It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Secure 1000 Body X-ray unit

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   


A non intrusive personnel screening system that is safer and more cost effective than pat-down or strip searches. Concealed weapons, narcotics contraband and other clandestine devices and contraband are easily detected and revealed. Unlike metal detectors the object hidden, need not be only metallic; Plastic explosives, narcotics and other objects hidden under clothing and on the body such as glass, coins, bundled paper money, jewelry and similar contraband are easily revealed. The Secure 1000 is the ideal choice for security, diplomatic and law enforcement use worldwide. Rapid results, each front and back exposure takes less than10 seconds and images are up on the monitor within 3 seconds. Minimal training expense, data storage and transfer, turnkey installation, non-intrusive screening, safe and effective operation in monochrome or false color enhancement.




How quickliy could it scan people? Would it be viable to use in public places to prevent terrorist attacks?

[edit on 21-7-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Cool! I want to buy one and set it up at my local airport and charge them money to use it!

Seriously though, if it can be produced cheap enough it would have extreme potential to replace metal detectors at all airports and not just major ones. Could also be used at stadiums and other such places it seems.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Here's the link to what you're talking about.
www.americansecurity.net

In the future, please post the link.

A lot of what it says has probably been said about everything else. Still, nonmetal detection is a must. And minimal training is probably a good idea as well.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
That one would have been good in London...



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

GodAtum
How quickliy could it scan people?

???The part you quoted said 10 seconds...dont you even read what you quote.?

The thing I didn't like about it was "data storage & transfer", the reason people dont like these things is because it basically takes a black & white picture of you with your clothes off, I dont see the need for it to take you nudish pic and then have be sent somewhere else. and as for storage, they should give them a very small hard drive...like able to hold around 50 to 100 images, they should not be connected to the internet, nor should they have any usb ports on the computers there using.

thats what I think.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
As with any technology there will be a minority that will find a way to cheat their way through this machine.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodAtum
How quickliy could it scan people? Would it be viable to use in public places to prevent terrorist attacks?

From your question of how quickly it can scan people, I have the impression that if it were possible, you'd scan everyone as they pass by. You'd kill far more people that way from cancer from the X rays than the terrorists would ever kill then. X rays machines aren't some kind of toys and X rays do cause genetic damage. Do a search on terahertz radiation. Seems useful for the same purposes as X rays and they are only slightly more energetic than microwaves and slightly less than infrared, so for all we know harmless. Heathrow has one installed.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
The amount of radiation put out by most x-ray systems you see at an airport, and this system for that matter is so tiny that it would take years and years before it could even begin to cause cancer or genetic defects. and that's years of constant exposure every day. The government limits set by the FDA are 0.5 ur/hr. That's still significantly lower than would cause problems. The HIGHEST machine we have here at the airport is four years old, and gives out 0.23 ur/hr right at the entrance to the scanning tunnel. Less than two feet away from the side of the unit it drops off to background levels. You get more exposure to radiation on ONE 10 hour flight than you would from one of these systems in 6-8 months as a person running the machine.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The amount of radiation put out by most x-ray systems you see at an airport, and this system for that matter is so tiny that it would take years and years before it could even begin to cause cancer or genetic defects.

At airports, they usually scan luggage, not people. People are shielded from that, which is why you get such a low exposure figure. For an X ray scan of your entire body, the dose is higher. Also keep in mind that people use public transportation on a daily basis while few people fly more than once a year. At airports I could understand such a system, but people here are insinuating to use it for public transportation which borders the criminally insane. What you also do not consider, is that all ionizing radiation is harmful in no matter what dose, the chance you develop cancer because of it however may be very small in small doses, but if you would intend to use it on an increasing number of people - I get the impression some here would use it on anyone or at least anyone that looks Arab or muslim - then the chance some poor schmuck gets unlucky and "wins" the very small chance of getting cancer because of a small dose, or gets nicely mutated offspring, increases linearly with the number of people scanned. Plain statistics.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Also fun at parties.



Although I'll stick with the traditional hand in the crotch, thanks.


[edit on 22-7-2005 by quango]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
They should invent a "Total Recall" like scanning device that do not use x rays or any othe harnful rays.

Here is a site which has more news:

www.onlisareinsradar.com...



One system, the Rapiscan Secure 1000, uses low-energy X-rays to search a person through clothing. When Rapiscan project manager Bryan Allman scanned himself, detected was a plastic knife hidden in his shirt pocket.

However, the outline of his body — every inch of it — also was clearly visible. Perhaps proving the machine's revealing nature, airport officials refused to put a woman in the scanner.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) says the scan is too intrusive.

"This, of course, is a virtual strip-search," ACLU associate director Barry Steinhardt said. "There's no question this has tremendous potential for embarrassment."




www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk...

