Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Total Recall Weapon Scanner a Reality 217

Posted by sengan from the next:-x-ray-my-mind? dept.
verch writes "American Security and Control has produced a real life version of the weapon scanner in Total Recall. It uses a narrow 'low exposure' x-ray that can scan a fully dressed person on a conveyor belt in 10 seconds to show guns, bombs, etc. Now instead of putting your luggage through the x-ray machine at the airport you can just ride through it holding your luggage and have everything scanned. Hopefully it's won't cause more people to die of cancer.. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Total Recall Weapon Scanner a Reality More

Total Recall Weapon Scanner a Reality

Comments Filter:

  • Diamond Mines (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I saw on TV where a Canadian diamond mine
    exposes its employees to low dosage x-rays
    after every shift. I guess they don't want
    them swiping the corporate jewels. Anyway,
    I don't think I'd want to be x-rayed every
    time I leave work or every time I fly.

  • You can be denied boarding (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You don't have to submit to being searched by aircraft security personnel, but complying with security measures IS a precondition to boarding the aircraft.

    As far as getting arrested is concerned, a police officer would have to get involved and believe that there is sufficient "probable cause" for HIM (or HER) to search you, and then find evidence. I think you CAN get arrested for not cooperating with a police search.

  • Tricks to Play (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Here's how to get a little bit of revenge on the operators.

    Before each time you go through, place on your person an aluminum foil cut-out in some surreal, humorous, or rude shape. Happy faces, phallic shapes, extended middle fingers, little scotty dogs, "Bob" Dobbs heads . . .

  • Re: What's wrong with Americans? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Good question. Being an American (or, more specifically, a US citizen) I may be biased but I'll try to answer as well and concise as I possibly can. Specifically, we believe that what we have works well [or well enough.] Or, more generally, humans have trouble "thinking out of the box" so to speak.

  • Re:Radiation dose adds up fast (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 30, 1999 @09:57PM (#1908423)
    Better read that Code of Federal Regulations a little closer; "negligible" is an acceptable body count in government risk assessment NewSpeak. The model that produces that "negligible" number is a mathematical projection of effects seen at higher higher levels, based on the **assumption** that the dose-response curve is linear.

    In fact, risk assessment is not a substitute for science. If we knew what the actual body counts were, we wouldn't be using risk assessment methods. In fact, there's broad agreement in the scientific community that "risk assessment" is incapable of giving us any certainty that the numbers are even in the ball park, and that it's only rational use is in ranking relative risks for purposes of regulatory or other curative action.

    Disturbingly, the historical reliability of such regulatory numbers is a history of constantly downward revision, as newer tests show that lower doses of radiation and toxic substances are harmful. Moreover, the dose response curve with radiation is actually supra-linear in some tests, the cumulative dose to which individuals have been exposed is not entered into the equation, nor is their individual sensitivities.

    Perhaps most damningly, virtually the entire U.S. federal effort to regulate radiation and toxic substances assumes zero exposure from other sources, other toxins, and by other exposure routes. It's a house of cards that has not served us well. For example, it's only been in this decade that we finally persuaded EPA to review **average** human exposure to a relatively small family of chlorinated dioxins, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls that act by a common toxic mechanism, but still ignoring the fact that a broad class of halogenated hydrocarbons share the same aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase mechanism at the cellular level. And what of the more than 10,000 new chemicals that enter commerce every year? Can you assure us that none of them will increase our susceptibility to radiation?

    The bottom line: anyone who bases claims of safety on risk assessment techniques is either ignorant or dishonest.

    For an interesting read, you might take a look at the first case I litigated, before I went to law school. 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984).

    Paul E. Merrell
    pem@televar.com

  • I don't mind the use in airports (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 30, 1999 @06:58PM (#1908424)
    While the procedure for using this device needs to be clarified for privacy reasons, I actually welcome better security at US airports. Compared to some other countries, what we endure in the states is feeble. If you travel overseas, you probably know what I mean. On different occassions this is what I had to go through.

    1) Once had all my bags (check-in and carry-on) thoroughly hand searched. Everything got dumped out and sifted through like they were searching for a penny. This was a year after the Lockerbie explosion so everybody's bags got searched this way.

    2) Got patted down fairly thoroughly. And no, he didn't so now know where to hide my "gun".

    3) Got pulled off to the side so that they could search my backpack after the x-ray machine showed something suspicious. A nice soldier was asked to join us (hey, nice machine gun!).

    4) Got stopped in Heathrow while carrying data recording equipment and assorted cables. Once again, hey nice machine gun!

    In each instance, I didn't mind that they were so security minded.

    I also have grave concerns about some of the privacy issues. However, airport security in the US could be better. Being asked, "Has anyone you don't know given you something to carry on the plane?" is kind of feeble.
  • Higher altitude (less atmospheric shielding from cosmic rays), and the soil/rocks there contain more uranium than most other places (uranium itself is hardly radioactive, but radon is produced by its decay, and radon decays into a series of short-lived solids which hang out in your lungs).
  • I think it would definitely suck to have these things everywhere, but my main concern would not be radiation, but privacy. I have no problems with them being in just airports. Not that I mean to defend this type of thing, but if they did become so pervasive the dose these things give you would have to be lowered first. Members of the public aren't allowed to be exposed to >100mRem per year, or >2mRem in an hour.

  • Re:Radiation dose adds up fast (Score:3)

    by Bobort ( 289 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @03:38PM (#1908427) Homepage
    The radiation dose is 0.24 mRem. You get ~1 mRem per day natural background (cosmic rays, radon, etc.). That's completely and utterly harmless. I'm sitting here reading a copy of 10CFR20 (government standards for radiation protection) now as a matter of fact, and I can say with assurance this is an absolutely negligible amount of radiation. If you passed through one of these twice every day, you'd be getting less exposure (including average background) than people in, say, Denver CO do in background alone. The cancer rates in places with abnormally high background (ie Denver, Norway) are not statistically different from elsewhere.
  • I can't find the mention of RedHat anywhere on the product page.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • I find it really amusing that they've got a shopping cart system on the web site. Seriously, how many companies are going to place an order for something that's almost a half million US$ sight-unseen on some web site?



    --
  • SSIA.

    Altitude or something?
  • I mean, if I'm pretty much naked when I walk through that thing, then I think it ought to be allowed to not wear any clothes at all, if I don't want to.

    :)
  • Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:

    My mother worked as an X-Ray tech at a hospital
    for 30 years (it was her job to take the patient to the table, position the tube and press the
    button)

    Anyway...just drink some contrast fluid before
    you go :) They will enjoy seeing your esophogus,
    stomac, intestines and colon.

    ....Course I dunno if it would be worth the
    chauly taste of barrium swallow or the after
    effects in the bathroom....
  • Posted by Sir_Twist:

    Considering it costs $356,000.00 to purchase, it's no surprise that it runs under Windows. Apparently Billy told em how to market it.

  • Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:

    I do have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This machine isn't a problem today, but the fear is that this type of technology could be used in the future to enforce gun prohibition.

    LK

  • Networked security devices? (Score:5)

    by gavinhall ( 33 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @03:25PM (#1908435)
    Posted by The Apocalyptic Lawnmower:

    From their own webpage:

    The operating software from the CONPASS X 1280 provides control of activation, image producing, processing and downloading or can be transmitted to the supervisor database for detailed examination.

    This makes hacking a handy tool for terrorists and smugglers. The "only" thing they have to do is hack the scanning station's computer, to display the image that they want the operator to see at the right time. If the system has automated image recognition-based alarms for knives, guns, drugs etc. you need to disable them as well.

    One might envision a specifically shaped object that can be recognized by computer vision techniques, triggering the fake image display and disabling alarms.

    Given the current rate of virusses popping up for windoze systems, it is a pretty scary thought.

    - the Apocalyptic Lawnmower

  • A little x-ray every so often won't hurt you, but what about people who fly a *lot* like salesmen, or the pilots and flight attendants who pass through several scanners per day?

    Before you say that xrays are harmless, ask yourself why the x-ray machine operator in a hostpital (who has to do several x-rays per day) stands behind that shield?

    "And with every 5000 frequent flyer miles, you get a free lead apron!"

  • Just $356000 apiece, plus $17000 for installation. When does the home version come out? It could be great fun at parties...
  • As far as people with assorted metal in their bodies, they already set off metal detectors and are inconvenienced.


    I don't know what you're talking about. I've got my wanger pierced twice, and I've been through plenty airport metal detectors without setting them off. And that's with some pretty heavy jewelry in place.
  • While the procedure for using this device needs to be clarified for privacy reasons, I actually welcome better security at US airports.
    Given the huge number of hijackings that occur on US flights, it should be a given that greater protection is needed.

    Oh, wait, I forgot: NOTHING EVER HAPPENS ON FLIGHTS!

    If we needed better security we'd have more problems. Now we have no -- ZERO -- problems with security in and around airports. However, we get five minute reminders to be suspicious of everyone around us, we have our privacy being invaded (profiling), we can't take scissors on the flight. It's insane, and everytime I'm in an airport I feel like I'm in the movie Brazil.

    However, you shouldn't feel too unsafe. They will be thorough when there's any reason to be suspicious. I was on a one-way flight to Mexico City and was searched very thoroughly: they opened all my bags, they inquired as to what I was planning to do there (and were persistant, because I was vague), they carefully inspected my alarm clock (which had a battery in it). So, depending on who you are and what your plans are you get very different security measures.

  • not Franklin
  • i would like to have kids someday... i dunno... this just doesn't seem like something i want my gnarbles exposed to...

  • Reboot (Score:1)

    by nerdin ( 1330 )
    It will be a real mess at airports...
    'Please wait, sir... we are rebooting our system so we can scan you'

    'bullets.exe had caused an stack overflow on module bomb.dll DF056A:45778F'



  • The Conpass x-1280 runs on an Windows-based 350Mhz Intel Pentium II workstation

    Then we don't have much to worry about. They'll see blue objects most of time.
  • Sorry, for a moment there I thought you said something about intelligence. Obviously not...
  • Heh... Yea, I know. That's why it's science! It's not 100% effective, but nothing is. But, as far as false positives, they know how to rule out classes, catalog false positives, type mixtures... It's really a science, and prototype testing has shown like 10% false positive's in real world trials. Not good yet, but it's still just an experiment.

  • People Fear X-Ray's (Score:5)

    by BadlandZ ( 1725 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @03:39PM (#1908446) Journal
    There are numerous researh projects out there currently to improve airport security, and X-Ray systems does not, IMHO, seem to be the hot area, because of basic public fear of Xrays, photographic matrial, etc...

    There are some good alternitives though, among them is a system being developed in a few places including LANL, that is more "non-invasive", where they sniff the air around you (like a drug/bomb sniffing dog, only automated). You walk in the thing, air swishes around you, and back into the instrument, and they get instant readings on trace chemicals (selecting out perfume, selecting explosive chemical precursers...)

    Anyone who really cares, email me if you want some journal referances.

  • Gives a new meaning to cyber-terrorism, doesn't it?
  • On the right, the top is a female with her zipper partly open. I guess she's going through that "water retension" time of the month. Orrrr maybe her jeans just shrank too much in the drier...

    Immediately below that is a male with a revolver and a knife.

    The rest are a mess. Only clue is that the female on the top left is swallowing something.

    What I wonder is how they collimate the beam and/or sensors and yet provide sufficient signal strength to use a low level of illumination.


  • ...a "pocket grooming tool" instead of a pocket knife.

  • ...the contents to a third party. If you want to make a personal record, then it is not an invasion of anyone's privacy.

    See the DN thread about intent, the big IF about the abouse of log files as opposed to the proper use of log files.

  • blablabla
  • The one on the bottom right is female as well. If you look carefully you can see the underwire in her bra cups.

  • I love the fact that its 356 grand (plus a miniscule 17 grand to have it installed), and you can ORDER IT ON THIER WEBPAGE! hehehe I don't think my Visa limit is that high...
  • It seems they adjust the sensitivities. I've walked through and forgotten to empty my pockets with not a beep. But after a bomb threat at Toronto Airport, the gates beeped until I got rid of every bit of metal on me. Too high a sensitivity, however, and they soon push it back down due to delays.
  • Probably not. It's X-ray-based, remember? This means two things:

    1) It works visually; a bunch of coins in a pocket would show up as a big white blob, shaped like a bunch of coins but with no real way to determine what the coins were.
    2) X-rays penetrate paper. The magnetic strips in dollar bills aren't dense enough to block X-rays.
  • Sorry, voyeurs, but this machine appears to be too powerful to allow for that. X-rays go right through skin (but not metal and bone) so unless you have an extreme attraction to skeletons you're not going to see anything particularly fascinating on this thing.

