A quick poll - Nude-o-matics, for or against?

[munitalP]

As the title suggests, are you for or against the full body scanners that will eventually be introduced into oz?

 

[Shelf]

From what I understand they will be good from a security p.o.v.

I'm not a huge fan personally.

 

[Simo]

I am for it as long as the data/images are used for good and not evil.

Or they are only stored on a hard drive for a limited period of time say 30 mins and if there is any issues in that time the offending image is kept for legal reasons.

There is many sick people out there and this could be like taking a child to a Candy store for some people.

The person viewing the image can only be seen by anyone and the monitor can not be seen by anyone either.

 

[Ewing]

I couldn't care less if someone got to see my "naked" outline.

I voted against because I'm yet to see a reasonable argument as to why they're so much better than the existing WTMDs we have today.

 

[Skyring]

Anyone wanting to seriously smuggle a small bomb aboard under their clothes will now smuggle it aboard inside their body. Like drug smugglers have been doing for decades. I see these nudeoscopes as a gross invasion of privacy, expensive, pointless and most of all, inconvenient. I arrange my stuff so I can walk through a metal detector, and now I'm going to have to stop and wave my arms around or get a fairly intimate putdown. Err, patdown, thanks Autocorrect.

 

[drewbles]

Defint 'Nude-o-scope'. There are two. The X-ray ones (two large panels you stand between) and Millimetre Wave ones (circular cabins where an arm rotates around you).

I have no problem with the millimetre wave ones. The X-Ray ones I do. The fact the TSA refuse to let staff wear a radiation dosimeter that work around them speaks volumes to me. Any time in the USA I see them, it's an instant opt-out (I know Australia is adopting a 'no scan no fly' rule, but they're also installing the millimetre wave ones).

If someone wants to see my junk that badly, good on 'em

 

[medhead]

I don't know how to feel about them. The security squirrel aspects of the introduction offends my professional sensibilities. From a safety point of view, I have no problem now that a proper justification process as been followed, in Australia at least.

The fact the TSA refuse to let staff wear a radiation dosimeter that work around them speaks volumes to me.

I just want to state, outright and categorically, there is absolutely no need for staff operating these machines to wear a radiation dosimeter. Exactly the same way that there is no need to wear, and the staff do not wear, radiation monitors around the X-ray baggage scanners. Simply put the x-rays are inside the cabinet not outside. They undergo testing to ensure there is no leakage.

Simply put this is some sort of furphy and I can only think it's been put out to misled for some other purpose - industrial relations? Now, I'll leave my comments at that, because all I am going to say is written above - Radiation dosimeters are pointless for staff operating these machines. If they were of any use the would have them already to operate the baggage scanners.

 

[drewbles]

I don't know how to feel about them. The security squirrel aspects of the introduction offends my professional sensibilities. From a safety point of view, I have no problem now that a proper justification process as been followed, in Australia at least.



I just want to state, outright and categorically, there is absolutely no need for staff operating these machines to wear a radiation dosimeter. Exactly the same way that there is no need to wear, and the staff do not wear, radiation monitors around the X-ray baggage scanners. Simply put the x-rays are inside the cabinet not outside. They undergo testing to ensure there is no leakage.

Simply put this is some sort of furphy and I can only think it's been put out to misled for some other purpose - industrial relations? Now, I'll leave my comments at that, because all I am going to say is written above - Radiation dosimeters are pointless for staff operating these machines. If they were of any use the would have them already to operate the baggage scanners.

I know you know more about this than me, and i'm likely just subscribing to the conspiracy theory i know

At least the bag X ray machines are in a closed box. The nude-o-scopes are not. They're very much so open air.

Is it possible that x-rays 'leak' out of the panels? I just don't feel comfortable standing in front of a full body X-Ray machine (heck I feel bad when the dentist needs to take more than one X-ray of my teeth; the fact they leave the room doesn't help (and yes i'm aware they do it hundreds of times a year so they have to leave)).

Either way, i'm ok with millimetre wave, not ok with x-ray, but as Ewing says above, I don't believe it's worth the effort. The benefit is not substantial enough to warrant the risk/abuse the staff get. If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane, they don't care about their own wellbeing. They'll ingest a bomb and blow it up. No nude-o-scope is going to get that.

 

[munitalP]

I know you know more about this than me, and i'm likely just subscribing to the conspiracy theory i know

At least the bag X ray machines are in a closed box. The nude-o-scopes are not. They're very much so open air.

