Can X-rays penetrate clothing and reveal hidden objects?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Machine X-ray
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the capability of X-rays to penetrate clothing and reveal hidden objects, exploring the implications of such technology in security settings, particularly at airports. Participants also consider alternative imaging technologies like MRI and the associated risks and privacy concerns.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the use of X-rays for security, citing concerns about radiation exposure and the effectiveness of alternative technologies like MRI.
  • Others argue that MRI technology poses its own risks, particularly regarding the safety of individuals with metal implants, and question the feasibility of using such technology in airports.
  • A participant mentions the potential for privacy violations with invasive security measures and suggests that less invasive technologies could be equally effective.
  • There is a discussion about the physics of X-rays, including their ability to penetrate various materials and how backscatter technology might be utilized to enhance imaging capabilities.
  • Some participants explore the interaction of X-rays with different substances, noting that denser materials like metal and bone would reflect X-rays differently than soft tissue.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of using X-rays in public spaces and the potential for civil liberties to be compromised in the name of security.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the effectiveness or safety of X-ray technology versus MRI for security purposes, and multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of such technologies on privacy and health.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the specific mechanisms by which X-rays interact with different materials, and there are unresolved questions about the safety and practicality of implementing alternative imaging technologies in security settings.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
" To the eye, she is dressed in a skirt and blazer in dark, businesslike colors. On the monitor she is naked..."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030625/168/4i6lv.html&e=1&ncid=1756
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I can already see those airport xray porn films coming...
 
I wouldn't approve, I work around too much xrays already no matter what the dosage its not good. There are certain regs for annual radiation you receive per year to be considered fatal to humans, its interesting technology but not for me. maybe a more MRI technolgy system to accomplish the same thing w/o xrays. now that's cool but expensive. :wink:
 
Lol, MRI doesn't solve it either. My Mom's a radiology tech at Stanford and they make her wear a necklace with a clip that measures radiation in the area. Every so many months she mails it in - the risk is still there.
 
Originally posted by Matt
Lol, MRI doesn't solve it either. My Mom's a radiology tech at Stanford and they make her wear a necklace with a clip that measures radiation in the area. Every so many months she mails it in - the risk is still there.

Your mom wears a TDL(thermoluminescience badge) for measurement of rad in the rad dept not because she works in MRI. Think about it MRI-Magnetic Radiation - The machine is a supermagnetic which aligns our + and e- which is converted to digital 1 and 0 for the computer to understand. Its not harmful! CT and xray rooms are though and she working in that dept must get her badge checked once a year. Oh btw...my old job was fixing MRI. Sorry i didnt mention that before hand matt.
Anyways..MRI would be cool because you could never carry any metallic objects in the airport without the magnet ripping them out of your pockets or wherever they hide those now days. I still think a through security search would be best too no matter what way they go about security checks.
Later,
Dx
 
Originally posted by Dx
I still think a through security search would be best too no matter what way they go about security checks.

Ok. How about strip and cavity searches for every patron?
 
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Ok. How about strip and cavity searches for every patron?
Sure but don't count on me flying Delta no more
 
Originally posted by Dx
Sure but don't count on me flying Delta no more


Don't you feel that at some point we cross the line and we begin to violate basic privacy rights? Also, perhaps a less invasive technology would be just as effective. We cannot expect to ever get back rights once sacrificed for "the common good". IMO, the common good is best served by resisting pressure to take away our civil liberties.

Besides, If they want to look at my incredible manliness then they're going to pay just like everyone else!
 
Hehe, I probablly shouldn't had made that post because I was basically talking out of my a--. But after talking to my mom for a bit about the capability of MRI technology in the airport scene, the first question is: Where are you going to put that magnet? A CT room is filled by one of these machines to get a 3D image of the body. Cranes lift these things to get them in place. Moreover, what about pacemakers, people with metal hip replacements, etc? A magnet large enough to do what must be done in the airport would be strong enough to attract heavy metal chains and huge gas cylinders at a speed that is deadly (as is apparent from accidents that often occur in hospitals). I think at this point MRI technology would be less dangerous but at the same time less feasible than X-Ray technology.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Don't you feel that at some point we cross the line and we begin to violate basic privacy rights? Also, perhaps a less invasive technology would be just as effective. We cannot expect to ever get back rights once sacrificed for "the common good". IMO, the common good is best served by resisting pressure to take away our civil liberties.

Besides, If they want to look at my incredible manliness then they're going to pay just like everyone else!

I totally agree but that takes the voice of many not just you and I to make a change. I fear one day that word "privacy right" will be no more, for example they have already installed security cameras in Tampa's Ybor city. In the whole damn city can you believe it but some good has come from it. the cops can better locate criminals after/during a crime being committed.

Oh Yeah!

Where are you going to put that magnet? A CT room is filled by one of these machines to get a 3D image of the body. Cranes lift these things to get them in place. Moreover, what about pacemakers, people with metal hip replacements, etc? A magnet large enough to do what must be done in the airport would be strong enough to attract heavy metal chains and huge gas cylinders at a speed that is deadly (as is apparent from accidents that often occur in hospitals). I think at this point MRI technology would be less dangerous but at the same time less feasible than X-Ray technology.

They have mobile MRIs, looks like trailers that people could walk thru outside, good point! Besides defibrillators, high freq xrays and bascially anything which produces a ultrasonic frequency effects pacemakers/electronic instruments. All it takes is the right freq and in my opinion should not be allowed. perhaps a low intesity fluoroscopic xray would prove to be suffice. I donno! Maybe we'll get it right someday.
Dx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Surely that photo doesn't use xrays. wouldn't they travel straight thru skin? Well, most of them...
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Dave
Surely that photo doesn't use xrays. wouldn't they travel straight thru skin? Well, most of them...

What? Fluoro you would see the impressions of skin. its like seeing xrays in real time on a tv screen vs a hard picture like your more common xrays. Of course their is digital technology todAY TO TRANSFER THEM HARD COPIES ONTO A SCREEN
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Dave
Surely that photo doesn't use xrays. wouldn't they travel straight thru skin? Well, most of them...

"backscatter".

Apparently detectors have gotten good enough so that what used to be backscatter noise can be read as a signal.

How about it experts? What do we do to maximize backscatter? Would a particular frequency reflect? Is this just a matter of low energy photons and, since we are mostly just big bags of water, not being near a harmonic of water?
 
  • #14
As far as Xrays as concerned, they should all travel thru atoms as they have frequency greater than the resonant frequency of an elecrton orbiting an atom.
The ones that hit electrons can be reflected back, crompton effect, so is that how it works? Seems a bit much and wouldn't any metallic objects reflect much more and would other more denser than skin things such as bone?
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Dave
As far as Xrays as concerned, they should all travel thru atoms as they have frequency greater than the resonant frequency of an elecrton orbiting an atom.
The ones that hit electrons can be reflected back, crompton effect, so is that how it works? Seems a bit much and wouldn't any metallic objects reflect much more and would other more denser than skin things such as bone?

Yes the metal objects will show as pure white on a normal X-ray negative. And the scatter from metal is quite pronounced in all directions. But I think this can be filtered effectively with software. I know that quite a range of diagnostic X-rays can be be used - From about 20KV for soft tissue, and up to 300 KV for chest X-rays in big people [this is higher Kv is probably no longer used but is now about 260 max I would think]. The problem with low KV rays is that more are absorbed; so more damage is done than with high KV rays that mostly pass right through. So, I don't know exactly how this works but this much I can say, so I did. I have never heard of scattter based imaging until now; except of course with visible and lower energy photons.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

How Did Six Nails End Up in a Construction Worker's Skull?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 257)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K