    But even so, why do I get the feeling we'll be seeing X-ray porn sites popping up on the Net soon?
  • A dose of radiation that is spread out over time is not as damaging as getting that dose of energy in 10 seconds. What you get over one year in daily life might be the end of you if it were a 10 second dose.

    I wore a dosimeter while surveying oil wells once and had the honor of being certified to handle things evil as neutron sources. I learned to fear radiation in other's hands with all the stories I heard. Radiation damage does not show up for months or many years later.

    Oh well, I have a mighty fine 17 inch particle accelerator inches from me now. What am I talking about. I just need to crank up the voltage a bit to excite the electrons in evil way.
  • You want the credit limit to buy one of these? Call the card company and ask. You might be surprised. Imagine the frequent flyer miles many business owners get.

    I would hate to be responsible for one of those accounts, though. I had over $2000 of fraud worked on one of my accounts a few months ago in one day at some Kmart in San Jose. Haven't been there in 15 years, but someone with my number and name was.

  • Nothing left secret. (Score:3)

    by dhms ( 3552 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @03:03PM (#1908459)
    Just what we needed... a central scrutinzer to ensure that nothing is private anymore. How long before such devices are placed on streets and in building entrances to randomly search the populace?

    Orwell was just 15 or so years off...

  • Not everyone among us is willing to give up his constitutionaly guaranteed rights just to obey an illegal law. There are many honest and good people who carry weapons "Illegally" in order to protect themselves and their families. This device is just one more way to intrude into the lives of private citizens. I for one have nothing to hide or show. But that should be MY decision, not yours or anybody elses.
  • This is going to sound really stupid, but it is true and it did happen to me ...

    Don't ever try to fly with a carry on bag that has been NEAR anything that went to a shooting range with you.

    I took a piece of carry on that had been sitting next to my range bag in the closet. They did that checmical wipe thing at security. It said explosives. (must have been from powder residue or something) The rent-a-cop freaked out and tried to grab me from behind. (this is illegal, i was told later since he was a security puke not a real cop.) I reacted badly since I was not paying attention to what he was doing with my bag since I was late for a flight and was preoccupied, and the rent-a-cop ended up on the sitting ground. This turned out badly and I ended up like 3 seconds away from missing the plane.

    Moral of the story: don't travel with anything that has been near shooting or reloading gear. The end. :-)

    /dev

  • Glocks actually have more metal than some smaller pistols, and are fully detectable by metal detectors or X-rays.

  • Too Late (Score:1)

    by Ixy ( 5667 )
    It has been illegal to sell or carry toy weapons in the New York City police state for some time now.

    Of course disagreeing with the mayor will also get you arrested. Though they rarely find any crime to charge the miscreants with.
  • Uhm, hello? As if security checkpoints at airports didn't take enough time.

    I travel by air three or four times a year, and I've quickly learned that the longest delays (when rushing from one end of an amazingly long airport terminal to the opposite end of another amazingly long terminal - see Pittsburg airport for an example) is the security checkpoint. Standard walkthrough time, barring beeps, is like five seconds. Drop your bag on the belt, walk through, pick up bag. Now if everyone has to do that *and* have a 10 second x ray...multiply that per numbers of persons in line and add 5 minutes each for each person with "questionable" metal bits... oh for chrissakes! I'll never make my connecting flights.

    As an aside, I have 6 piercings. Don't worry, most of them are ear :) But they've never set off metal detectors :)

  • All you need to do is wait for them to ban pocket knives, and you will be in high company.

    -jwb

  • How many guns and explosives have actually been found by airport scanners?

    You're totally overlooking the deterrent value of airport scanners. For anyone with half a brain, they know that they can't bring guns/bombs/whatever through the scanner, so they don't even try.

    Of course, it has the negative effect of making the "bad guys" think smarter - nothing worse than smart bad guys...
    ________________________

  • Plus some leakage from the Rocky Flats nuclear facility. I have some family living about 1 1/2 miles from RF. All four family members have had thyroid problems, plus many of the neighbors. Property values are in the toilet and they can't move. A few years ago, when I visited, there was a big gov coverup and a quashing of a federal grand jury investigating the contanimation and the fact that about 30 Kilos of Plutionium are "lost". A couple of jury members (anononymously) said the jury was forced to return no-bills and threatened with imprisonment if they *ever* discussed what went on. So, alititude is only part of the problem at Denver.
  • Frequent flyers fly frequently and therefore get a lot cosmic ray pollution anyway (they said the scanning is equivalent to about 1 hour flight). But yes, it's still an increase.

