Full body scans for US bound flights

[tmyer2107]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/30/airline.terror.schiphol/index.html"

Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport will start using full body scans for US bound flights. I remember seeing this technology in its early stages a few years ago and remember the privacy issues. I am glad to see it actually going into use. I think they should have it at all airports and use it at random, kind of like the pre-boarding searches. The people that are agaisnt it because of the privacy issues would be very unhappy if all the airports suddenly switched to this technology, the random searches would be a good starting point. I am all for every airport using it. I value my safety more than my privacy.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/30/airline.terror.schiphol/index.html"

Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport will start using full body scans for US bound flights. I remember seeing this technology in its early stages a few years ago and remember the privacy issues. I am glad to see it actually going into use. I think they should have it at all airports and use it at random, kind of like the pre-boarding searches. The people that are agaisnt it because of the privacy issues would be very unhappy if all the airports suddenly switched to this technology, the random searches would be a good starting point. I am all for every airport using it.

It may be necessary, but I am not 'glad' that this is so.

I value my safety more than my privacy.

Keep up that policy for too long and we may end up loosing both.

 

[lisab]

Great, so now underwear bombers know to fly out of Paris or London instead of Amsterdam .

 

[tmyer2107]

Keep up that policy for too long and we may end up loosing both.

True, I should have been more precise in my statement. I don't want this discussion to spin off into privacy issues related to the patriot act, etc. I just don't mind going through a full body scanner in an airport. It is clear that the explosives the terrorists are going to use will not be picked up by our current methods.

 

[jtbell]

The ultimate solution: eliminate all carry-on baggage, make all airline passengers check in all their baggage and clothing, and fly in the nude.

 

[lisab]

The ultimate solution: eliminate all carry-on baggage, make all airline passengers check in all their baggage and clothing, and fly in the nude.

...because getting stuck in a middle seat between two fully-clothed large people isn't bad enough.

 

[Astronuc]

The ultimate solution: eliminate all carry-on baggage, make all airline passengers check in all their baggage and clothing, and fly in the nude.

That still leaves the possibility of using implanted or internal explosives.

What we need is incorporeal transportation.

As the Moody Blues sang "See with your mind, leave your body behind" (from Sun Is Still Shining, To Our Children's Children's Children)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Will they scan children?

 

[tmyer2107]

Will they scan children?

Thats a good question. I'm assuming the answer is yes since it says all passengers will be scanned.

 

[Monique]

.. in addition all passengers will be thoroughly padded down by security personnel. I find a body search more intrusive than a scan that is only judged by computer software.

 

[Astronuc]

From the article

The millimeter-wave body scanners will be in place in about three weeks, Dutch Interior Minister Guusje ter Horst told a news conference at The Hague.


The scanners will be permanent at Schiphol, and any passengers bound for the United States who do not go through them will be bodysearched, ter Horst said.

mm-wave implier IR, i.e. thermal imaging, which perhaps is passive, as opposed to active/invasive scanning, e.g., x-ray or neutron radiography.

 

[Monique]

I misread, the coming three weeks all passengers will be bodysearched (including the crotch, so be warned ), after that everyone will go through the scan.

 

[Astronuc]

I have nothing to hide!

or nothing but hide.

 

[Borek]

Perhaps we should allow for separate planes for those that don't want to be scanned?

 

[f95toli]

mm-wave implier IR, i.e. thermal imaging, which perhaps is passive, as opposed to active/invasive scanning, e.g., x-ray or neutron radiography.

No, the systems are probably active (there is a radiation source). Most of them are based around far-IR (a few THz) so it is not really thermal imaging in the usual sense.
And no, they will not detect explosives, it is basically a camera that can see through most fabrics but it is till possible to hide explosives.
There are techniques for spectroscopy in the THz range that can detect the "fingerprint" of some explosives but they are still being developed and won't be ready for deployment for a number of years,

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

(including the crotch, so be warned )

depending on the agent, I may opt to go through security a few times just to be sure!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm not sure that a THz scan is any more intrusive from a privacy standpoint than X-ray scans of your luggage, or asking for your personal information when you buy the ticket, or randomly searching your luggage.

So the agents see you "nude," do we really have to be so prude about it?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So the agents see you "nude," do we really have to be so prude about it?

I wouldn't want an agent looking at my 6 year old daughter or son!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Perhaps, but is that because you feel they are possible sex offenders or something? WHY don't you want an official looking at your child with a THz machine?

I've actually flown through Schiphol, and more intrusive than these proposed body scans is the pre-boarding interview I had to go through where a security agent asks you questions about where you're coming from, where you're going, why you're going there, how long you plan to stay, etc. Granted this was a while ago (2004) but I couldn't help but feel like I had be careful about what I divulged to the agent...

 

[mheslep]

True, I should have been more precise in my statement. I don't want this discussion to spin off into privacy issues related to the patriot act, etc.

How can thread on full body scans not involved privacy issues?

 

[mheslep]

I'm not sure that a THz scan is any more intrusive from a privacy standpoint than X-ray scans of your luggage, or asking for your personal information when you buy the ticket, or randomly searching your luggage.

Of course it is

So the agents see you "nude," do we really have to be so prude about it?

I predict those mm wave photos will, for famous travellers, begin appearing on the web, a gross privacy violation. There is just too much lurid value placed on such to avoid it.

For every grandmother subjected to this intrusive scan or disallowed a carry on or restricted from moving in the last hour of the flight, ten thousand young males from Nigeria or Arab young male traveling with no return ticket and no checked bags from the middle east should be body searched first, and then we can discuss prudishness about profiling.

 

[turbo]

Will they scan children?

It's likely.

Years back, I was on a flight out of Bangor and there was a young couple behind me with a baby in a carrier. They acted a bit flustered and rushed, hunting for "misplaced" boarding passes, etc, and passing the baby back and forth. The man had already gone through the metal detector and his wife passed the baby (in the carrier) to him so she could rummage through her purse. Luckily, the security lady manning the X-ray machine had enough brains to have seen a violation of procedure, and she insisted that the man take the baby out of the carrier and hand it back to his wife, who allowed it to be put through the X-ray. Suddenly, a supervisor appeared out of nowhere, and the lady had him look at the X-ray display - she didn't shield the screen very well and I had gotten around to where I could clearly see the shape of a gun. The man and woman went off with the supervisor and a couple of security guards, and soon after, they boarded the flight - I assumed they were air marshals, testing security.

Babies, toddlers, etc can be very useful distractions.

 

[Monique]

There are also lots of things that you can hide in diapers.

I wonder how the scans react to jewelry and buttons/zippers? Will it cause the scans to be flagged for human inspection? (which would be pretty much the case for every person)

 

[dr dodge]

this is (one reason) why I will NEVER fly anymore
bio cards managed by the credit companies
aircraft maintainence done "out of country"
breaking of most professional unions.

the "puffer" can detect not only explosives, hydrocarbons, narcotics, but ANYTHING you want to program into it. If you shoot fireworks off with your kids sunday nite, you will test positive monday morning, regardless of scrubbing.

if the road don't get there, I ain't goin'
(after 13 years of travel I actually have anxiety attacks on the plane now)
what did me in was staring at a loose bolt on the wing in the slipstream for 3 1/2 hours then telling the crew and being told ok sir we'll fix it
yea right...ya didn't even ask which bolt!

dr

 

[mgb_phys]

Will they start checking airside ground crew?
So they do THz full body imaging of every passenger, take butter knives off pilots (and confiscate sharp pointy medals from generals)
And yet they allow trucks from catering, fueling, freight companies to drive in with only a cursory check of an ID card.

 

[tmyer2107]

How can thread on full body scans not involved privacy issues?

It does involve privacy issues. My point was just that I wanted the thread to stay focused on the privacy issues related to the body scans alone, not spin off to a thread about privacy vs security in other areas including the patriot act.

