It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LibertyLover
I'm not thrilled about my less than perfect and svelt body being displayed in all its, um, "glory", but could probably manage to deal if I wanted or needed to fly someplace badly enough. What concerns me is that currently it takes about 2 minutes to do one of these scans. I don't need any more radiation exposure, thank you very much, and I certainly don't want my 7 year old daughter exposed to more radiation than is absolutely necessary either. I haven't seen any estimates on the amount of radiation one scan requires and what amount of exposure that generates and that concerns me. I'd like more information on that before I make any decisions or judgements.
Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
The airport body scanners are just the start-soon the cops will have hand held body scanners,which they can use to target passers by,without their consent or knowledge.
Article from 2007:
news.bbc.co.uk...
The Explosive Residue Detection system - developed by Loughborough University - can scan crowded areas such as airports and train stations remotely, automatically alerting an operator if it finds traces of explosives. The system is non-evasive, works in real time, causes no delays to passengers and is fully automated which means human error can be ruled out, its developers say. And a key point, they argue, is that, unlike the Whole Body Imaging which Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for, the images the ERD produces are no more controversial than those generated by CCTV.
The machine uses the latest generation of pulsed lasers and video camera techniques and combines them to produce a large-area, fluorescent, lifetime imaging system. By controlling the laser timing and optical filters, direct imaging of explosive residue will be exposed and, if explosive residue is spotted, the system automatically signals the result to a human. Project leader Professor John Tyrer has been working in the terrorism and counter-terrorism field for more than 20 years and says metal detectors and scanning machines are no longer enough.
Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Sky news today had a story about a new type of "explosive residue" scanner,which in terms of detection rate,blows the "naked body" scanners out of the ball park.
No need for the intrusive naked scanners at all it seems...yet thats what they will use-even though they do not always detect explosives!!
Again-you couldn't make it up!
Originally posted by noconsequence
Thank you for, "bottom lining" it. Now I will be forced to star your post. There you go; the in thread answer.
It is not cost concerns, he insists, that are the problems - the system cost is about the same as an X-ray one currently in use - just the decision-making process. "From an economic point of view, it makes sense. Tourism is a very important part of the UK's economy and, if people don't feel safe, they won't come here - particularly if they're from the key US market." "The latest attack highlights the worldwide need for explosive residue detection that is quick, accurate, non-evasive and does not cause major delays for the travelling public.
These scanners are nothing more than a money maker for someone
\
L3 Communications Holdings is a merchant supplier of sophisticated, secure communication systems and specialized communication products. They produce secure high data rate communication systems, microwave components, avionics and ocean systems, and telemetry instrumentation and space products. L3 Communications Holdings Inc. has a market cap of $8.43 billion; its shares were traded at around $72.29 with a P/E ratio of 9.9 and P/S ratio of 0.6. The dividend yield of L3 Communications Holdings Inc. stocks is 1.9%. L3 Communications Holdings Inc. had an annual average earning growth of 33.9% over the past 10 years.
Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Yeah,the above mentioned "explosive residue" scanners seem a much better bet,better at finding bombs and better at keeping the public happy about privacy.They cost the same as an xray scanner,so there really is no excuse IMO:
So basically,its those GD red tape bureaucratic fools that are preventing the implementation of the new type scanners.
According to Sky,at least.
Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I wonder what Islamic folks feel about the airport scanners-What with them often wishing to cover up their women from mens eyes,I imagine they are not going to like the idea of airport staff studying the naked images of their wives.
Could that be part of the thinking behind the scanners-To further annoy the Muslims?