Site Meter

Airport X-Ray Peep Shows

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. Privacy Prof’s New Blog: Concurringopinions.com

    Fans of Daniel Solove’s blogging at Prawfsblawg and Balkinization should visit his new blog, Concurringopinions.com. Already, Dan has quite a bit of privacy commentary on the new blog, including a post about credit scoring post-Katrina and the Pubescan…

  2. Bruce says:

    This is one of those instances in which the concerns of individuals about their privacy seems to me to overlap with the concerns of copyright owners about their works. Namely, my comfort with this system depends largely on the security of the images generated by it, and whether they are subject to being viewed and redistributed for purposes unrelated to airport security. Similarly, a content owner’s comfort in a home or personal use of content depends largely on the security of that use, and whether the content is subject to being viewed or redistributed beyond that use. In both cases, a trusted security mechanism governing use of digital information could have benefits to both parties (increased airport security, increased variety and portability of content).

  3. John Burgess says:

    Based on the sample photo provided, I don’t think there’s much chance of matching an individual to his/her X-Ray portrait. Were there to be an electronic tag linking, say, the bording pass with the picture, perhaps there might be grounds to complain. If they were being projected on a large-screen TV, in real time, for all the queue-standers to enjoy, there might be reason to complain as well. Neither of those seem either present or projected.

    But having a somewhat anatomically correct picture loose on the Internet is hardly going to raise eyes, forget attract an audience older than 8-year-olds. I’d rather “flash” for the camera and photo analyst than have something nasty sneaking aboard my flight.

    Just in case, though, I’m going to corner the market on stick-on tags that say, “Implants”. I’ll sell them to TSA officials so that they can paste them on passengers as they pass through the portals of shame.

  4. Lourdes says:

    i would like to see what a weapon looks like in images,knife, plastic others

  5. J. Allen says:

    As a current student in a local Radiography Technology program, a great deal of x-ray radiation information is fresh in my mind.

    One of the major concerns in medical diagnostic X-rays is skin exposure. Great pains are spent to limit skin exposure.

    This devices is designed to irradiate the skin. This device raises a great deal of concern as it supposedly uses higher energy x-ray photons than diagnostic x-ray.

    There is no ‘safe’ x-ray. The radiation from x-rays is non-threshold. There is no ‘safe’ dose. Any exposure runs the risk of causing cancer. Even if the device is only measuring backscatter, The higher energy xrays still pass through the body. It’s akin to basting someone with a fire-hose and measuring the spray that hits you in the face.

    Lets not forget that just traveling cross country in an aircraft at high altitudes increases your exposure to cosmic radiation significantly (akin to a CT scan). Now these customers are dosed with ionizing radation before they even board the plane.

    In the medical field, we tend to sheild sensitive body parts that are Highly sensitive to ionizing radition. This includes the thyroid and gonads. No shielding is used here.

    In the medical field, radation therapy/diagnostics cannot be used without a doctor’s order. That is because the risk vs. benifit factors need to be concidered. With this device, its a lot of needless risk to innocent people and the only benefit is a gambled one that you may be able to stop a threat ..should you find one.

    This device goes against all ideas of radiation protection being taught to those medical professionals who’s job is to protect patients from unneeded radation exposure and its proven, documented health risks.

  6. Rebecca says:

    The discription of the software seems to indicate that the software merely transforms the original vivid image of the naked body to a sketch outline, but the original image is still viewable and saved on the database.

  7. Rebecca says:

    The description of the software seems to indicate that the software merely transforms the original vivid image of the naked body to a sketch outline, but the original image is still viewable and saved on the database.

  8. James Hilton says:

    After intensive research for a book I just wrote on the subject of x-ray safety (Playing With Fire), it is almost unbelievable that any competent and honest scientist or doctor could, with a straight face, argue that medically unjustified exposure to ionizing radiation is not a precurser to cancer, especially for infants and children. ALL x-rays cause genetic mutations which accumulate with each additional exposure, regardless of how tiny the dose.

  9. Sylvie Frossard says:

    Do we have a choice:

    March 31, 2008

    Dear Friends,

    I have created a new poll “Health Concern from Backscatter Screening at Airports for Kids under 11”, a very hot and controversial topic.

    It seems that “Backscatter X Rays” are going to take over the “Security Gates”. There are definite concerns with even the security-gate issue. The devil’s argument is that the magnetic field the kids are exposed to is very small, not more than magnetic field of earth. Now, look at this. Magnetic field of earth is one part in a hundred-thousand tesla, but it is uniform, and our body has adapted to it. Now, passing through gates (current does not go without wires, so you won’t have current in your body, but magnetic field travels in vacuum), you experience the field there. The magnetic field in your brain is of the order of one part in 10 000 000 000 000 tesla (13 zeros), and I don’t like kids getting through gates under any circumstances.