 

[Monique]

Will they start checking airside ground crew?
So they do THz full body imaging of every passenger, take butter knives off pilots (and confiscate sharp pointy medals from generals)
And yet they allow trucks from catering, fueling, freight companies to drive in with only a cursory check of an ID card.

A Dutch journalist was able to go in and out of the airport on a fake ID card. He was able to bring a fake bomb and was even able to enter the airplane of the Queen, which was parked in one of the hangars for servicing. This means that the security for the outside personnel has been tightened.

I think the weakest point is that the US is not concerned about its inland air traffic. It is the countries that fly passengers into the US that are required to up the security, which means that only those countries need to invest a lot of money. People with ill intend will find another airport from which to fly, this definitely is not a watertight measure.

 

[dr dodge]

I flew out of Curacao twice.
the "metal detector" was a very nice wood fake complete with power chord
would never have known the difference, except the fake readout sticker on the top was peeling, and the "lights" never changed
overseas and Canadian security is a joke

dr

 

[Monique]

overseas and Canadian security is a joke

dr

Isn't that a gross prejudice/simplification

I probably shouldn't even bite, but it was interesting that I've had security booths go off in Italian airports, while the ones in the States remained quiet. It turned out that there was metal in my shoe soles.

 

[arildno]

As long as one doesn't let reality make a pre-selection of targets that should be fully scanned, this will be an extermely costly, and worthless effort.

We all KNOW which sub-population SHOULD be singled out as the most likely source of terrorists, and hence, which it is entirely appropriate to burden with discriminatory rules regarding safety regulations.

 

[dr dodge]

I had better keep my mouth shut
I am sorry if I offended anyone from other countries, I didn't mean to
I have traveled a lot and think that we could improve both the process and the experience
traveling shouldn't make you feel like a criminal, or nameless piece of meat, no matter what safety stuff you must go thru
(and no, I am not the guy that pitches a hissy fit for holding up my underware in public)

dr

 

[mgb_phys]

A Dutch journalist was able to go in and out of the airport on a fake ID card. He was able to bring a fake bomb and was even able to enter the airplane of the Queen, which was parked in one of the hangars for servicing. This means that the security for the outside personnel has been tightened.

But do they put every meal cart through an X-ray, dismantle every fuel truck and search every driver.
If not - the easiest way to put a bomb on a plane is to get someone employed at a service company.

You don't even need a fake ID, since the catering an handling companies pay minimum wage they innevitably end up employing a large number of illegal immigrants, and although they are supposed to do background checks they will hire anybody willing to take the job and hand out id.
There was a similar case in the UK, the RAF base that the Queen's flight operates from had privatized the security to some local mall-cops outfit. A large proportion of their vetted and background checked security guards were illegal immigrants.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Of course it is

That's not an effective argument. WHY is a THz scan of your body any more of a privacy violation than seraching your bags (including X-Rays), or physical searches? It seems to me that a THz scan is at most as intrusive as a strip search or a physical search of my bags...

I predict those mm wave photos will, for famous travellers, begin appearing on the web, a gross privacy violation. There is just too much lurid value placed on such to avoid it.

I have trouble believing that, I haven't seen X-rays of any famous celebrity's bags yet, why would we assume the data from a THz machine will be leaked? More importantly, should we really not use THz scans because a few celebrities' "naked" pictures show up on the internet? Wouldn't you think that if a celebrity had an ebarassing item of some description in their bag, an X-ray of that bag would be at risk of being leaked to the paparazzi? As it is famous travelers take privately chartered aircraft and don't usually take the large airlines...

[I put "naked" in quotes by the way, because they aren't >really< naked pictures, it does show a person's overall body shape, but it really doesn't tell you much more than a form-fitting dress does...]

ten thousand young males from Nigeria or Arab young male traveling with no return ticket and no checked bags from the middle east should be body searched first, and then we can discuss prudishness about profiling.

You're right that the TSA (and the world in general) probably needs to do a better job of intelligence comparison and collection. Unfortunately I'll bet it isn't as simple as looking for a guy with a one-way ticket and no checked bags...

We are living a society where there is 0.000% tolerance for deaths from terrorism, but around 40,000 people die each year in traffic accidents and more than 15,000 people are killed in murders in the United States alone. All of this makes me wonder where a common-sense approach to risk mitigation is in our society... It is well-known fact that you take a MUCH bigger risk driving to the airport than flying on the airplane.

 

[drankin]

Why stop at scans? Cavity search them all!

Craziness.

 

[Newai]

As long as one doesn't let reality make a pre-selection of targets that should be fully scanned, this will be an extermely costly, and worthless effort.

We all KNOW which sub-population SHOULD be singled out as the most likely source of terrorists, and hence, which it is entirely appropriate to burden with discriminatory rules regarding safety regulations.

Should we go that direction, can you assure us that that sub-population will not have an increase in tensions where they are already feeling the heat from the general public, and thus an increase in violent incidents?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

this is (one reason) why I will NEVER fly anymore

...if the road don't get there, I ain't goin'
(after 13 years of travel I actually have anxiety attacks on the plane now)
what did me in was staring at a loose bolt on the wing in the slipstream for 3 1/2 hours then telling the crew and being told ok sir we'll fix it
yea right...ya didn't even ask which bolt!

dr

This stance is terribly ironic since you are far more likely to die in a traffic accident than flying on an airplane...

The crew probably didn't take you seriously because you are not qualified to determine if a bolt is loose, let alone if it poses a fatal risk to the aircraft. Maintenance on aircraft is very stringent compared to a lot of other things you take for granted in your life every day.

 

[Borek]

We are living a society where there is 0.000% tolerance for deaths from terrorism, but around 40,000 people die each year in traffic accidents and more than 15,000 people are killed in murders in the United States alone. All of this makes me wonder where a common-sense approach to risk mitigation is in our society...

Common sense in society? You must be kidding.

Seriously - I am with you here, this is the same blend of idiocy/media hype/policy/PR that is responsible for most simple reagents being banned from schools so that nobody gets hurt during chemistry lessons or for sharp knives being banned from art classes - but you can still break your leg playing American football. Proportions have been lost long ago. We (in Poland) follow, albeit slowly.

 

[Moonbear]

Why stop at scans? Cavity search them all!

Craziness.

That's what I keep thinking. The more intrusive the scans get, the more ways terrorists will use to hide the explosives, or find other things to use as weapons.

I think we've gotten to the point where the likelihood of a lunatic getting on a plane with you and not just trying but actually succeeding in blowing you up is considerably lower than a lunatic walking into a mall or school and succeeding in shooting you. The increasing inconveniences are far exceeding the value of the security they provide.

And what sort of x-ray dose are those full body scanners giving you? It may not be a big deal to someone who flies once or twice a year, but what about the frequent business travelers who are on planes several times a week, or the airport employees going through daily?

According to reports, the problem wasn't that new security measures need to be added, but that existing security measures needed to be followed...the person with the explosives was already on no-fly lists and was traveling with a one-way ticket with no return ticket purchased. He already should have been flagged and stopped for added searches or never even allowed to purchase a ticket to the US because he didn't qualify for entry.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I think we've gotten to the point where the likelihood of a lunatic getting on a plane with you and not just trying but actually succeeding in blowing you up is considerably lower than a lunatic walking into a mall or school and succeeding in shooting you. The increasing inconveniences are far exceeding the value of the security they provide.

You're absolutely right. The only way to achieve 100% safety on an airplane is to remove the people from it. It's a 100% secure, travel-free zone...

And what sort of x-ray dose are those full body scanners giving you? It may not be a big deal to someone who flies once or twice a year, but what about the frequent business travelers who are on planes several times a week, or the airport employees going through daily?

None, because they use terahertz (10^12 Hz) waves, not x-rays. Terahertz is non-ionizing radiation by the way...

 

[leroyjenkens]

According to reports, the problem wasn't that new security measures need to be added, but that existing security measures needed to be followed...the person with the explosives was already on no-fly lists and was traveling with a one-way ticket with no return ticket purchased. He already should have been flagged and stopped for added searches or never even allowed to purchase a ticket to the US because he didn't qualify for entry.

Right after 9/11 he probably would have, but after a while security becomes lax again.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Will they start checking airside ground crew?
So they do THz full body imaging of every passenger, take butter knives off pilots (and confiscate sharp pointy medals from generals)
And yet they allow trucks from catering, fueling, freight companies to drive in with only a cursory check of an ID card.

Don't be silly! With these new security measures, planes are now 100% safe to travel on. That is, until the next guy smuggles something on. Then the only way to make planes safe will involve lots of lube and lots of pain. But we'll feel safe, so it's ok. I'm practicing bending over and clenching my teeth right now.

But seriously, the spirit of the above post is right. As long as the human element is there, no amount of security will stop people from getting something onboard.

 

[Moonbear]

None, because they use terahertz waves, not x-rays. Terahertz is non-ionizing radiation by the way...

Okay, based on that, I went to look up what is known about any potential health effects of being dosed with terahertz frequency waves. And as far as I can tell, very little is known. Don't you think it should be tested before turning security screeners and frequent fliers into guinea pigs? This is the grand total of what I found in my searching for articles determining if there are health effects...2 suggesting no deleterious effects on cells they tested, and 1 suggesting deleterious effects on lymphocytes (that's a type of white blood cell). That's it, 3 papers. There are a bunch more just starting to explore it for medical diagnostics over the past couple years, but nothing looking at things like cumulative exposures or long-term risks. From the three available, a brief, infrequent exposure may not be a big deal, but none of this addresses full body or frequent exposure (i.e., airport employees).

Radiat Res. 2008 Aug;170(2):224-34.
Terahertz radiation increases genomic instability in human lymphocytes.

Korenstein-Ilan A, Barbul A, Hasin P, Eliran A, Gover A, Korenstein R.

Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. korens@post.tau.ac.il

Terahertz radiation is increasingly being applied in new and evolving technologies applied in areas such as homeland security and medical imaging. Thus a timely assessment of the potential hazards and health effects of occupational and general population exposure to THz radiation is required. We applied continuous-wave (CW) 0.1 THz radiation (0.031 mW/ cm(2)) to dividing lymphocytes for 1, 2 and 24 h and examined the changes in chromosome number of chromosomes 1, 10, 11 and 17 and changes in the replication timing of their centromeres using interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Chromosomes 11 and 17 were most vulnerable (about 30% increase in aneuploidy after 2 and 24 h of exposure), while chromosomes 1 and 10 were not affected. We observed changes in the asynchronous mode of replication of centromeres 11, 17 and 1 (by 40%) after 2 h of exposure and of all four centromeres after 24 h of exposure (by 50%). It is speculated that these effects are caused by radiation-induced low-frequency collective vibrational modes of proteins and DNA. Our results demonstrate that exposure of lymphocytes in vitro to a low power density of 0.1 THz radiation induces genomic instability. These findings, if verified, may suggest that such exposure may result in an increased risk of cancer.

PMID: 18666810 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4

Altern Lab Anim. 2008 Dec;36(6):667-84.
The effects of terahertz radiation on human keratinocyte primary cultures and neural cell cultures.

Bourne N, Clothier RH, D'Arienzo M, Harrison P.

