3 ms·

EM Radiation with a frequency of 500MHz to 5Ghz has wavelengths in the tens of centimeters. It is completely harmless and utterly unusable for „viewing naked bo

EM Radiation with a frequency of 500MHz to 5Ghz has wavelengths in the tens of centimeters. It is completely harmless and utterly unusable for „viewing naked bodies“. People have studied EM radiation for a very long time, and we know what‘s dangerous. Xray is dangerous, UV at high intensity is also dangerous, radio frequncy/micro wave is harmless (unless you go to really high intensities, but then you’d fry all electronics nearby) Maybe check a physics textbook before you get all worked up. Edit: Also, this technology is completely different and has absolutely nothing in common with millimeter wave scanners.

crx087 9y ago
What about pacemakers?
- jakobegger 9y ago
  Depends on the intensity of the radiation. Radio frequency and microwave band emissions are strictly regulated, so if they want to sell these devices, they need to keep emissions below a limit, just like Wifi routers and Microwave ovens.
hammock 9y ago
>this technology is completely different and has absolutely nothing in common with millimeter wave scanners Do you have a source? It's described as using an antenna and a receiver, which is exactly how the naked scanners at the airport work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner#Technical_details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner#Techni... They may use different frequencies (airport scanners are in 24–30 GHz band) but it's the same technology.
- jakobegger 9y ago
  Microwave radiation just isn‘t suitable for imaging people. Google for „diffraction limit“ to learn why. That‘s why the devices in this article, unlike millimeter wave scanners, can‘t create an image of the scanned subjects. (and it’s also the reason why why millimeter wave scanners make very blurry images). Instead, these detectors look for resonances in the emmitted spectrum. The article was a bit light on details, but this description sounds very much like an old school metal detector, rather than an imaging device.

crx087 9y ago

What about pacemakers?

jakobegger 9y ago
Depends on the intensity of the radiation. Radio frequency and microwave band emissions are strictly regulated, so if they want to sell these devices, they need to keep emissions below a limit, just like Wifi routers and Microwave ovens.

hammock 9y ago

>this technology is completely different and has absolutely nothing in common with millimeter wave scanners Do you have a source? It's described as using an antenna and a receiver, which is exactly how the naked scanners at the airport work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner#Technical_details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner#Techni... They may use different frequencies (airport scanners are in 24–30 GHz band) but it's the same technology.

jakobegger 9y ago
Microwave radiation just isn‘t suitable for imaging people. Google for „diffraction limit“ to learn why. That‘s why the devices in this article, unlike millimeter wave scanners, can‘t create an image of the scanned subjects. (and it’s also the reason why why millimeter wave scanners make very blurry images). Instead, these detectors look for resonances in the emmitted spectrum. The article was a bit light on details, but this description sounds very much like an old school metal detector, rather than an imaging device.