[edit on 22/7/05 by GodAtum]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
At airports, they usually scan luggage, not people. People are shielded from that, which is why you get such a low exposure figure. For an X ray scan of your entire body, the dose is higher. Also keep in mind that people use public transportation on a daily basis while few people fly more than once a year. At airports I could understand such a system, but people here are insinuating to use it for public transportation which borders the criminally insane. What you also do not consider, is that all ionizing radiation is harmful in no matter what dose, the chance you develop cancer because of it however may be very small in small doses, but if you would intend to use it on an increasing number of people - I get the impression some here would use it on anyone or at least anyone that looks Arab or muslim - then the chance some poor schmuck gets unlucky and "wins" the very small chance of getting cancer because of a small dose, or gets nicely mutated offspring, increases linearly with the number of people scanned. Plain statistics.



I was getting trained by the company that makes this system at the time they were developing it. The amount of radiation put out by it to scan people is STILL about the same as a luggage x-ray at an airport or less. This system is designed to scan through clothes, not the body. It's a very low power system since it doesn't have to scan through the body.

The system would be used mostly in Customs, and on passengers that require more extensive screening. Those people are picked by computer not by how they look. It's based on many different criteria when the ticket is purchased.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I was getting trained by the company that makes this system at the time they were developing it.

Not exactly a source that would likely highlight any downsides of the system, isn't it?



Originally posted by Zaphod58
The amount of radiation put out by it to scan people is STILL about the same as a luggage x-ray at an airport or less. This system is designed to scan through clothes, not the body. It's a very low power system since it doesn't have to scan through the body.

Again, I'd like to see what exactly that means, whether people get the same X-ray dose as the luggage or as the people standing next to such a luggage scanning machine which has shielding. Considering the low power and amount of penetration, it just means the x-rays have less energy. They still are ionizing radiation and not entirely harmless. If it gets through clothes, it will get as well through at least one or more centimeters of the body.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
The system would be used mostly in Customs, and on passengers that require more extensive screening. Those people are picked by computer not by how they look. It's based on many different criteria when the ticket is purchased.

Fine, I didn't comment on that, I wanted to comment on those that want to use it for public transportation and on as many people as possible.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
i wonder if they can scan children, because this thing basically give a complete picture of the person naked. There is also the the problem of privacy involved with these, not everyone will be comfortable knowing someone is looking at them naked.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Privacy was the biggest concern. The rules for operating the unit are that it has to be same sex operators/person so if it's a woman it has to be a woman operator, and no one else can be in the room with the operator. It's not much but the best they could come up with. Children would also be screened. Something most people don't realize is that a true terrorist will willingly plant something on a child if they think it will get past security. There was a case where a terrorist was having an affair, and the woman got pregnant, and wouldn't abort the baby, so he planted a bomb in her bag when she was supposed to be travelling back to meet his family. The only reason they found it was because she had a scientific caclulator and didn't know how to work it, so they got suspicious. This system isn't the best thing out there, but it's something we need to use.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Privacy over safety...it's just a matter of time before the US airlines are struck again. Air travelers want it all. Security that is fast, non-evasive and non-threating. $18 BILLION and the airlines are still not safe. But what do I care, I quit flying because of the checkpoint bulls*it one has to go through...this coming from someone who works for an airline. Let's get rid of the $5 rent-a-cops in federal uniforms.

Funny story sorta off topic about securty...these "rent-a-security-persons" are not trained in how to check the authenticity of a company badge. That is another "group" of people who are given that authority. Yet these two groups report to a TSA representative. Let's string up some more of this politcal red tape across security checkpoints.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I used to be a checkpoint supervisor before the TSA came along, and ran a two lane checkpoint with 7 positions required, with 6 people. I was listening to a TSA supervisor one night complaining about how he only had 9 people to run one lane at the same checkpoint. One lane requires at the most 4 people in the checkpoint.

As far as the Secure 1000 goes, we're gonna eventually have to make a choice between privacy and security. We can have the extra screening, and be more secure, or we can have the added privacy.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Ya kind of have to wonder though... whats more embarassing: walking into a scanner for a few seconds OR having some security personal using that metal wand thing and have you spread your arms and legs with your shoes off. I would choose the scanner. Its less embarassing and quicker and is more effective (IE: will detect other devices other then just metal ones).


Heres some pics of what you can expect the security personnel to see.





There faces arn't revealed...so its not like it would be something that would do damage to you if it found its way on to the internet.

Its either that...or this..... (caution nudity)
The "Easy-Search" method

I wouldn't mind the scanner thing...I think they should give the person the option...either walk threw the scanner, or do the whole spread em and search routine.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
another promising scanner is the "explosives detection trace portal", otherwise known as the "puffer" machine. Its non-intrusive, it has these little noziles all over it, once you step into it the security guy gives it the 'go' and from your feet to your head it uses puffs of air to puch it upwards into the scanner portion, so if you had explosives on you are were messing with them earlier in the day you hands would still have small traces on them which would be detected. It can do 400 people an hour.



Now they just need to combine the X-Ray machine with the "puffer" and with the metal detector and still have it be quick and make the machine cost effective and they could have several at every airport.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
"...cost effective..."

How many more BILLIONS is the government willing to throw into a dark, bottomless pit? And for what guarantee? Ah, none? Two words...RACIAL PROFILING! It's not too late to start.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join