FRAME Alternatives Laboratory, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Terahertz (THz) frequencies are found in a previously underexploited region of the radiation spectrum. This non-ionising energy is now being employed in medical imaging, so the possibility of adverse effects on human skin was evaluated. Primary cultures of normal human keratinocytes (NHKs) express adhesion molecules that comprise part of the natural barrier function of the skin. The effects of exogenous agents on this barrier function can be measured. The ND7/23 cell line, which displays the characteristics of sensory neurones, can proliferate in the undifferentiated state, but can be induced to differentiate and develop neurite-like projections. Previous studies with NHK and neural cell cultures produced no evidence of the inability of these cells to differentiate and form a barrier following THz exposure. The cells were exposed to 0.14THz radiation for times varying from 10 minutes to 24 hours. For each 80-nanosecond pulse, the cells were exposed to a peak power of between 24 and 62mW/cm(2), i.e. a total energy at peak power of 345J, or 86J at average power over 24 hours. No changes in cell activity occurred, as monitored with the resazurin reduction assay, or with the barrier function of the human corneal cells, as measured with the fluorescein leakage assay. The monitoring of differentiation by using an assay for cornified envelope formation, revealed no adverse effects. Glutathione (GSH) and heat shock protein 70 levels were examined before and after differentiation, to determine the degree of the stress response, with the effects of UVB radiation as a control. UVB induced a stress response, as did heat shock treatment at 43 degrees C, whilst 0.15THz radiation, even after 24 hours of exposure, did not. Repeated exposure to THz radiation at this level, also resulted in no detectable adverse reactions. 2008 FRAME.

PMID: 19154093 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

Health Phys. 2007 Apr;92(4):349-57.
Cytogenetic observations in human peripheral blood leukocytes following in vitro exposure to THz radiation: a pilot study.

Zeni O, Gallerano GP, Perrotta A, Romanò M, Sannino A, Sarti M, D'Arienzo M, Doria A, Giovenale E, Lai A, Messina G, Scarfì MR.

Interuniversity Center on Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Biosystems (ICEmB) at CNR-IREA, Via Diocleziano 328-80124 Napoli, Italy. zeni.o@irea.cnr.it

Emerging technologies are considering the possible use of Terahertz radiation in different fields ranging from telecommunications to biology and biomedicine. The study of the potential effects of Terahertz radiation on biological systems is therefore an important issue in order to safely develop a variety of applications. This paper describes a pilot study devoted to determine if Terahertz radiation could induce genotoxic effects in human peripheral blood leukocytes. For this purpose, human whole blood samples from healthy donors were exposed for 20 min to Terahertz radiation. Since, to our knowledge, this is the first study devoted to the evaluation of possible genotoxic effects of such radiation, different electromagnetic conditions were considered. In particular, the frequencies of 120 and 130 GHz were chosen: the first one was tested at a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 0.4 mW g-1, while the second one was tested at SAR levels of 0.24, 1.4, and 2 mW g-1. Chromosomal damage was evaluated by means of the cytokinesis block micronucleus technique, which also gives information on cell cycle kinetics. Moreover, human whole blood samples exposed to 130 GHz at SAR levels of 1.4 and 2 mW g-1 were also tested for primary DNA damage by applying the alkaline comet assay immediately after exposure. The results obtained indicate that THz exposure, in the explored electromagnetic conditions, is not able to induce either genotoxicity or alteration of cell cycle kinetics in human blood cells from healthy subjects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=5

If they're already using the technology before fully testing the health risks, I HOPE it turns out to be harmless, but I'm not finding studies showing that's actually been determined for this particular frequency range.

 

[arildno]

Should we go that direction, can you assure us that that sub-population will not have an increase in tensions where they are already feeling the heat from the general public, and thus an increase in violent incidents?

If they choose that option as a majority solution, it simply proves they were morally degenerate to begin with, and even more severe measures against them are justified, and should have been enforced from the start.
The reason for that is, of course, because that option is an IMMORAL choice.

They should instead choose the option of ridding their own sub-communities of those with terrorist leaning, i.e, "ratting on", for example, ideological leaders preaching unwarranted hatred against non-members, rather than the wall of silence which is this sub-populations preferred choice to evil committed, and celebrated within their ranks.


