Airport sensor detects explosives hidden in the body
Busting body bombers
Share
The latest airport-security scanner aimed at combating the threat of suicide ’body bombers’ has been unveiled to government officials.
The scanner would be used to address the threat of suicide ‘body bombers’ at airports
Smiths Detection demonstrated the 16HR-LD model of its B-Scan technology at the Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB) exhibition in Farnborough last week.
According to the Watford-based firm, the transmission X-ray scanner is the first low-dose security technology that is able to see all internal body cavities for thedetection of concealed threatening objects, such as bombs and detonators.
Colin Moynihan, Smiths B-Scan product development manager, said that, used as part of a layered approach, the scanner will be useful for addressing the increasing threat posed by terrorists carrying explosives that have been surgically implanted inside their bodies.
’There are no parts of the body internally that it cannot see,’ he said. ’That’s one of the unique things about the system and, at the moment, there isn’t any other technology in the aviation market that is able to do this.’
Currently, officials who would like to carry out a full body examination of a passenger will take them to hospital and expose them to high-dose X-ray imaging. Moynihan claims the 16HR-LD can do this just as effectively using 25 times less radiation. ’The geometry of the beam means that we can scan from the top of the head down to the toes, including the shoes,’ he said.
“The unique thing about the technology is there are no internal parts of the body that it cannot see”
Since September 2009, the company has adapted its B-Scan technology to reduce its ionising radiation dose, making it equal to that of backscatter scanners. It has also been using improved software algorithms to provide better-quality images.
Smiths claims that technology such as 16HR-LD could have increased the probability of stopping the failed attempt to blow up Northwest Airlines’ Flight 253, bound for Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport on Christmas day 2009.
Moynihan said: ’Used as part of a screening process, the technology would certainly increase the probability of detecting suicide bombers with devices surgically implanted inside them. Our testing has proved that it is very effective and we’re about to begin trials in the US and UK.’
Readers' comments (9)
Tim Jones | 22 Mar 2010 3:22 pm
So someone commuting (say) to Europe once a week will pass through a scanner twice a week, approximately 100 times a year equivalent to 4 full doses of X ray radiation every year...Surely there are health implications here?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22 Mar 2010 3:44 pm
Re Tim Jones' comment.
Anyone flying 100 times per year is already exposing themselves to a high level of Ionising radiation. From any viewpoint, such frequent flight is bad for the individual, let alone the planet!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22 Mar 2010 4:11 pm
Re. Tim Jones comment.
Environmental considerations aside, surely the health implications of having a huge hole ripped in the side of your plane at 35,000 feet are far, far worse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian M | 22 Mar 2010 5:29 pm
When will these scanner manufacturers get it through their greedy heads that the only safe dose of ionising radiation is NONE. It’s totally unacceptable to expose anyone to ionising radiation without good medical reason, and security is not a medical one - Effectively its assault.
Mistakes happen; even in hospitals use of X-rays has resulted in injury or death due to poor calibration/equipment malfunction – Goodness knows the risk in the ‘cowboy’ security industry.
It’s not technology that’s required, just some old fashioned common sense. If a father phones up to say his son is a risk, you do something about it - but heck why let common sense get in the way of profit!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Libman | 22 Mar 2010 5:30 pm
I really that they don't seariously think that using X-Rays is the answer to this difficult problem; regular flyers will soon get more than their recommened maximum dose of radiation, what would they do then: stop flying? In the long run the machine itself would probably kill more people than it saves!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22 Mar 2010 7:57 pm
A typical CT scan radiates 10milli Seiverts (mSv), natural background
average UK radiation dose is 2.6 milli Seiverts (mSv) and the highest average is in Cornwall, where naturally-occurring radioactive radon gas raises this to 7.8 mSv.
A frequent flyer aloft for around 100 hours a year would receive an additional annual dose of approximately 0.4 mSv.
The article does not say what level is radiated but at 25 less than the highest the level would be 0.4mSv, which is about the same as 100hrs flying and a lot less than living in Cornwall.
Flying is not a compulsory lifestyle but we do need to screen out lunatics.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Mar 2010 7:22 am
The sad truth is that someone willing to give their life is not even slightly restricted with all of these various security measures. I.E. Passenger enters security area with two bags of carry on, each carries the maximum weight in explosives and detonator. As they come to inspection they detonate... How many die as the security area is demolished? If someone wishes to create terror, there is nothing you can do... The solution is to find why they are willing to go to this extent and fix the problem... How many civil rights are we willing to give away in a vain attempt to ignore reality?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24 Mar 2010 3:22 pm
A recent article in the IEEE Spectrum magazine summarised the minimal risks from X-ray backscatter scanners.
A scan exposes a passenger to a tiny amount of ionizing radiation. American Science and Engineering (AS&E) says one scan from its machine exposes a person to less than 0.1 microsievert of radiation, the equivalent of less than 10 microrem. By comparison, a passenger will get 3 microsievert of radiation from one hour in the air. Normal background radiation is about 8 microsievert per day, and a chest X-ray delivers about 100 microsievert. ”When you fly in an airplane, you’ll get the same radiation dose in two minutes on that flight as you will from one scan in our SmartCheck scanner device,” Reiss says.
The National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP) says the extra health risk of anything less than 10 microsievert annually, which it labels a ”negligible individual dose,” is so low that it’s not worth taking extra steps to avoid. In a report on security X-ray scanners, the NCRP says it would take 2500 scans a year to meet its lower threshold for concern and that special precautions were not needed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nick B | 24 Mar 2010 4:23 pm
The recent comment (anon, 3.22pm 24th March) was a breath of fresh air. Sure, these comment areas aren't restricted just to those with clarity of thought and an ability to articulate their thoughts well. BUT - people love to cloud issues with emotional clutter, failing to consider the wider picture. Assuming that the NCRP figures are valid (not a huge assumption!) then I would say 'case closed' and would worry more about the slow barbequeing of my insides by evil death-ray installations. (Mobile phone masts).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment