The Hi-Tech Security at the Super Bowl 265
Hugh Pickens writes "As millions of fans sit glued to their sets next Sunday, one part of the game they will not see is the massive deployment of federal and local law enforcement resources to achieve what is being called the most technologically secure Super Bowl in history, an event that has been officially designated as a National Security Special Event (PDF). At the top of the list are gamma-ray cargo and vehicles scanners that can reportedly see through six inches of steel to reveal the contents of large vehicles. 'We can detect people, handguns and rifles,' says Customs and Border Protection Officer Brian Bell. 'You'd be a fool to bring something into that stadium that you shouldn't. We're going to catch it. Our goal is to look at every vehicle that makes a delivery inside the stadium and inside the secure perimeter.' Next is the 51-foot Featherlite mobile command center for disaster response that will support the newly constructed $18 million Regional Operations Center (ROC) for the Marion County Department of Homeland Security that will serve as a fusion center for coordinating the various federal agencies involved in providing security for the Super Bowl. One interesting security measure are the 'Swiveloc' explosion-proof manhole covers (video) that Indianapolis has spent $150,000 installing that are locked down during the Super Bowl. In case of an underground explosion, the covers lift a couple of inches off the ground — enough to vent gas out without feeding in oxygen to make an explosion bigger — before falling back into place. Finally the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI has installed a network of cameras that will be just a click away for government officials. 'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."
Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
You know the terrorists have won when...
Re:Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
The terrorists won when America stopped being "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and became a bunch of fearful, fat, money grubbing, bible humping, limp-wristed namby pambies.
Re: (Score:2)
1880's?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
reagan era was a definite shift to go backwards. I'd pin the start of america's first decline (in recent times) at the start of ronny's days in office.
the guy did so much wrong for the country, its such a crying shame.
Re:Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the terrorists have won when...
Also:
You know the establishment is winning when they've succeeded in using the fear of terrorism as an excuse to create the foundations of a police state...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
An insightful mod on a person who feels they can assess the 'expendability' of a human being based on whether or not they attend a single sporting event. Only at Slashdot.
Why a sporting event and not, say, which church they attend?
Re: (Score:3)
When we stopped hunting down and killing their leaders?
When we start hunting down our own citizens and executing them without so much as a single accusation laid against them for nothing more than them exercising their free speech?
Re: (Score:3)
When we stopped hunting down and killing their leaders?
When we start hunting down our own citizens and executing them without so much as a single accusation laid against them for nothing more than them exercising their free speech?
The men represented in this video [youtube.com], who were shot down en mass by the Federal government without benefit of indictment or trial, and Al-Awlaki [youtube.com], share a common trait. Do you know what it is?
Al-Awlaki, like the Confederates, took up arms against the United States and made himself the enemy during wartime. He aided those trying to kill Americans. Killing Al-Awlaki was a completely legitimate act of war that did not require charges, indictment, trial, or sentencing. It isn't a question of criminal law, but war.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one constitutional freedom you have lost. The terrorists have been legitimized and rely mostly on the "Progressive" and "Elitist" political ideologues who shift all of the blame onto the victim instead of the actual perpetrators. Their comments on a terrorist attack basically boil down to something like "Oh it's terrible some people died BUT they (victim) deserved it". It's the "BUT" that provides legitimacy to the terrorists.
People spare no vitriol when describing US faults and give the perpetrators
Re: (Score:3)
NDAA, right to due process was damaged greatly if not lost by that particular act.
The 9th and 10th amendment have died long ago.
Need more?
Oh, you said name one, so there you go.
Re: (Score:3)
Name one constitutional freedom you have lost.
- The right to a trial. Anyone who refuses to plea-bargain faces a heavy penalty. Perhaps years in jail for an offence that normally attracts a non-custodial sentence.
- The right to a speedy trial. People can be locked up for years on remand. (This probably applies in most countries.)
- warrantless wiretapping
just for a start.
Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...budget cuts to space exploration. Good thing Football is safe.
It's not just ensuring that "Football is safe." The Super Bowl will have on the order of 100k people in and around the stadium and more than 100 million people watching. We can argue about whether the specific measures will be effective, or whether they invade privacy, or whatever, but don't dismiss a high-value terrorism target as just a football game.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the NFL feels its a target, then the fucking NFL can pay the bill.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the government's job to protect its citizens. Even the most hardcore libertarians usually will at least concede that much. The Super Bowl is an obvious target for anyone who wants to kill a bunch of people to make some deluded point. If we follow your approach, then what does the government do?
Besides, I feel much safer being looked after by the government (whose top concern is reelection) than a private, for-profit organization (whose top concern is saving money).
Re: (Score:3)
The government response to any other private "too big to secure" event consists of "okay then, if you can't secure it, you can't hold the event". So, following your (entirely true) statement, the government should simply ban the superbowl.
If we follow your approach, then what does the government do?
Roads. Schools. Water. National defense (stress both the "national" and the "defense" par
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, if Al Qaeda attacks on superbowl Sunday, you can bet your eyeteeth they'll go for Six Flags Texas, or the Mall of America, or the Golden Gate bridge. Something totally unexpected, rather than walking into a highly visible trap.
Only because IT IS a highly visible trap. Security by intimidation of potential attackers only works if you actually do intimidate the potential attackers.
And, FYI, you do not look out for yourself. You can't. No one can. No one is always alert, all the time, for any emergency. We rely on each other to look out for us when we let our guard down (which is all the time). That's the great thing about society. I wish the anarchists could understand that, but they're all convinced that they are supermen.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not the government's responsibility to protect a bunch of rich football dickheads in a private stadium. If the ticketholders can afford to spend $500/seat then they can afford to chip in to buy their own security.
I'd love to see an MIT-type hack like this one just to embarrass Deputy Fife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLg2XpY0L3w [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think the governments job is to provide for the common defense, not to protect me from anything, including myself. I don't feel safe being looked after by anyone but me, and surely don't trust the government or a corporation to do that. If I go to a mass gathering of people, then I accept the risk that I may die because some asshat thinks it will make a good target, I am sad that the populous feels they need to be protected. But hell, I believe in freedom, and it ain't free. Sometimes you have to be b
Re: (Score:3)
it isn't the most watched event on American TV, fuck I have never even heard of Summerfest until now
so which is really the bigger target if you wanted to cause a big fucking stink? An event that will pack 100,000+ in attendence with 106.5 million watching every single second? Or some music festival that a lot of people have never heard of?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most top tier NCAA football games have more attendance. Aren't the stadiums at Michigan and Penn State the largest, and consistently sold out?
Re: (Score:3)
That they, the fans and the civic and state governments that bend to pressure from billionaire owners are, collectively, a bunch of fucking morons.
But I'm all for keeping the Superbowel safe. Can you imagine if al Qaeda did kill a few thousand people at the game? Fuck, we'd have ten years with of awful tributes to the fallen as low IQ types chanted "USA USA USA" and presidents and congressman would give speeches of how they died for freedom and football.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
And while all this fear mongering, submission to armed authority, 'convenience arrests', and security theater is happening, thousands of Americans will be singing
"mumble mumble mumble something something Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!"
*shakes head sadly*
Yeah. Enjoy the game. Really. There's not a lot else left now, is there?
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is some deeply flawed logic. You can always say "if it was going to happen, it would have", right up to the point where it does happen. And then a few years later, you start saying "if it was going to happen again..."
The actuarial value of a human life is around $100k per remaining healthy year. Let's take the average age of Super Bowl attendees to be 40 years. The life expectancy of a 40 year old American male is 78 years, which puts their worth at $3.8M. If a hypothetical Super Bowl bombing kills 10k people, it's negative value is $38B.
Therefore, if there is a 0.1% chance of an attack, it is worth spending up to $38M to prevent it. But such a likelihood only gives a 10% (1 - .999^100) chance of happening in a century, so your statement, "If something major was going to happen, it would've already" falls flat.
