Full-body security scan. Is anyone here old enough to remember those machines in shoe stores

[truth2power]

that allowed individuals to "x-ray" their feet to see if the shoes fit?

Those machines were removed long ago because of the danger of the technology.

Question: How do these security scans compare to that technology and what is the danger for people who fly on a regular basis?

[monmouth]

1. I used to love that x-ray machine. I think Dr. Posner sponsored them..n/t

[geckosfeet]

2. The claim is that the intensity of the radiation used for searches is far

less than what we are exposed to on a daily basis from background radiation. The radiation only has to penetrate clothing, which is very nearly transparent to the radiation. This may make it possible to construct a garment that blocks the low levels of radiation.

However, there is always the possibility of a malfunction or someone mis-calibrating power levels or setting power levels improperly.

[dysfunctional press]

3. not all of the machines use 'x-rays'...

some of them use ultra-high frequency sound waves, from what i've seen on the news.

[geckosfeet]

23. Right. Some kind if electro-magnetic radiation. Someone downpost mentions sound as well.

[pnwmom]

15. I wouldn't worry about a garment blocking the radiation.

If someone was detected wearing such a garment, that should be grounds for a thorough search.

[FarCenter]

4. They use millimeter wavelength electromagnetic waves

They work like a very short wavelength, very low-power radar.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-05-bodyscan_N.htm

[ThomWV]

7. So you're saying they are similar to a microwave oven? No thanks on zapping my nasty old 'nads.

[FarCenter]

10. Microwave oven use roughly 10 centimeter wavelenghts at high-power

The microwave oven uses a frequency that causes water molecules to vibrate, and it uses high-power to quickly cook your 'nads, which are mostly water.

I don't know the exact frequency that they are using, but a millimeter wave would be 300 GHz. They probably use a frequency higher than 60 GHz, which is a frequency for unlicensed operation of short range communications devices.

These are frequencies chosen to penetrate clothing, but not skin. Also, the power is low.

You have to get into the lower X-ray frequencies, which are much higher, to ionize atoms and cause genetic damage. You have to use a lot of power to heat tissues and damage them that way.

[pnwmom]

16. How many people worried about this have no problem holding cell phones on their ears?

Just wondering.

[truth2power]

25. Since you asked....

I don't hold my cell phone against my head. I hold it away, or I use the speaker. I don't care if people ridicule me. Let 'em. It was a considered decision on my part. All the data isn't in yet.

My daughter has hers glued to her ear practically all the time. I've tried to tell her. She thinks it's silly to worry about it.

Okay.......whatever.

[pnwmom]

27. I'm with you. There's enough data to warrant caution about exposing

our brains to hours of cell phones every day.

[anigbrowl]

29. Scientific ignorance FTW!

[backscatter712]

18. That's one of the two technologies in question.

One full-body-scanner, as you mentioned, uses millimeter-wave radar. The other uses backscatter X-rays (at miniscule doses).

[ensho]

5. and the x-ray's mount up in your body - they accumulate

and never go away

[ThomWV]

8. That is no more true than fire builds up in your body every time you get burnt.

[ensho]

9. no its true - radiation (of whatever kind or amount) add up

it accumulates

[Old Codger]

6. Yup

Called a fluoroscope, they still use a version of that in some hospitals and Dr. offices, when I had my hand surgery a couple of months ago they used it, another time a few years back to check for torn rotater cuff tearing...

[truth2power]

24. I couldn't remember the name. Yes, it was a fluoroscope. n/t

[LibertyLover]

11. I remember those and also that my doctor had a fluoroscope

in his office, which was in the basement of his house. Once when I was 9 or so, after an accident with a pony, my mom took me over because I was complaining my arm hurt. He took pictures of it right there in the office and determined I had a greenstick fracture, which he proceeded to splint and told me to drink lots of milk and come back in a couple of weeks. On the second visit he took more photos, saw it had healed and took the splint off.

Basically, any x-ray exposure is not good for your health (and yes I'm aware that we are constantly bombarded with x-rays - that's what makes additional exposure a possible danger to your health). It's why many dentists are curtailing the routine x-rays at every visit. Add to that the recent findings on how exposure to x-rays from CAT scans can add to the danger of developing cancer. I figure that they will put these machines in at airports over the protests of privacy advocates because "the people" are demanding safety over privacy. The local news radio station here in Washington DC asked callers to tell them what they thought about these machines on their talk-back line and most every one was in favor of them and too bad about privacy. One woman was particularly vehement that she wanted to be safe on an airplane and so everybody and everything getting on the same plane should be scanned.