Is it possible that x-rays 'leak' out of the panels? I just don't feel comfortable standing in front of a full body X-Ray machine (heck I feel bad when the dentist needs to take more than one X-ray of my teeth; the fact they leave the room doesn't help (and yes i'm aware they do it hundreds of times a year so they have to leave)).

Either way, i'm ok with millimetre wave, not ok with x-ray, but as Ewing says above, I don't believe it's worth the effort. The benefit is not substantial enough to warrant the risk/abuse the staff get. If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane, they don't care about their own wellbeing. They'll ingest a bomb and blow it up. No nude-o-scope is going to get that.

Clarification:

Nude-o-matic = circular cabins where an arm rotates around you


Nude-o-scope = two large panels you stand between

Lets not get our nude-o's mixed up!


:shock: :mrgreen:

 

[drewbles]

Nude-o-scope = two large panels you stand between

Lets not get our nude-o's mixed up!


:shock: :mrgreen:

Sounds like a Movie I saw recently....

 

[Maca44]

As someone with two hip replacements, I get the full pat down every time with the scanner beeps, so the 'nude o scope' might be quicker to get through security with my situation. I also read a very detailed post by medhead some time ago, and it would appear he has more experience in this field than others.

 

[medhead]

I know you know more about this than me, and i'm likely just subscribing to the conspiracy theory i know

At least the bag X ray machines are in a closed box. The nude-o-scopes are not. They're very much so open air.

Is it possible that x-rays 'leak' out of the panels?

I haven't seen one IRL, so it is a bit hard to provide a definitive answer to that question. But from the pictures I've seen it is highly unlikely that there is any leakage. The panels would have some sort of shielding material in them preventing leakage beyond the panels. That leaves the possibility of scatter radiation out the openings at either end. Those tunnels are rather long, so I suggest that the geometry means that there is only a small angle from which scattered (from the person) radiation can get to the opening. Combined with the very low energy radiation used and inferring from medical radiation use where the majority of the scatter reflects back towards the source, my opinion is that TSA staff members would be exposed to more radiation from uranium in the concrete of the building and radioactive potassium in the people around them. (holy long sentence batman, I hope it makes some sense)

I just don't feel comfortable standing in front of a full body X-Ray machine (heck I feel bad when the dentist needs to take more than one X-ray of my teeth; the fact they leave the room doesn't help (and yes i'm aware they do it hundreds of times a year so they have to leave)).

The dentist is also probably required to leave the room by radiation safety laws. Personally I refuse the lead gown my dentist gives me, it does just about nothing anyway.

Either way, i'm ok with millimetre wave, not ok with x-ray, but as Ewing says above, I don't believe it's worth the effort. The benefit is not substantial enough to warrant the risk/abuse the staff get. If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane, they don't care about their own wellbeing. They'll ingest a bomb and blow it up. No nude-o-scope is going to get that.

This is part of my secret squirrel comment and why I'm on the fence. We can't really know what the story is because of the secrecy involved. I think these are more aimed at fighting other crime rather that motivated terrorists, much like the fingerprinting stuff.

As someone with two hip replacements, I get the full pat down every time with the scanner beeps, so the 'nude o scope' might be quicker to get through security with my situation. I also read a very detailed post by medhead some time ago, and it would appear he has more experience in this field than others.

I only have experience in radiation protection. I have had the opportunity for limited exploration of these things in relation to the principles of radiation protection. Not as an insider as such.

 

[drewbles]

I haven't seen one IRL, so it is a bit hard to provide a definitive answer to that question. But from the pictures I've seen it is highly unlikely that there is any leakage. The panels would have some sort of shielding material in them preventing leakage beyond the panels. That leaves the possibility of scatter radiation out the openings at either end. Those tunnels are rather long, so I suggest that the geometry means that there is only a small angle from which scattered (from the person) radiation can get to the opening. Combined with the very low energy radiation used and inferring from medical radiation use where the majority of the scatter reflects back towards the source, my opinion is that TSA staff members would be exposed to more radiation from uranium in the concrete of the building and radioactive potassium in the people around them. (holy long sentence batman, I hope it makes some sense)



The dentist is also probably required to leave the room by radiation safety laws. Personally I refuse the lead gown my dentist gives me, it does just about nothing anyway.