    And I don't think flight personnel pass through several scanners a day because there is no checking inside the security area. Unless they go to the hotel for the night they usually stay inside.
  • Suppose you commute by train and work in an office building. There's three times just going to and from work. Go out for lunch; one more. Go to the post office on your lunch break; that's five. University student? Great, every classroom has a scanner.

    It's easy to double your daily dose from scanners alone.

    Now let's mass produce these, get the price down to a couple of thousand dollars. Every late night store will have one, every school room, probably even put them in buses and trains and taxis. You will go thru hundreds in a single day if the control freaks have their way.

    That's not a tradeoff I want to be forced to make for dubious claims of "safety". I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would give up a little freedom for security deserve neither."

    --
  • They claim equivalent to a one hour flight. So let's put one in every post office, stadium, bank, govt office, office building, etc. I see it very easy to pass thru 5 or 10 of these a day. That's more radiation than I want. Multiply it by millions of people, and I bet more people would die of cancer from this pervasive scanning than would die from the weapons it finds.

    How many guns and explosives have actually been found by airport scanners? How many would have deaths would there have been if there were no airport scanners?

    And the cost -- I imagine all the money spent on these scanners would save more lives if simply spent on immunizations, or better medical care for the poor (no I'm not advocating socialism here).

    --
  • Okay, at airports, security is tight. So this technology might very well be used there. But imagine what happens when they put this in at bars, schools, hospitals, or other places. How far will we invade people's privacy? Will people be able to say "no"?


    Imagine if by simple x-ray scan someone knew that you were wearing a tape recorder. Think they'd want to talk to you?




    --
  • "A little less likely" isn't good enough.

    I can't forego my 5 minutes in the sun to
    compensate for the unsolicited xray, can I?

    How can I allow myself to be subjected to anything
    that is known to carry a cancer risk? There
    are things we cannot control, but those should not
    be used to justify adding more risks.
  • Okay. I'll stay in Germany. I don't have to worry. I'm not Jewish.
  • I figure this will just make plastic/ceramic guns that much more popular.

    Why is that? These machines aren't metal detectors. They'll be able to see your gun, regardless of it being a standard 9MM, or a plastic Water Pistol.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • That, and "Has anyone packed anything in your luggage that you are not aware of?"

    "Ummm, If I wouldn't be aware of it, how do you expect me to answer that question, ma'am?"

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • So, how many people really run around carrying a concealed weapon anyway? If you do, and you have a legitimate reason and/or a permit, no problem.

    If you don't have a permit and/or justification, then you probably shouldn't be carrying. (You might just be the reason for this sort of thing in the first place.)

    Me, I don't carry anything more dangerous than a Swiss Army knife anymore, so I'm not worried. I have nothing to hide.

  • If you're packing... Just wait a few minutes for Windows to crash, then slip through. 8^)

  • Anyone with a whole brain, and a little planning, knows that you drive an ICBM with all of the nukes on it through one of those cheasy airport metal detectors. Airport security is an oxymoron. Wait till terrorists take an airport hostage, instead of an airplane and you will see what I mean.
  • A large microwave oven would work just as well, and since it's household technology it should be a lot cheaper than a fancy scanning X-ray machine.

    Just arrest the guys who emit sparks...
  • > I figure this will just make plastic/ceramic
    > guns that much more popular

    Sorry, but ceramic guns would be detected quite easily by this thing - ceramics cast quite a dark X-ray shadow, and the profile of a gun is easy to spot.

    The reason glocks and such don't set of airport metal detectors is, erm, well, they ain't metal.

    Did anyone manage to work out what that metal thing is inside the gut of the (female?) x-ray at top-right of the web page? Looks like an IUD but it seems quite high up. Would you want a bunch of hairy big-assed airport thugs knowing if your wife/ gf/ s.o. had one of these fitted?




  • It's called invasion of privacy. I spoke to my wife about this and she most definitely would not want people knowing whether she was using any form of birth control.

    Certain extremists believe any form of birth control other than natural methods is abhorrent and people who use them deserve to die. I would not want my wife[1] becoming a target because of a choice she made regarding her own body.