To avoid to implement an extremely effective scan measure merely out of the justified fear that some immorals will become unjustifiedly enflamed by it and resort to violence is to make the immoral choice of submitting to the cruel, wilful master as a slave, and require that others do so as well.

 

[mgb_phys]

The obvious target would be the security screening queue.
One airport I fly through regularly, herds everyone into a long concrete underground corridor to go through screening. One backpack full of PE4 + nails would be messy.

And how would you respond?
Increase security waits and put more people in line for the next attack?

 

[tmyer2107]

This stance is terribly ironic since you are far more likely to die in a traffic accident than flying on an airplane...

While this is a well known fact it does little for most of the people that are afraid of flying. The reason is because that while you are driving somewhere you seem to be in control. In some cases you have no control over accidents but up until that point the sense of control is still there. When you are flying you have zero control over what happens once you board the plane. This helplessness makes a lot of people uncomfortable which causes them to be afraid to fly.

 

[Borek]

Speaking of THz radiation - does anybody know how the intensity of the radiation used in these machines compares to the intensity of radiation from natural sources? I am sitting close to my fireplace now (starting to sweat, which is OK, as I feel like I could catch cold earlier today) and as it emits a lot or IR in many ranges (I bet it emits several kW at the moment) I started to be concerned about my leukocytes.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Okay, based on that, I went to look up what is known about any potential health effects of being dosed with terahertz frequency waves. And as far as I can tell, very little is known. Don't you think it should be tested before turning security screeners and frequent fliers into guinea pigs?

You're right that it is prudent to test the technology to make sure it is safe for human exposure. It seems likely to me that since it is a non-ionizing radiation which falls between microwaves and IR light, it risks will be similar to them in that it's primary risk will be dure to heating effects of very powerful signals.

What physical and/or biological mechanisms are present that might allow a THz wave to interact with a cell, keeping in mind that a THz wave's penetration into the skin is less than 1mm (depending on the wavelength, much less)?

This is the grand total of what I found in my searching for articles determining if there are health effects...2 suggesting no deleterious effects on cells they tested, and 1 suggesting deleterious effects on lymphocytes (that's a type of white blood cell). That's it, 3 papers. There are a bunch more just starting to explore it for medical diagnostics over the past couple years, but nothing looking at things like cumulative exposures or long-term risks. From the three available, a brief, infrequent exposure may not be a big deal, but none of this addresses full body or frequent exposure (i.e., airport employees).

If they're already using the technology before fully testing the health risks, I HOPE it turns out to be harmless, but I'm not finding studies showing that's actually been determined for this particular frequency range.

The studies do need to be done, but I wonder what will happen if they find that there is a very slight but measurable risk? Will the technology be banned even though greater risks are accepted by humanity every day (such as exposure to UV radiation from the Sun).

 

[ranger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/opinion/30dowd.html]If[/PLAIN] we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

Our security system is either broken, full of incompetents, or they've managed to get people on the inside. I am certain about the first two, but I refuse to believe the third.

If we don't fix the system and the people that work in the system, then they can do all the cavity searches and anal probes they want. Heck we can even screen all those who are Muslim and those who look like the stereotyped "Akhmir"...but we'll be in this very same situation again, where the incompetents suddenly beef up security because of a screw up on their end.

 

[f95toli]

We all KNOW which sub-population SHOULD be singled out as the most likely source of terrorists, and hence, which it is entirely appropriate to burden with discriminatory rules regarding safety regulations.

That is just silly. HOW exactly would you identify someone as being a member of said population?
I think we can be pretty sure that most well-organized terrorist are able to use fake passports when they need to and you can't tell if someone is a muslim (I assume this is the what you meant) by looking at him; at least not if he is wearing western clothes etc.

 

[ranger]

We all KNOW which sub-population SHOULD be singled out as the most likely source of terrorists, and hence, which it is entirely appropriate to burden with discriminatory rules regarding safety regulations.

I'm not on your pedestal and don't have the privilege of looking at someone or a group of people and say, "YOU are a security threat!" Who exactly is this subpopulation?