This is part of my secret squirrel comment and why I'm on the fence. We can't really know what the story is because of the secrecy involved. I think these are more aimed at fighting other crime rather that motivated terrorists, much like the fingerprinting stuff.



I only have experience in radiation protection. I have had the opportunity for limited exploration of these things in relation to the principles of radiation protection. Not as an insider as such.

Thanks for the reply. I always love learning more about this stuff (for some reason, radiation and what not fascinates me; must be something to do with the Chernobyl incident when I was growing up).

A Picture of the X-ray machines is here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners_1.jpg . The TSA agents do stand at the entrance constantly, and whilst i'm no expert like you, it just doesn't look like a place you'd want to stand all day for your job.

 

[tuapekastar]

I've no objection to them from the modesty viewpoint. If they improve security for me when 35000 feet up in the air then I'm all for them. If they do not make any security difference, or are in any way detrimental to my health (being detrimental to my health is my job ) then it's a waste of money introducing them.

And if that sounds like I'm fence sitting, it's because I am! Have not read up on it enough to make a yea/nay decision on their safety and/or effectiveness.

 

[medhead]

Thanks for the reply. I always love learning more about this stuff (for some reason, radiation and what not fascinates me; must be something to do with the Chernobyl incident when I was growing up).

A Picture of the X-ray machines is here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners_1.jpg . The TSA agents do stand at the entrance constantly, and whilst i'm no expert like you, it just doesn't look like a place you'd want to stand all day for your job.

Firstly, I'll just note the different types that MuntialP mentioned. A fully enclosed spin around machine will have sufficient shielding, IMO.

In that picture of the other type, the staff member still looks to be about 1.5 m to 2 m from the person. (acknowledged that it is hard to tell). 2 m is the rule of thumb for the separation from a medical x-ray machine to make sure your exposure is acceptably low. If we assume that the x-ray beam is going from one panel to the other, through the passenger, there should be very little scatter towards the staff member as well. Given the dose to the passenger is trivial, the staff member is going to getting a negligible fraction of trivial if any exposure at all. If I was to make an extremely rough guess the staff member would have to stand there for 5000 scans per day for every work day of the year to even start to think about putting in some controls on their exposure.

 

[drewbles]

Firstly, I'll just note the different types that MuntialP mentioned. A fully enclosed spin around machine will have sufficient shielding, IMO.

In that picture of the other type, the staff member still looks to be about 1.5 m to 2 m from the person. (acknowledged that it is hard to tell). 2 m is the rule of thumb for the separation from a medical x-ray machine to make sure your exposure is acceptably low. If we assume that the x-ray beam is going from one panel to the other, through the passenger, there should be very little scatter towards the staff member as well. Given the dose to the passenger is trivial, the staff member is going to getting a negligible fraction of trivial if any exposure at all. If I was to make an extremely rough guess the staff member would have to stand there for 5000 scans per day for every work day of the year to even start to think about putting in some controls on their exposure.

Based on my witnessing, the TSA agents tend to stand pretty much resting against the machine. The person in the scanner is less than 1m away, or just an arms length. I'd still like to know what kind of beam it shoots out (as in if there is any leakage). The TSA will never release stats of course.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

I'm firmly in the opt out group for these types of machines.

If screening using these machines becomes mandatory then my flying days are over.

There are some risks we can control in life... This is one. No thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app

 

[Fantic125]

Call me fatalistic, but I think I'm going to die at some point in the future.

Is it likely that the radiation will cause my imminent death? Is it likely it will cure any potential cancer I may have? Most probably not.

Is it likely that it will identify some potential loony with bombs strapped to their body? Possibly.

I'm ok with it.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Is it likely that it will identify some potential loony with bombs strapped to their body? Possibly.

I'm ok with it.

Call me stupid, but someone with bombs strapped to their body isn't going to be dumb enough to do things the normal way and walk through standard security screening.

If these types of security measures were 100% needed to filter out potential baddies, it would have already been mandated worldwide. I call TOTAL BS on the entire thing.

 

[simongr]

I really don't care either way. I don't care that someone has to suffer seeing an essentially disrobed me - I would advise them not to be eating at the time.

My only cares are*:

- Will this speed the changes to the LAG rules?
- Will it slow down my progression through the airport?
- Will it mean that women carrying huge amounts of jewellery won't get pinged?
- Will it mean I won't need to take my phone out?
- Would this money be better spent of the National Broadband Network?


* note that some of these cares may not really be cares at all