    Oh, and yes, people /have/ been raped because of what they were wearing. What makes you think knowledge of an IUD would be treated any differently? Even leering looks and remarks are degrading.

    [1] or indeed anyone.
  • >>How can I allow myself to be subjected to anything that is known to carry a cancer risk?
    In that case, we should ban sun-roofs in cars.. After all, they subject us to cosmic rays which increase our chances of getting cancer!
  • If you look at the larger pic (click on the small one) you can see that it is just her zipper on her jeans. On the top is the button, then her zipper is about halfway unzipped.
  • The writeup said it detects non-metal weapons too. The plastic/ceramic guns (that actually still have metal parts) are to get around metal detectors.
  • If it's the same thing that happened to me, it's an explosives check. They wipe some sort of material on the fabric part of your cary on and then put it in some box. If it changes color, it's detecting bomb residue. I don't think that's an invasion of my privacy. I'd say that wiping some thingy over my cary on is preferable to them opening up my caryon and searching it. I appreciate their efforts to keep people from blowing me up. I think I'd find being blown into little bits a much greater invasion of my privacy :).
  • Every little bit counts. That one scan might be the one to get ya. Not to mention it runs Windows.
    I can just imagine the thing BSODing and frying some poor traveler. I'm sure this would really be bad for pregnant women, too. Not to mention the privacy implications. I suppose if it stops people from carrying bombs on to planes, it's worth it though.
  • This is a good question, can you say no? Has anyone tried this at an airport? When I flew cross country a few weeks ago I was singled out for some reason for what I think was a drug residue scan of my carry on luggage. They rubbed what looked like a magnet all over my bag and then inserted it (the magnet) into some sort of analyzer. I guess I looked suspicious.. Can you object to this sort of thing, metal detectors, etc. Do you give up your right to board the plane, or worse, can you be arrested?
  • One of the risks of this is they will start hiding these things as they get cheaper, and the average person will get "one hour's dose" of radiation every time he/she enters a secure building.

    At 0.5 mR it's nothing to worry about.
  • Boy what a wacko. I suppose you don't ever ride in a car because of the risks associated with that also?

    Coming from a family that has a father who worked for the Navy for 23 years and a nuclear power plant for 18 years as head of dosimetry, a brother who refuled nuclear power plants, and another brother who works in the Virgina nuclear ship yards (in dosimetry also), I'd say you're a paranoid freak.

    Yes mistakes were made in the past because we didn't know the effects of radiation on the body (and some cold-war related bad decisions by the government). For example, some people were fatally exposed to radioactivity who worked in watch manufacuring plants. They used to use a radioactive substance mixed in the paint use on the hands of the watch so it would glow in the dark. The watch painters used to lick the brush so that they could paint the very small hands of the watch by making the paint brush pointy, and ingested the radioactive paint. Their bones will still "self-xray" themselves if you dug them up and placed them on xray film. This was done because we were "stupid" back them. Radioactivity was just discovered, and people thought that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. They used to call it the "Atomic Age."

    We know a lot more now. And I personally don't think there is a problem at all with a few millirem a year from this. With a chest xray at 30-100mrem (their numbers, I don't feel like looking it up at the moment) you would have to pass thorough this thing at least 200 times to receive more than the average xray. Plus, this is pure external radiation, no substance enters your body to get lodged in a lung or liver or thyroid or bone marrow or one of the other common places that radioactive isotopes like to accumulate and constantly radiate the surrounding tissue. Once you're through, you're through.

    For example, it's only been in this decade that we finally persuaded EPA to review **average** human exposure to a relatively small family of chlorinated dioxins, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls that act by a common toxic mechanism, but still ignoring the fact that a broad class of halogenated hydrocarbons share the same aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase mechanism at the cellular level. And what of the more than 10,000 new chemicals that enter commerce every year? Can you assure us that none of them will increase our susceptibility to radiation?


    What the hell does this have to do with radiation? If these products do increase our susceptibility to radiation I suggest you continue your "fight" to get them banned, as the levels of radiation levels of this product are less than background levels. So, these products would effect everyone whether they went through the scanners or not. I'd say that they were where you should concentrate you're energies.
  • Flying from London to New York you receive the equivelent of three chest X-Rays in radiation. The average airport X-Ray machine doesn't even come close to this (which is why the operators don't need to wear dosage badges, like medical X-Ray operators do).

