Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

New airport x-ray machine

  1. Jun 27, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 27, 2003 #2

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I can already see those airport xray porn films coming...
     
  4. Jun 27, 2003 #3

    Dx

    User Avatar

    I wouldnt approve, I work around too much xrays already no matter what the dosage its not good. There are certain regs for annual radiation you recieve 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 thats cool but expensive. :wink:
     
  5. Jun 28, 2003 #4
    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.
     
  6. Jun 28, 2003 #5

    Dx

    User Avatar

    Your mom wears a TDL(thermoluminescince 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 with out the magnet ripping them out of your pockets or whereever 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
     
  7. Jun 28, 2003 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ok. How about strip and cavity searches for every patron?
     
  8. Jun 28, 2003 #7

    Dx

    User Avatar

    Sure but dont count on me flying Delta no more
     
  9. Jun 28, 2003 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    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 gonna pay just like everyone else!
     
  10. Jun 29, 2003 #9
    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 feasable than X-Ray technology.
     
  11. Jun 30, 2003 #10

    Dx

    User Avatar

    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!

    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 frequecy 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: Jun 30, 2003
  12. Jun 30, 2003 #11
    Surely that photo doesn't use xrays. wouldn't they travel straight thru skin? Well, most of them...
     
  13. Jun 30, 2003 #12

    Dx

    User Avatar

    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
     
  14. Jun 30, 2003 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "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 enery photons and, since we are mostly just big bags of water, not being near a harmonic of water?
     
  15. Jun 30, 2003 #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?
     
  16. Jun 30, 2003 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Jun 30, 2003
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: New airport x-ray machine
Loading...