If picked for Full Body Scan...

[medhead]

so I don't get what the problem is then?

i think the scanners are easy and quick. my 80 year old mom got the hang of them in 2 seconds.

people have a choice not to fly if they don't like the security at airports.

I did have an issue with the introduction of scanners that use ionising radiation. Even at the incredibly low radiation levels, where it will be impossible to ever determine a detriment to people, they didn't appear to apply the Justification principle of radiation protection. As in receiving a net benefit.

We have a system but we just ignore it because the risk is so low? Who determines that the risk is so low we can ignore the system? Can I do that for my work? It was just a bad look and if the risk is so low then they should have no issue justifying the use of scanners. It is worth noting that Australia did do a justification case for these scanners.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I did have an issue with the introduction of scanners that use ionising radiation. Even at the incredibly low radiation levels, where it will be impossible to ever determine a detriment to people, they didn't appear to apply the Justification principle of radiation protection. As in receiving a net benefit.

We have a system but we just ignore it because the risk is so low? Who determines that the risk is so low we can ignore the system? Can I do that for my work? It was just a bad look and if the risk is so low then they should have no issue justifying the use of scanners. It is worth noting that Australia did do a justification case for these scanners.

But as i understand the scanners in Australia are the 'safe(er)' ones. The list of things that are potentially dangerous is huge. Not so sure why scanners are the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[harvyk]

Who determines that the risk is so low we can ignore the system?

I strongly suspect it was these guys -> Home - ANSTO and I also suspect they did more research than simply "dah, we think it's a good idea"

Can I do that for my work?

Sure if you'd like -> Careers - ANSTO

 

[Himeno]

what's wrong/the issue with having a scan? is there a health risk?

There has been a report that MMW may cause DNA to unzip and that more study was needed.

 

[JohnK]

what's wrong/the issue with having a scan? is there a health risk?

Intrusive and a total waste of time.

Just because you easily accept everything you are told doesn't mean others will do the same.

 

[medhead]

But as i understand the scanners in Australia are the 'safe(er)' ones. The list of things that are potentially dangerous is huge. Not so sure why scanners are the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Well I didn't want to draw any inferences. But a justification case was done. Now they don't use the X-Ray based scanners. Probably just coincidence. I am definitely not suggesting any connection.

I strongly suspect it was these guys -> Home - ANSTO and I also suspect they did more research than simply "dah, we think it's a good idea"



Sure if you'd like -> Careers - ANSTO

No, it wasn't Ansto. They are not a regulatory agency responsible for overseeing the radiation protection system, across all industries. But as someone who does not work in the area you can't be expected to know that sort of detail.

But you are missing my point. The starting position was the risk is low don't worry about assessing the benefits against the harm. In other words "we think it is a good idea". The Australian national radiation protect regulator, ARPANSA, was the first group worldwide to look beyond the risk of the exposure (being low) to do a justification process.

Btw in case it wasn't obvious, I already work in radiation protection. Ansto is attractive from an experience point of view, but they just don't seem to pay enough.

 

[medhead]

There has been a report that MMW may cause DNA to unzip and that more study was needed.

But unfortunately that article created more questions that it answered and the conclusion was pretty hard to support iirc. There is no known mechanism for harm at these levels.

Edit: and on that note I've already replied too much to this thread.

 

[harvyk]

Well I didn't want to draw any inferences. But a justification case was done. Now they don't use the X-Ray based scanners. Probably just coincidence. I am definitely not suggesting any connection.

No, it wasn't Ansto. They are not a regulatory agency responsible for overseeing the radiation protection system, across all industries. But as someone who does not work in the area you can't be expected to know that sort of detail.

But you are missing my point. The starting position was the risk is low don't worry about assessing the benefits against the harm. In other words "we think it is a good idea". The Australian national radiation protect regulator, ARPANSA, was the first group worldwide to look beyond the risk of the exposure (being low) to do a justification process.

Btw in case it wasn't obvious, I already work in radiation protection. Ansto is attractive from an experience point of view, but they just don't seem to pay enough.

I'll concede that I took a guess at what would be the regulatory body...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Intrusive and a total waste of time.

Just because you easily accept everything you are told doesn't mean others will do the same.

if they can detect something like a tissue I would suggest they aren't a waste of time.

 

[harvyk]

if they can detect something like a tissue I would suggest they aren't a waste of time.

Depends on how much of a risk that tissue is...
Too many false positives can end up being just as dangerous as false negatives.

 

[JohnK]

if they can detect something like a tissue I would suggest they aren't a waste of time.

A tissue bomb?

Great now we can feel much safer.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Depends on how much of a risk that tissue is...
Too many false positives can end up being just as dangerous as false negatives.

It's not the risk of the tissue - but that someone may be carrying something more sinister, as small as that.

The system is not designed to pick up explosives or prohibited items per se (from what I understand) - it can't - because it doesn't show a picture. It is designed to detect anything hidden on the body. A search must then be conducted to determine what the item is.

Under the old system you could empty your keys and phone and leave the plastic explosive in your pocket. Theoretically that's no longer possible with the scanners.

 

[ajd]

Intrusive and a total waste of time.

Just because you easily accept everything you are told doesn't mean others will do the same.

This. Health risks aside, invasions of one's privacy must be justified by a compelling public interest.

Terrorists who have done their homework will know that there are several documented methods to get past most full body scanners without detection. (see Full body scanner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) If a group has successfully organised personnel, done their reconnaissance, obtained the right materials and reached the airport without being picked up by our law enforcement and intelligence systems, then our security framework has already failed, and getting past the airport screening point is the easy bit. Security theatre, that's what it is.

(Not to mention that even the TSA knows that terrorists aren't necessarily targetting aviation any more: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...orists-are-plotting-to-attack-airplanes.shtml)

 

[harvyk]

It's not the risk of the tissue - but that someone may be carrying something more sinister, as small as that.

The system is not designed to pick up explosives or prohibited items per se (from what I understand) - it can't - because it doesn't show a picture. It is designed to detect anything hidden on the body. A search must then be conducted to determine what the item is.

Under the old system you could empty your keys and phone and leave the plastic explosive in your pocket. Theoretically that's no longer possible with the scanners.

Although an explosives trace test would have picked it up, that said not everyone is swabbed (nor is everyone scanned).

Personally I'm under the opinion that no matter what we do, if someone really wants to do us harm, they will. I'm also of the opinion that if the plot to do something bad actually makes it to the airport, airport security won't be stopping said plot since the masterminds would have already taken airport security into account. As history has shown, it doesn't even fully stop the opportunistic crazies.

Of course whilst the security at airports really is only theater, that theater does help to reassure people and does provide some deterrent from the bad people whom aren't really committed to their cause.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Although an explosives trace test would have picked it up, that said not everyone is swabbed (nor is everyone scanned).

Personally I'm under the opinion that no matter what we do, if someone really wants to do us harm, they will. I'm also of the opinion that if the plot to do something bad actually makes it to the airport, airport security won't be stopping said plot since the masterminds would have already taken airport security into account. As history has shown, it doesn't even fully stop the opportunistic crazies.

Of course whilst the security at airports really is only theater, that theater does help to reassure people and does provide some deterrent from the bad people whom aren't really committed to their cause.

Some deterrent - that's good enough for me.

And for the ones that are well organised - the problem is communication. Once they start to communicate, the chance of that getting intercepted and identified increases.

Either way, I'd say we're doing an ok job on getting as many bases covered as we can.

 

[Pushka]

Blue tac looks like other nasty things made of plastic....

 

[harvyk]

Some deterrent - that's good enough for me.

And for the ones that are well organised - the problem is communication. Once they start to communicate, the chance of that getting intercepted and identified increases.

Either way, I'd say we're doing an ok job on getting as many bases covered as we can.

You positive on the communication aspect? If I wanted to get message back and forwards between people these days I could do so, and there would be no way a gov't could find out through technological means (this does however require a level of technological competence). A good number of modern day interceptions actually are the result of family members or members of the community whom have overheard things or have even discussed things and feel uncomfortable and thus pass the information onto the authorities.

Also some deterrent was working when we simply had metal detectors and x-rays and nothing more. In fact if we where truly serious on doing something more than theater, we'd remove OLCI, we'd remove the check in machines and force everyone to check in via the desks. We'd then train those check in agents to "have a conversation". Whilst I realise that human lie detectors and not 100% accurate, maintaining composure during a 2 to 3 minute conversation in which most of that conversation is a lie is still very difficult. Right now a person does not need to interact with airline staff until at the boarding gate, and even then the conversation is barely more than 2 words, at the security check points the conversation is barely a nod of acknowledgement.

 

[medhead]

Blue tac looks like other nasty things made of plastic....

I'm not sure it is that much of an issue. Most of the baggage x-ray machines do the colour coding thing. One manufacturer advises that the colour is related to the atomic number of the material, with other nasty things having atomic numbers in the range 0-8. WG IS 6545 X-Ray Hand Baggage Scanner - Security Equipment from Westminster International

It is pretty hard to find the effective atomic number of blu-tack. But I expect it is a probably a heavier carbon chain polymer, such that it would be colour coded differently to nasty plastic things.

Having said that the kids singing barbie dolls were taken away for an explosives test at FRA in 2007. a 30 cm plastic cylinder with wires and a battery. Who knew?

 

[Maggs]

Doesn't worry me in the slightest, enjoyed the stretch. Didn't find invasive at all. Hmmm I wonder what they do when pets travel in the main cabin? Do they go through the scanner?

 

[Himeno]

Under the old system you could empty your keys and phone and leave the plastic explosive in your pocket. Theoretically that's no longer possible with the scanners.

Of course it is. The scanners have a large blind spot on the side of the body. The scanner creates a light image of the body with black "objects" on a black background. (The only difference with the "gumby" stick figures is that a computer views that image instead of a human). An object on the side of the body will show as black on black and will not be detected.