Security theater is bad. But not all security is theater.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
The actuarial value of a human life is around $100k per remaining healthy year. Let's take the average age of Super Bowl attendees to be 40 years. The life expectancy of a 40 year old American male is 78 years, which puts their worth at $3.8M. If a hypothetical Super Bowl bombing kills 10k people, it's negative value is $38B.
Isn't actuarial value the amount that life insurance companies pay out? So why are you multiplying that by life expectancy? Shouldn't it just be $100K * 10K people, i.e. $1B? And if I'm misunderstanding, if you mean something along the lines of annual profit produced, your number still has an RIAA-level of inflation. 10,000 people gone, sure, but there are 20 million people in this country that are unemployed, with a current production value of 0, just waiting to fill those jobs. In six months, there would be almost 100% job placement in those empty positions.
Yes, I am a heartless Darwinist.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't actuarial value the amount that life insurance companies pay out?
No.
The actual value of a citizen to society is their economic contribution. This is the value tax dollars might reasonably be used to protect. Most of us are not insured to that amount because the beneficiary do not enjoy our total economic contribution.
Also I don't think it makes sense to break the economic value out by simply dividing by life span to get a per year figure. If anything 40+ year olds are worth MUCH LESS than 20 somethings. They have far fewer productive years remaining and many costly
Re: (Score:3)
You expect those people to show up to work Monday?
Re:Problem with dollar values. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with numbers is that you're assigning them to a single arbitrary time period. The correct way of saying that would to spend $38b on ensuring those very people are safe at all times in all parts of their lives.
If a hypothetical super bowl bombing doesn't occur then statistically several of your 10k people won't live to the end of the year anyway due to other problems. We spend ludicrous amounts of money against an unknown and unpredictable threat that is likely to affect only a minuscule percentage of our population, and given the current state of security is likely to remain a threat despite everyone's best efforts. All the while we can clearly see statistically people die every year and they don't get a dime spent on them.
Take the $38bn and put it into some basic healthcare if you want return on investment, not fighting the maybe terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
"...at a venue with a large number of people and relatively little security. A concert. A sports game. In the unsecured portion of an airport. ..."
yet those venues aren't broadcast live around the world like the superbowl. Terrorists would love to have that kind of an audience. Of course I don't believe in the FUD that our government and many others try to cram down our throats at every opportunity, but it would make a very valuable target to terrorists.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't a war on Osama. It's war (well, not actual war as we haven't had one since WWII) on terror. As soon as terror signs a peace treaty with us and surrenders, we'll get back to all that stupid freedom garbage. Any day now, surely. Pick an enemy that you can fight indefinitely and have all the time in the world to shape the country as you see fit under the threat of "terror".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks for the clarification. Excuse my ignorance, I am not a US citizen and don't know so much about this. I'm curious though: what difference does it make when the Congress declares war, other than symbolic?
Apparently not a whole lot in practical terms. As you noted, we've attacked lots of countries without declaring war.
The U.S. Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, but it doesn't specify the means of doing so or the effect of that declaration. So that's not particularly helpful. Since the early 1970s, there are strict limits on how long the president can commit forces without a declaration of war or 'authorization of force'. In the time since that law was passed, Congress has always opted for the authorization. There is a diplomatic difference as an authorization of force is perceived as less extreme. Whether there is any function difference, I don't know. An authorization of force has certainly been sufficient for us to attack a bunch of countries.
So why the hang up over an actual declaration? I assume it's mostly a political issue. Undeclared conflicts have always been controversial, but lately it is being brought up more often due to Ron Paul trying to make it an issue in the upcoming presidental election. Americans who are tired of being at war - or tired of spending money to be at war - are picking up on it as well.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Terrorists know that the media is controlled by the enemy. Gone are the days when Ahmed blows himself up to get his cause on TV, because his cause will not get on TV. The explosion will, but not the message.
