4 ms·

Is this going to be safe for pregnant women and the like? I seem to recall that was one reason to opt out at the airport.

scotty79 7y ago
I'd rather be concerned if this is safe for prone for melanoma.
Jach 7y ago
That seems like a weird reason since the radiation counter argument was typically countered by pointing out the radiation from the flight itself likely exceeded the scan by a lot. This is likely about as safe as wifi. The paper someone linked describes a system using around 24-30 GHz microwaves, one of the company blogs says the power they transmit at those frequencies is even less than a typical router. This isn't unusual. You can see a list of over 800 FCC approved devices in that frequency range here: https://fccid.io/frequency-explorer.php?lower=24000&upper=30000&within https://fccid.io/frequency-explorer.php?lower=24000&upper=30... (I also didn't see anything there for Liberty Defense, the company suspects they'll have a product ready by 2020 but we'll see. Radar and imaging applications are tricky, this company could implode beforehand.)
- djsumdog 7y ago
  You need to keep in mind the first body scanners were not millimeter wave scanner. They were much more dangerous back scatter x-ray machines.
- mffnbs 7y ago
  > That seems like a weird reason since the radiation counter argument was typically countered by pointing out the radiation from the flight itself likely exceeded the scan by a lot. Doctors often advise pregnant women not to fly at certain stages of their pregnancy. I can't imagine a doctor would advise pregnant women to enter these security theaters for literally no reason.
  - jobigoud 7y ago
    > Doctors often advise pregnant women not to fly at certain stages of their pregnancy. More likely related to turbulences and avoiding entering labor while on a flight and difficulty using the seat belt.
typeliftr 7y ago
AFAIK, metal detectors (the standing ones) use a simple coil and a receiver on the other side to detect changes in the EM field. The hand-help ones like these ones use either radio waves or microwaves to scan for metal, so non-ionizing radiation. In both cases metal detectors should be safe.
carlob 7y ago
You don't need to have any reason to opt-out from millimeter wave scanners. Just ask for a pat down. I do it all the time when traveling to the US, because I think these machines are useless, expensive and invasive. If enough people did this a simple, legal, act of civil disobedience would force the TSA to rethink the way they operate.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Yes, opt out every time. (With pre-check, I don't have to as often, but every time I'm offered a US-run scanner, I opt out.) Might as well get my money's worth from the security theater... (NB: I'm a quite frequent flier and I've only ever seen one other person opt out; that was leaving a tech conference in Vegas.)

scotty79 7y ago

I'd rather be concerned if this is safe for prone for melanoma.

Jach 7y ago

That seems like a weird reason since the radiation counter argument was typically countered by pointing out the radiation from the flight itself likely exceeded the scan by a lot. This is likely about as safe as wifi. The paper someone linked describes a system using around 24-30 GHz microwaves, one of the company blogs says the power they transmit at those frequencies is even less than a typical router. This isn't unusual. You can see a list of over 800 FCC approved devices in that frequency range here: https://fccid.io/frequency-explorer.php?lower=24000&upper=30000&within https://fccid.io/frequency-explorer.php?lower=24000&upper=30... (I also didn't see anything there for Liberty Defense, the company suspects they'll have a product ready by 2020 but we'll see. Radar and imaging applications are tricky, this company could implode beforehand.)

djsumdog 7y ago
You need to keep in mind the first body scanners were not millimeter wave scanner. They were much more dangerous back scatter x-ray machines.
mffnbs 7y ago
> That seems like a weird reason since the radiation counter argument was typically countered by pointing out the radiation from the flight itself likely exceeded the scan by a lot. Doctors often advise pregnant women not to fly at certain stages of their pregnancy. I can't imagine a doctor would advise pregnant women to enter these security theaters for literally no reason.
- jobigoud 7y ago
  > Doctors often advise pregnant women not to fly at certain stages of their pregnancy. More likely related to turbulences and avoiding entering labor while on a flight and difficulty using the seat belt.

typeliftr 7y ago

AFAIK, metal detectors (the standing ones) use a simple coil and a receiver on the other side to detect changes in the EM field. The hand-help ones like these ones use either radio waves or microwaves to scan for metal, so non-ionizing radiation. In both cases metal detectors should be safe.

carlob 7y ago

You don't need to have any reason to opt-out from millimeter wave scanners. Just ask for a pat down. I do it all the time when traveling to the US, because I think these machines are useless, expensive and invasive. If enough people did this a simple, legal, act of civil disobedience would force the TSA to rethink the way they operate.

sokoloff 7y ago
Yes, opt out every time. (With pre-check, I don't have to as often, but every time I'm offered a US-run scanner, I opt out.) Might as well get my money's worth from the security theater... (NB: I'm a quite frequent flier and I've only ever seen one other person opt out; that was leaving a tech conference in Vegas.)