    In fact, it's only the scale of this machine that is reasonably new, there have been machines using x-rays and other more exotic methods for scanning people available for several years now, and most hold bags go through machines akin to mass-spectrometers tuned to detect explosives.

    When I was working writing training software for X-Ray operators at airports, I met one guy who designed and built the machines, who would often sit on the conveyer and go through. And he's not dead or indeed sterile :)
  • let's pretend that someone had a magical gun that didn't have any metal (which would be impossible, since a plastic or ceramic gun would blow up in your hand). even one round of ammunition would set off a detector, so even if such a gun existed, you wouldn't be able to get the ammo through.
  • We can only hope that this amazing new device will allow the powerful and rich to have even more control over the individual!

    All hail the captains of industry!
    Wealth makes right!
  • in the wake if the colorado thing, I bet we'll see thinks like these all over in the near future. Then we can get a little bit of cancer everywhere we go. How safe!

    -earl

  • Well, it's pretty low radiation. (Score:4)

    by Fizgig ( 16368 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @03:18PM (#1908497)
    I was at first concerned that it was "only as much as a flight" because that's actually a lot more than most people think, but it's only about 5% of what you get in a 3-hour flight, so it's not that bad at all.

    I figure this will just make plastic/ceramic guns that much more popular.
  • So, you're saying you wouildn't object if I gave you a 0.5 mR dose on an hourly basis? How about on a quarter-hourly basis/ how about if I decide the signal strength is too low and decide to double the X-ray intensity? etc. etc.

    You don't seem to have much grasp of the "tragedy of the commons" - if one person does it, it's OK, if a few people do it, it's OK, but when everybody and their dog is doing it, we are all screwed.
  • Absolutely correct. Now, try to keep up with me here...

    1. Elected representatives are not perfect.
    2. The level of imperfection in the laws they create will be normally distributed.
    3. More laws => more REALLY REALLY BAD laws
    4. Judges are not perfect.
    5. The level of imperfection in the laws they uphold will be normally distributed.
    6. More laws => more REALLY REALLY BAD laws.

    Or, to put it otherwise, while the ratio of good laws to bad laws is constant, the absolute number of bad laws increases as the total nuymber of laws increase.
  • I recall reading about the design for this a while back. The claim is that it's a little less likely to cause cancer than 5 minutes outdoors. They were talking about using it in prisons to help catch smugglers. One of the arguments against it was that there is a pretty strong constitutional argument that forcing everyone to let you see them naked, and getting to keep a copy of their x-ray in your database, is a pretty major invasion of privacy.
    -Lkb
  • runs on a Windows-based
    [...]
    insert some reference to a BSOD here

    With Windows controlling an X-ray machine, the term "Blue Screen of Death" takes on a whole new meaning.

    Does this make anybody else nervous?

    (Oh, and it won't be "unreasonable search" because you don't have to get on the airplane if you don't want to be scanned.)
  • Bah! Just get creative. I have seen all manner of interesting storage devices designed to not look like what they are. ;-)

    Not that I would ever use such things, of course. I am strictly a law-abiding citizen, so far as what can be proved in court is concerned.

    --

  • In related news... (Score:3)

    by scjody ( 19861 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @03:30PM (#1908503) Homepage
    Sales of lead-lined underwear have increased ten-fold.
  • Great fun at parties? Why not just wear a long, black trenchcoat, and tape messages in foil on the inner lining...(try "no guns here" or "you perv")

    But then...I wonder if this sucker would shatter like the one in Total Recall with 1 bullet...
  • We need to make an organic weapon like the talon symbiant weapon Sandoval wears in E:FC..

    That would be quite interesting.

    tech: nothing. nothing. squid looking thing on arm. nothing.
  • Yeah, becaues wacko's with guns will definately be scared by a scanner... or they might just shoot the scanner operator. Either way.
  • Excuse me but this is to me going a tad too far.

    And I don't think other people will tolerate it either. These kind of scanners will show exactly what we are wearing, enhancers and all... Not to mention if someone has been through an accident and contains extra metals in different places. What are they going to do then? Strip search someone because his hip has been replaces and the upper femur looks like a gun? Not to mention people who are pierced in assorted places *hint*, although I think the alarms go off on them already but at least they don't have to show were they are pierced.