Think about it-- do you even know what motivates someone to blow themselves up? No, you don't, because they don't put that on TV. All you get is racism and "they
Re: (Score:3)
If something major was going to happen
It HAS happened. Look at several past Olympics
I'm more worried about unproven scanning technologies and abusive TSA agents than I am about a FUD-ridden possible attack that hasn't materialized in 10 years of this country cowering in fear.
I'm against things like TSA. Personally I don't think they need any kind of security for boarding a plane. But this is a little bit different. For one thing you are not required to attend the super bowl. Unlike air travel, you really are there by choice.
There is always security at large scale sporting events. Did you know that most large arenas have their own holding cells? Sure it is mostly for drunk spectators, but still. While this may be overkill, this is n
Meanwhile...ROTCryingMEyesO (Score:5, Interesting)
It took some major editing, but I fixed that for you.
Clearly, that is exactly what a few people are allowed to do. And worse, they are allowed to throw the US Constitution out the window in the process.
Re: (Score:3)
You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority.
You know, those of us who are sick of this "security at any cost!!!" crap could say the same thing to you. After all, we have to help foot the bill for it, we have to acquiesce to the "security" searches (in violation of the 4th Amendment, no less). What gives you the right to force your opinion (fear) on me?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a giant ugly-ass box right in the middle of downtown Indianapolis surrounded by a lot of one way streets with no great parking.
Re: (Score:3)
With a capacity of 70,000...
Far less then many college stadiums that hold over 100,000 almost every saturday during the season.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with saving hundreds of thousands of lives, get real pal. This is because of the billions of dollars in advertising, marketing, and swag associated with the event. The biggest advertisers in the world have spent tens of millions just getting ready for it.
If there was a terrorist attack during the event, it would hurt the economy very deeply for years to come as people avoided the event.
Additionally it isn't a few tens of millions, the Iraq war is already in the trillions, we have sc
Re: (Score:3)
Still watch? Hell, given how sensationalist we are, people would tune in just for the small chance to see people die!
In a nutshell, a terrorist attack would be a bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, please don't speak for the majority or call this bullshit democracy. Most people got tired of this shit years ago, but a few loud assholes have been shouting "IF YOU DON'T DO X THE TERRORISTS WIN" garbage and basically none of our representatives had the balls to stand up against what had quickly became a vocal mi
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, first of all.. the only sport where hundreds of thousands are in the stadium at once is auto racing. Someone can chime about whether or not they have that kind of security.
Secondly, "most of us" are quite willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars of other people's money, to reduce an already low chance to of terrorist activity to an imperceptibly low chance. How magnanimous of us.
Frankly, I don't care how much is spent to make the event "safe" from terrorists, as long as that money comes excl
Re: (Score:2)
So why the fuck didnt you vote Bush out in 2004?
Hypocritical indeed
Maybe he did. The majority of people choose to vote Bush in again. Personally, I didn't agree, but that's democracy for you.
Re: (Score:3)
The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that in a democracy, the power hungry need the support of the stupid.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
its about protecting people if anything
It's about fearmongering and harassing red-blooded law-abiding citizens, conditioning them to accept government intrusion into their lives, and making work for low-rent thugs while scores of teachers are being laid off.
You are the one who's trolling. Since when in history has an American football game ever been subject to a terrorist attack? Note: a drunken fan who throws a plastic cup of beer at a rival team's fan is not a "lone wolf" terrorist [foxsports.com] no matter what the government tells you.
Re: (Score:2)
...you may not agree with the way it is handled
You're right. I don't.
...but this is not about football, its about protecting people if anything.
I beg to differ. It's about fear -- specifically, it's about using fear as a tool to get the masses to accept whatever kind of authoritarian measures the government wants to put in place so that they have however much control they want over our lives. Personally, I'd rather spend the money on space exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
Not many more then any other football game on any given Sunday. Most people watch the game on TV.
The FBI webcam network (Score:5, Interesting)
'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
Who sets this kind of thing up without any authentication?!
