Talk:Full body scanner

	Full body scanner is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oppose merge. There are many types of scan, and the millimeter wave scanner is a specific kind. Badagnani (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. The method can be used for more than security. Tealwisp 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)
Oppose merge. I agree with Tealwisp above. mmW scanning has many other uses besides security scanning a person. For example, it is also being developed for use by high-resolution radar imaging, at higher powers than are used with security scanning a person. Brianonn (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Close reading of the Security Scan article indicates that it is nothing more than an advertising "puff piece" for a millimeter wave product of the same name. Thus, even the article's title is the registered product name of the item described, as is the single citation. This listing should be deleted altogether. Comment by Thomas L. Norman, CPP/PSP/CSC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.81.159.18 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Q: How long does it take to be scanned?

A: The machines are getting faster but still can take up to 15 seconds to scan a traveler, which could make the process slower than using metal detectors. from - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_airport_screening_q_a

in reference to: "Two advantages over a frisk are that it is quicker (takes only 3 seconds)..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawnto8thsquare (talk • contribs) 04:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Sucks[edit]

For such a timely issue, it's amazing to see how bad it is. I did some improvements to it and will come back to it later. Hanxu9 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started making some improvements. Let99 (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For more "sucks"... The description of the technology calls it a "virtual strip search" as if this is fact. The words "strip search" are offensive, bringing in imagery of physical contact, discomfort, pain, humiliation, and rubber gloves. The term is also used almost exclusively by opposition and media quoting opposition. 130.76.96.22 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. A "strip search" is a search involving visual inspection of the naked body whether the clothes are stripped physically or virtually. Let99 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com defines Strip Search as: "to search (a suspect who has been required to remove all clothing) esp. for concealed weapons, contraband, or evidence of drug abuse," and people using the full-body scanners are not required to remove their clothes. The scan is probably equivalent to a "virtual strip search," but that's a matter of opinion. And even if it isn't, I dont' see why it's so necessary to use loaded language like that in this article. Doing a quick search, every comparison of the scanners to a strip search I found was using it to be negative and critical. And calling it a "virtual strip search" is not even a clear way to describe what the scanner is actually doing. I'm personally against the scanners but the language in the first sentence is just way too POV, even to me. --Aronoel (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com is not up to date with technology. The phrase "strip search" means to remove (strip) clothes. Technology now removes clothes without physically touching a person. www.infowars.com/inverted-body-scanner-image-shows-naked-body-in-full-living-color/ ^{infowars.com does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} Here's an example of what the machines do]. She has been stripped.Let99 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That infowars article was written by someone taken in by a hoax. I have removed reference to it in the page. See http://www.tatumba.com/blog/archives/1369. Rob Worsnop (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good callLet99 (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find a clearer, less loaded way to describe what the scanners do. There's absolutely no reason to use these particular words if they make people question this article's neutrality. --Aronoel (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strip search though. That is the reason. Strip search means to remove clothes to search for hidden items. That is what these machines do. The word "virtual" is in there to make it clear.Let99 (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it sucks, but not for the same reasons. Forget the controversy, how about technical info on how the image is generated? At the least, what's the final imaging device? Is it more like MRI, flat bed scanners, or does it use an X-Ray sensitive area sensor? What's the source and precise frequency of the radiation? How much smoothing is done on the results? Does it have a depth control? What's the life of the components? 65.60.123.67 (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)danl999[reply]

Proposed Name Change[edit]

The title "Security scan" is not the terminology used in the media. The article's title should be changed to Full Body Scan or Full Body Scanner. Let99 (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Full Body Scanner because that is the common name of the topic (Help:Moving_a_page). It's a major media issue in travel and no one calls it a "security scan." It is referred to as "full body scanner" by the media and in common speech. Let99 (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Edits[edit]

Added some inter-wiki links, fixed formatting. Removed a few statements that were in colloquial speech. Provided counterpoints to balance. Still working on it. Let99 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "strongly disagree," which applies to every statement of a controversial issue, I'll add the exact quote from the press release. Also, the press release doesn't say "strongly", it says backscatter x-ray body scanners "can be used mostly without regard to the number of individuals scanned or the number of scans per individual in a year." [emphasis mine]

Statements like this require a source:

But manufacturers and the TSA claim this is not possible given the way machines are designed. Regardless, there is clearly extensive public interest in the safety of these machines and many persons on both sides; some who wish to encourage deployment of the technology and others who wish to create fear in the public's mind and continue to find ways to do create that perception of fear.

You are adding some good sources, though it looks like you work either for the TSA or for a company that supplies equipment to the TSA. You can add more info, but it needs a source, and phrases like "complete refute" are your own personal opinion. If a credible source uses those words, feel free to include the exact quote. Otherwise, "strongly" is a word that could be applied to most statements on both sides of the issue.

I also reworded some statements to fit the article better. Let99 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed defensive language that looks like it was written by someone at the TSA or another involved party. Cite a credible source or official release. It's not a personal debate where you argue your personal point. If you want to say "However this same report provides no evidence that 'all other things are equal' and provides no rationalization for excluding the use of Backscatter X-ray when at the same time saying that 'there are no known health risks'" then cite a source that shows in what way the technologies are not equal. Let99 (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In wikipedia's policy, it says to maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view, but reading this article seems that inclination is given towards security over personal right. Afterall security is for better life, and many of us don't feel life to be better if personal rights are breached. If the term "opponent" is used for supporters of privacy right, then why not "pro" term is used for those against it? I doubt the contributors of this article whether they are really unbiased or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.25.23.94 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANSI N43.17 standard[edit]

What is the ANSI N43.17 standard? Where can people read it? Let99 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

