sterile" area. I doubt they've gotten that much better in such a short time period. More likely the sensitivity has been toned down in the software. Which means a ridiculously high rate of false negatives. Boy, I feel safer already.
  5. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    However, ATR ain't worth a darn at those airports that have only backscatter and continue to irradiate people.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  6. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I believe that everyone should opt out of all backscatter screening devices , ATR or not (no ATR for Backscatter currently), until TSA comes clean and have an outside reputable group evaluate Backscatter ignoring TSA testing guidelines. I don't trust TSA and believe that they will (do) place peoples lives in jeopardy to advance TSA goals.
    Lisa Simeone, Wimpie and Sunny Goth like this.
  7. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I will give ATR on mmw a shot, too many false pos in private areas would e deal breaker. The rapiscanner imposes unnecessary health risk, so I would opt out of those.
    Wimpie likes this.
  8. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    For aircraft without overhead vents, that could be a good thing. :D
    FriendlySkies likes this.
  9. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    Again, it is important to realize that no data on the long-term effects of MMW on human tissue is available. At one time, smoking was "perfectly safe" and ionizing radiation was "harmless". Just because it is not backscatter does not equal "safe".

    Remember, never before has MMW technology been used, nor studied, on humans put in a semi enclosed area where the entire body is simultaneously exposed with this type of radiation. While, yes, in theory MMW radiation is "harmless", we simply don't know what we don't know.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  10. RB

    RB Founding Member

    RadioGirl has given us some pretty sound information about MMW. I will choose MMW w/ATR over a grope down but will not select Backscatter until unbiased studies have been completed and published to the general public.
  11. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    I do not dispute the information that RadioGirl has provided.

    You are waiting for unbiased studies to be completed and published on Backscatter.

    Why do people conveniently ignore that these same things are not available on MMW?
  12. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    How about I present my US passport and no one sticks their hands, or imaging devices, up my between my legs?
    Oh, and there is no "opting out of grope down."
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  13. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I will hold out for passive MMW + ATR, which has already been prototyped in Europe. There is no excuse for the gov't to be bombarding its citizens with any radiation.
  14. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I know that x ray type radiation is dangerous and accumulative. We do not know how much exposure we are subjected to with TSA's Backscatter devices.

    I personally believe that any risk associated with MMW is near nil and that small risk is preferable to some TSA slime ball putting their hands in my pants. I don't feel that way about backscatter and I know TSA is not going to be responsible and reveal radiation exposure information about the devices.

    This is clearly my personal opinion, yours may well be different and that is fine by me.
  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Yes, an informed opinion from a working engineer who feels that her particular type of radiation is "safe".

    My personal vote is for zero radiation from the government. Period.
    mikemey likes this.
  16. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    And there you are choosing to compromise your freedom (and possibly, your health) for the sake of your own personal expediency. Do not presume that you can compromise mine.

    Passive MMW has been shown to be a workable concept. Why settle for less?

    In any case, they'll have to get the rate of false positives well under the current 49% for MMW. Until then (assuming they actually care about providing security) they owe it to the public to resert to WTMD for screening.

    Ultimately as technologies are integrated, I could see WTMD + passive MMW together in one unit.
  17. Bungnoid

    Bungnoid Original Member

    While I am generally in agreement with you, I feel compelled to point out that the WTMD is not a passive device; it does emit radio waves. I do not know how the wavelengths and power levels compare with MMW. Yet, you don't seem to object to WTMD.
  18. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Interesting -- then we need more info!!!

    I also understand that all devices that receive (radios, televisions) also transmit -- that's how the cops' radar detector detectors work.
  19. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Call me stubborn, but I want to see independent studies done on all of the types of machines. I'm just not a guinea pig kind of girl. ;)
    N965VJ and barbell like this.
  20. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I don't think I had said or even implied that I would compromise you in any way. I actually take offense at the suggestion that I have done so.

Share This Page