Re:The FBI webcam network (Score:5, Funny)
Brigadier General Stewart "Bareback" Goodwin
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't watch them, then bring your microwave ovens and knock out their WiFi. FBI won't be able to watch either.
I wonder if those gamma-ray scanners are going to be looking for microwave ovens.
Re: (Score:2)
And to disrupt you really don't need a microwave system. Just load up Backtrack and go for broke. It's a pretty sure bet they'll use WEP!
Re: (Score:2)
If you work for the Homeland Security, do you get access to the All-22 Shot [wsj.com]?
A challenge (Score:2)
They have just created a challenge in regards to just that Internet address is...
Re: (Score:3)
And then when a thousand /. geeks go looking for the hidden "internet address" and find it - the Government can say "Look we have 1000 internet terrorists attacking us, we need to have better control over the internet!." :(
Let's 'ope nobody tweets "destroy Super Bowl" (Score:4, Funny)
Or they'll cancel the 'ole bleedin' lot!
Fuck all this (Score:5, Interesting)
Make the NFL foot this whole security bill.
Re: (Score:3)
This ^^^
The manhole covers weren't for the stupidbowl. (Score:5, Informative)
They were because they KEEP EXPLODING!!!
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29819089/detail.html [theindychannel.com]
Re:The manhole covers weren't for the stupidbowl. (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't want your manhole to explode, stop eating vindaloo.
FInally (Score:3)
we won't have those constant superbowl terrorist attacks!
Meanwhile (Score:4, Funny)
Someone mixes tiny nitroglycerin tablets with breadcrumbs and the Super Bowl is canceled due to pigeon poop.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Funny)
That would be a fowl deed.
Neckbeards, that's your cue (Score:5, Funny)
"Wait a minute..." he thought. "Maybe I should be contributing to the contents of the article? Perhaps I should mention how government funds shouldn't be involved here, but they'll be there anyway due to close ties between football and the military. Maybe something on security theater and a reference to airports and perhaps a lack of any terrorist related activities in football games?" But the thought quickly left his mind, as there was too much bitterness towards those jock types he worked with in marketing (and couldn't stand) and instead posted "HURRR maybe they should up the radiation on the metal detectors so the in-breed hicks that attend the game get sterilized!!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Though I must commend you for being able to sum up Slashdot in entirety with just one post.
Most technologically secure Super Bowl in history (Score:2)
Scanners that can look through 6" of steel you say ?
Does everybody have to take their shoes off as well ?
Such statements tickle the fancy of hackers that have no negative motives but love a challenge.
Then again
Scanners (Score:2)
You'd be a fool to bring something into that stadium that you shouldn't. We're going to catch it.
So much for bringing your own booze or food in. The stadium concession business is safe!
Detection does not equal prevention. (Score:2)
Indiana is a "shall issue" concealed carry state. Indianapolis has an exception to concealed carry in city parks, but the stadium is not a city park.
What that means is: the Feds have no authority to prevent someone from taking a legally-carried concealed handgun into the stadium.
It may be against the stadium rules. That I don't know. But it isn't against the law.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be against the stadium rules. That I don't know. But it isn't against the law.
Both the NFL and CIB, who manages Lucas Oil Stadium, have banned firearms from the stadium. It is one of the terms you agree to when you purchase a ticket. Bring a firearm with you and you will be turned away at the outer gate.
Re: (Score:2)
"If it's against stadium rules, the Feds certainly do have the authority to prevent someone bringing a handgun in, because at that point they're trespassing."
No, they do not. Trespassing laws are state and local laws, not Federal, and Federal agents have no authority to enforce them.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are more than enough overskilled attorneys that can argue for the legal theory of "zones of reasonable expectation of diminished liberty" for just such a purpose. Right now it covers about 3,794,101 sq mi. [wikipedia.org]"
Probably true, but there are just as many who could argue against it, with more facts and reason to back them up.
Really? (Score:2)
>At the top of the list are gamma-ray cargo and vehicles scanners that can reportedly see through six inches of steel to reveal the contents of large vehicles.