    Nope, I don't think this will happen, and if it does, I am quite sure there will be protests when people discover that you do not only see weapons of different kinds but also the shape of people's bodies. Just look at the picture up to the right and say that doesn't look like a women...
    Oh, well, maybe it all will spawn a new kind of pr0n. The "entertainment" industry has been the first many times to use new technology.

    With hopes people has a great weekend,
    Johan

  • I took the metal thing show on the female x-ray to be the zip on whatever item of clothing she was wearing.
  • I really don't think that you should be taping anyone without their permission. I know that if I found out that you were wearing a tape recorder, and had been recording, I'd be terribly angry.
  • That was damn funny.
    heheheheheheheheheh.
    :-)
  • He could be referring to the 'search and seizure' bit of the bill of rights, that 'garauntees' and american the right not to be searched without just cause. Of course, that only applies to the government.
  • Yes, I know what you mean.
    I have a hard disk that looks almost exactly like an oversized can of sardines .

  • Amendment 4 - PROBABLE CAUSE
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
    unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
    upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
    to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Therefore, it seems to me, that being scanned at airports IS an unreasonable search without a warrant. It's convenient for the airlines; it's yet another step down the slippery slope to a national security state; and, of course, it's just another hole being opened in the Constitutional safety net.

  • Huge privacy implications (Score:5)

    by RebornData ( 25811 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @04:09PM (#1908521)
    This is a really frightening development. What is under your clothes is your own business. Do you want people to know about your piercings, or hip replacement, or colostomy bag, or pacemaker, or flask? Our society is harsh enough already on those who don't conform to the *external* appearance of normalcy.

    If we make the assumption that the widespread use of this technology is inevitable, what standards must we set to ensure that privacy is not sacrificed? Here's few off the top of my head:

    1. Clearly mark anyplace such a system is being used, so people can at least know if they are being scanned (this becomes more important as the technology advances and becomes less obvious).

    2. Allow people to opt-out and be searched by traditional means. At least a hand search doesn't leave a recorded image.

    3. Secure the output display area to prevent unauthorized viewing, and establish a system of ethics for the operators.

    Any others?
  • Imagine how it would react to somebody walking through covered with weapons - as in the Matrix (how many guns did he have on his body? 12? more?)
  • Look at it--the only way this thing will cause cancer is REPEATED exposure. i.e., LOTS and lots of exposure. They only people who will get that are the various MS evangelists running around, the habitual business-travelers, and the unfortunate field-techs who have to fly out to the ends of the Earth to fix some piece of equipment.
    This will affect a VERY small percentage of the population. The average pleasure traveler probably wouldn't pick up much more radiation than a dental X-ray. *shrug* Big deal. We get those done regularly...
  • The people who look through your luggage at the airport aren't paid that well, I would guess close to minimum wage. When's the last time you met someone who wanted to do that? The other problem with things like this is that the people have an easier time if they just let things go through the conveyor. People get upset and yell at you when you have to stop the line to search someone's bag. It's easier to just let questionable things go through, after all you're not flying.
    I think you're right though in that this might get them more interested but I can't imagine it would last long, this about an ob/gyn (not even going to try to spell that thing), after a days work it can't be that interesting to see nakedness.
  • Dude, if your interested in that kinda stuff, i recommend a book called "The Transparent Society", i beleive the author is David Brin...Excellent, book.
  • It mentions in the article that the thing can be used to scan for drugs and other "contraband".

    Great. Does this mean I can't take my weed with me when I go on a flight anymore? Just what I need... more invasion of privacy, more danger of being busted for a harmless "crime".
  • How long before such devices are placed on streets and in building entrances to randomly search the populace As opposed to security guards? The only reason we don't have security guards all over is because then we'd have to pay them, pay Social Security, Medial, Dental, etc. This would be a great cheap alternative. I don't think the gov't would have a huge database of our wallet contents... (Think of how messed up the IRS is! This would be even worse!) But then, on the other hand, people are always quick to give up their rights, if it means catching more criminals. And unfortunately, each new law creates more criminals. What wasn't illegal yesterday, is illegal today. So then more criminals are caught that weren't criminals the day before and the law looks like it's doing the trick, while normal people go to prison and prisons become more and more overcroweded. My $0.02USD, anyway...

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close