But I also figure that a terrorist group will figure out a way around the scan and manage to bring famable material on board even after a full body scan, plus there will be law suits in a few years from women who were pregnant, had the scans and later delivered babies with abnormalities consistent with high x-ray exposure. The first couple will be dismissed as happenstance, but as the suits increase, people will call for the removal of the machines. At least I hope so.

[ensho]

12. kick

nt

[Statistical]

14. Um. you are aware you pickup rems flying right?

The amount of radiation picked up by the actual plane flight is a MAGNITUDE more than a couple second scan by the peekaboo machine.

[Statistical]

13. The amount of radiation is equal to 5 MINUTES at 30,000 feet.

Just a heads up when you fly in a jet you are flying at high altitude (take a look out a windows). The reduced amount of atmosphere increaees radiation you are exposed to.

So getting "scanned" is equal to your 2-3 hour flight taking an extra 5 minutes.

Anyone "freaked out" by radiation (which you shouldn't be) probably shouldn't be flying anyways.

[backscatter712]

17. Before my time, but I've heard stories of the shoe-store X-ray machines.

They were real X-ray machines, they were not well-shielded, and they pumped out a lot of radiation.

You didn't want to work at a shoe store with one of those machines running - you'll get a nasty dose. The shoe-store machines were all taken out of service after too many people got cancer and radiation burns.

IIRC, the backscatter X-ray machines are claimed to do their scans with a very small dose of X-rays - a tiny fraction of what you get from a medical X-ray.

Not that this makes the full-body-scanners OK - I do not like the idea of a machine that can see through my clothes and render images of me naked - this is a digital strip search - that's my objection. That, and the only thing these machines will accomplish is causing the next terrorist to switch to a "suppository bomb"...

[LiberalAndProud]

19. This is the first I've heard of foot scanning machines.

When and where were they in common use?

[backscatter712]

21. Several decades ago.

They were common from the 30's to the 50's, IIRC, and the last one was taken out of service in the 70's. (my dates may be wildly off.)

They were used in shoe stores as a marketing tool - you go in, you try on a new pair of sneakers, then you stick your foot in the fluoroscope and look at the nifty picture of the bones of your foot inside your new shoe! That and you got a rather high dose of radiation in the process, with poor shielding to protect you (though not nearly as high of a dose as the shoe salesperson who had to work around that machine all day, every day, reaching in to adjust the fit of customer's shoes...)

[backscatter712]

22. More information on shoe-store fluoroscopes:

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm

[Lionel Mandrake]

31. The best source for the history of these devices is

J. Duffin and C.R. Hayter, "Baring the Sole: The Rise and Fall of the Shoe-fitting Fluoroscope", Isis volume 91 (2): 260-282 (June, 2000).

ABSTRACT:
One of the most conspicuous nonmedical uses of the x-ray was the shoe-fitting fluoroscope. It allowed visualization of the bones and soft tissues of the foot inside a shoe, purportedly increasing the accuracy of shoe fitting and thereby enhancing sales. From the mid 1920s to the 1950s, shoe-fitting fluoroscopes were a prominent feature of shoe stores in North America and Europe. Despite the widespread distribution and popularity of these machines, few have studied their history. In this essay we trace the origin, technology, applications, and significance of the shoe-fitting fluoroscope in Britain, Canada, and the United States. Our sources include medical and industrial literature, oral and written testimony of shoe retailers, newspapers, magazines, and government reports on the uses and dangers of these machines. The public response to shoe-fitting fluoroscopes changed from initial enthusiasm and trust to suspicion and fear, in conjunction with shifting cultural attitudes to radiation technologies.

If you have access to a university library, you can probably download the full text of this article for free. Otherwise you might have to visit a library which subscribes to Isis, which is a journal published by the History of Science Society (USA).

[Old Codger]

26. Hell

when I was a kid we thought those things were pretty neat and would look at our feet as much as they would let us, seeing the bones on our feet was funny. No one seemed to think it was anything to worry about

[SoCalDem]

20. The fluoroscope.. I had my feet xrayed more than a few times:)

but hey,.. my shoes always fit :)

[Blue_In_AK]

28. I remember those.

I thought they were pretty cool, but I was a kid and didn't understand about radiation.

[Raine]

30. I remember them but

my mother was always leery of them and never let us near them.