Just wait until they use this on a vehicle that still has a human being still inside it when they turn on their death/maim ray.
They really want to open themselves up to that kind of liability?
--
BMO
I want the superb-owl to go away (Score:2, Interesting)
Sincerely,
Indianapolis resident that works downtown.
just fucking go away please
Look out for the blimp... (Score:2)
Wasted effort (Score:2)
And we're all sitting here thinking, "A couple of engineers could figure out how to get around it in a matter of a few hours."
When do we get our government back?
Re:One question (Score:5, Informative)
Hand egg.
Re:One question (Score:5, Funny)
No dude, sports are named after what they do the least during the game.
Basket Ball - The ball is in the basket for only a very small portion of the game.
Base Ball - The ball touches the base for only a very small portion of the game.
Foot Ball - The ball touches the foot for only a very small portion of the game.
Hand Egg would following this convention be Soccer, and only for the very short period of time where one team picks a fight with Manchester United and some poor striker ends up getting punched in the eggs.
Re:One question (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Except in Egypt, where even a home team win can lead to 78 deaths on the field [go.com].
Re: (Score:2)
How many confirmed deaths in Vancouver hockey riot?
None you say?
Thought so. Even in Canukistan people don't kill over hockey.
Re: (Score:2)
no its soccer they kill over
Egyptian soccer riot: Death toll at 73
Re: (Score:2)
They bowl, silly.
Re:I just have to ask since everybody so far has.. (Score:4, Informative)
It's a thing [wikipedia.org], and yes, what it sounds like: they have a radioactive source that gives off gamma rays, which pass through a truck, and then gamma ray detectors that look at what passed through. Sort of like a heavy-duty xray machine, except at these sizes/energies, the gamma-ray machines are actually safer than getting blasted with xrays.
Re: (Score:2)
Medical x-rays are safer, but they don't come anywhere near penetrating a steel truck at that power. The kinds of x-ray machines needed to scan a whole truck [wikipedia.org] are more like 5-10 MeV.
Feel up? (Score:2)
Sweet - get the TSA in there to feel up all the big, hairy, stoked-up sports fans with facepaint and a few six-packs already down the hatch
"Feel up"? Don't you mean "irradiate"? G-ray scanner capable of looking through inches of steel isn't too safe for gonads. Especially if they don't shut down the source if traffic gets tied up in front of it.
If most of 'em weren't already past breeding age it might make a nontrivial improvement in the nerd/jock ratio of upcoming generations.
(Yes, yes, I know they sai
Re: (Score:2)
you know drivers can get out of their vehicles? when all of this started I was a delivery driver, and going onto post I was always directed over, asked to get out, did the wand thing and they would xray the entire truck after a visual
Re: (Score:2)
You just ripped of one of the regular Joker plots that Batman has to foil.
Of course, this whole attack the superbowl thing is a re-used plot [wikipedia.org], too.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter with you? Are you in favor of gratuitous violence?
Now, sit back and watch your football game.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh.. what?
The next sunday is the 5th. The previous sunday was january 29th. In what world is it unacceptable to refer to the next sunday as "next sunday"
Re: (Score:3)
A gamma source used for X-raying that is powerful enough to go through 6 inches of steel would require a radiation exclusion zone around the vehicle. The driver would have to exit the truck and move outside the zone.
It really is a radioactive gamma source mounted on a truck. [saic.com] It's supposed to be used only on uninhabited vehicles. SAIC's "terms and conditions" [saic.com] for the thing are posted. Here's SAIC's disclaimer:
"Since VACIS inspection products use radioactive sources in this process, the End User is responsible for obtaining and abiding by all necessary and appropriate approvals from the applicable cognizant regulatory agencies or authorities in their country of use. Buyer/End User is responsible for safely operat
Re: (Score:3)
Los Alamos tried one out. [doe.gov] They were satisfied with the radiation safety. Of course, their people wore their routine three dosimeters (cumulative, short term, and alarming.)