Better than Body Scanners

Despite all the hype about body scanners, there are some very significant limitations to their use.

One issue is limitation of use on children, which can violate child pornography laws. Statements by Canadian officials that there haven’t been any incidents involving children yet is not very reassuring, especially in this industry where mitigation and prevention are the appropriate benchmarks.

A more significant concern is that body scanners is that they are not very effective for ingested or internally placed hazards (i.e. other cavities).

Wired has a technological solution that would address these concerns, without the same privacy issues, through diffraction-enhanced X-ray imaging (DEXI).

Although some may protest the additional radiation exposure, it’s a valid trade-off in my opinion.  Depending on the duration and frequency of flights,  many travelers would have more radiation exposure from flying than these machines.  My radiation exposure working in diagnostic imaging was frequently lower than commercial airline employees.


6 Comments on "Better than Body Scanners"

  1. What about the cost? Also, if flying already increases your exposure to radiation, why would you want to double it with these machines? I’m not sure this is a good trade-off.

  2. I honestly don’t know about the cost, but I would prefer an investment into something that actually works, instead of just placating fears.

    As for the radiation, it’s still minimal. You probably got more radiation on your trip to Cuba sitting in the sun than several trips through these machines.

  3. I like this. I really don’t understand why they didn’t have this in airports earlier. I mean, if you really think about it, this was the easiest way for a terrorist to do some serious damage with. We had plenty of movies depicting it before it even happened and it still happened. Interesting. Good thing more technological advancements are being put to good use.

    I think this part of it is historical – “One issue is limitation of use on children, which can violate child pornography laws.” I would tell the one who brought up this issue to get a life. Who would use this tool for child pornography? What a joke!

  4. Tyler: It’s not about people using it for child pornography, but that the revealing nature of the technology violates the laws in the U.K.

    An estimated $11 million is being spent on the body scanners, until the next incident when we realize they aren’t good enough.

    Not a good plan, in my opinion.

  5. I didn’t mean historical.. I meant hysterical. Whoops. I just think, who cares how revealing it is, there is a professional looking at the images. It is for our safety. Ya, it probably isn’t a good enough system, so whoever is selling it doesn’t care, because they are getting a piece of this huge sale.

  6. “there is a professional looking at the images”

    Really? I thought it was just some rent-a-cop police security guard. Not really a professional I would trust looking at naked children…

Comments are closed.