    Also, consider the emotional scar from the following situation.

    Alarm at the security gate beeps for reasons unknown to parent or child. Airport authorities label the child as a potential traveling bomb, and forcibly strip the child naked, sometimes in public, the child, totally unprepared for the situation, not realizing what is happening to him or her.

    Now, consider backscatter X rays, which penetrates clothes and gets images. What would it cause to human skin upon reflection? How much dose would be built up for a frequent traveler? What would be their effect on kids, when they get married? Would girls experience breast cancer, blood cancer or ovarian cancer at a later age? We do not know the answers as yet. The question is to let kids experience this because of “security”. Here, we have to compromise between security, modesty and privacy. I am proposing an optimized solution in this poll, and would like to get your frank views and comments. Poll address is:

    http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/330827

    Also, there is a new launch of “Clothing and health policy for kids under 11 in school”. The address is:

    http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/330702

    Please fill that out too. Many thanks. A new version of “Thoroughness of Physical Examination” shall be available soon.

    Regards,

    Sylvie Frossard

    sylvie_frossard@yahoo.fr

  10. Sylvie Frossard says:

    Do we have a choice:

    March 31, 2008

    Dear Friends,

    I have created a new poll “Health Concern from Backscatter Screening at Airports for Kids under 11”, a very hot and controversial topic.

    It seems that “Backscatter X Rays” are going to take over the “Security Gates”. There are definite concerns with even the security-gate issue. The devil’s argument is that the magnetic field the kids are exposed to is very small, not more than magnetic field of earth. Now, look at this. Magnetic field of earth is one part in a hundred-thousand tesla, but it is uniform, and our body has adapted to it. Now, passing through gates (current does not go without wires, so you won’t have current in your body, but magnetic field travels in vacuum), you experience the field there. The magnetic field in your brain is of the order of one part in 10 000 000 000 000 tesla (13 zeros), and I don’t like kids getting through gates under any circumstances.

    Also, consider the emotional scar from the following situation.

    Alarm at the security gate beeps for reasons unknown to parent or child. Airport authorities label the child as a potential traveling bomb, and forcibly strip the child naked, sometimes in public, the child, totally unprepared for the situation, not realizing what is happening to him or her.

    Now, consider backscatter X rays, which penetrates clothes and gets images. What would it cause to human skin upon reflection? How much dose would be built up for a frequent traveler? What would be their effect on kids, when they get married? Would girls experience breast cancer, blood cancer or ovarian cancer at a later age? We do not know the answers as yet. The question is to let kids experience this because of “security”. Here, we have to compromise between security, modesty and privacy. I am proposing an optimized solution in this poll, and would like to get your frank views and comments. Poll address is:

    http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/330827

    Also, there is a new launch of “Clothing and health policy for kids under 11 in school”. The address is:

    http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/330702

    Please fill that out too. Many thanks. A new version of “Thoroughness of Physical Examination” shall be available soon.

    Regards,

    Sylvie Frossard

    sylvie_frossard@yahoo.fr

  11. Dania says:

    I just have one question,

    What happend with the pregnat woman will be going throught to this X.ray machine?

  12. Dania says:

    I just have one question,

    What happend with the pregnat woman will be going throught to this X.ray machine?

  13. Sylvie Frossard says:

    Backscatter-X rays: low intensity, but high energy

    What does the above mean?

    To understand, let’s go to some basics. According to quantum theory, light consists of small packets of energy, called photons. The energy carried by each photon depends upon the frequency of light. In fact, the energy possessed by a photon (of light or X ray) is directly proportional to energy. Hence, X-ray photon shall, always, carry more energy as compared to visible light. Certain processes, like photoelectric effect and Compton effect depend, critically, on the energy of the photon participating the processes. Hence, light below a certain frequency (above a certain wavelength), shall not produce photoelectric effect in certain metals, no matter how intense is the light (intensity could be visualized as the number of photons striking a surface/passing through a given area in 1 second).

    The ‘nature’ of damage depends on the energy of the photons interacting with the surface.

    The ‘extent’ of damage depends on the number of photons (intensity) interacting with the surface.

    Therefore, it should be very clear to the end-user, what the parent is accepting, when using low-intensity-, but high-energy-X rays (in fact, in the language of nuclear physicists, it is medium energy)

    Technical Note:

    Cross section for photoelectric effect is high for low-energy photons, drops as energy is increased. The cross-section increases for Compton effect and maximum for intermediate energies, drops off for higher energies. When the energy is more than 1.02 MeV, pair production is possible and the cross section increases for higher energies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image