I moved Wiki907's comments about the article from my user page to this talk page: Let99 (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding full body scanner page... Why should language remain in the article from sources like David Brenner that have been discredited by NCRP, FDA etc. etc. Shouldn't these be taken down? Then any kook can publish a story...doesn't mean its true just because you can reference it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki907 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote this:

However, the European Commission report provides no data substantiating the claim that "all other conditions are equal". In fact, the report presents no data whatsoever substantiating this claim^[1]. Individual users in the US and the UK (like TSA for example) have chosen to use Backscatter X-ray scanners based on data that is in their possession. One area where Backscatter X-ray scanners can provide better performance than MM wave scanners, for example, is in the inspection of the shoes, groin and armpit regions of the body ^[2]. Proponents of Backscatter technology therefore question the motives behind some of the commission's conclusions. Opponents of Backscatter X-ray technology, have taken the report's unsubstantiated conclusions (in this topic area) as statements of support for MM wave technology.

I edited it, but did not revert it. You reverted my edit. I'm reverting it back and will explain why below. If you want to change it, don't revert it, but edit it to make a new, improved version.

Line by line:

"However, the European Commission report provides no data substantiating the claim that "all other conditions are equal"."

That is fine -- I left it.

In fact, the report presents no data whatsoever substantiating this claim^[3]

You can't say "in fact" -- that is your personal opinion. Also, "whatsoever" is your personal opinion. The reference has already been cited so this line is redundant.

Individual users in the US and the UK (like TSA for example) have chosen to use Backscatter X-ray scanners based on data that is in their possession.

That is obvious. It sounds like a defensive person arguing. Why not just say, "opponents of backscatter x-ray machines are strongly against backscatter x-rays because of data that is in their possession"? The data are public. Both sides have the same data. The statement is redundant.

One area where Backscatter X-ray scanners can provide better performance than MM wave scanners, for example, is in the inspection of the shoes, groin and armpit regions of the body ^[4].

Left the above statement.

Opponents of Backscatter X-ray technology, have taken the report's unsubstantiated conclusions (in this topic area) as statements of support for MM wave technology.

Where is a source for that? It sounds like your personal opinion. Of course it's support for MM wave technology over backscatter X-ray. The report also says why. Even people who oppose "full body scanners" prefer to be scanned with MM vs. ionizing radiation.

I've reverted your revert of my edit. If you want to change, it please edit, don't revert. Discuss here on the talk page if you have a comment.Let99 (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, David Brenner's comments haven't been "discredited," but have been backed up by other researchers at University of California. You can post a reference to someone who disagrees with Brenner, but not remove Brenner's media comments. Anyway, what does the FDA have to do with backscatter x-rays? Let99 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background radiation or in-flight radiation? - These statements from the article are contradictory. I think the first is incorrect: "But background radiation compares to backscatter X-ray scanners as diffuse light compares to focused light, and the same amount of radiation experienced in four minutes of background exposure (the TSA limit)"

versus "the national radiation safety standard (see below) sets a dose per screening limit for the general-use category. To meet the requirements of the general-use category a full-body x-ray security system must deliver less than the dose a person receives during 4 minutes of airline flight." 65.96.31.14 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure Requirements?[edit]

Are there laws that require US Government employees and/or contractors to disclose their associations with a topic when creating public media, like editing Wikipedia? Just curious. Let99 (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most government employees are told in no uncertain terms that they are not to disclose details of their workplace unless specifically told to by a management level supervisor. This is done for many reasons, mostly unrelated to "National Security" issues. As for "disclosure" rules... You must be kidding! The Wall Street Journal and Fox News would be out of business tomorrow if they disclosed their editors "consulting" associations with government agencies!

I'm asking because it looks like someone from the TSA (US Government) was heavily editing this article. Let99 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation Levels[edit]

TSA admits bungling of airport body scanner radiation tests--Nemissimo (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries using full body scanners[edit]

Can we get a list of countries which uses the scans and which dont? Pass a Method talk 21:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is about to introduce compulsory full body scanning to international terminals also see Flyertalk - list of airports with full body scanners.Troll-Life (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

This article could, and to some extent does, provide useful, interesting information. Unfortunately, the numerous long block-quotes make it annoying and tedious to read. If possible, I think more summarizing/paraphrasing and fewer direct quotes would really improve the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should make the changes yourself instead of bitching/whining about it. Hanxu9 (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://www.riseproject.eu/_fileupload/ETHICS%20OF%20BODY%20SCANNER%20POLICY%20REPORT%20NEW.pdf, see bullet 3 on page 6 of 47
^ http://www.tek84.com/bodyscanner-more.html
^ http://www.riseproject.eu/_fileupload/ETHICS%20OF%20BODY%20SCANNER%20POLICY%20REPORT%20NEW.pdf, see bullet 3 on page 6 of 47
^ http://www.tek84.com/bodyscanner-more.html

9 year old boy by passed TSA.[edit]

Although airports across the nation have tightened its security system there seem to be some lapses sometimes.For instance,a 9 year old boy managed to outsmart TSA officials and boarded a flight from the Twin Cities to LAX.Should I add this on to the full body scanner article?Naakyea (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the TSA usually expected to prevent 9-year-old boys from boarding any flights? Perhaps because they are highly dangerous? Are 8 and 10 year-olds okay? I don't see how this is relevant, unless you're really saying that a 9-year-old boy managed to smuggle a banned object onto a flight past full-body-scanners. A boy simply managing to board a flight is not news. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in favor[edit]

I believe the introduction was NPOV in its explanation of how the technology works. Previously it described that the system did detection and that the operator could not see detailed imagery. However, the main privacy complaint is that if the information is generated it may be misused. Therefore, I have clarified this by adding the critical sentence: "Generally, this is generated by creating a detailed image of the person's naked body and any non-clothing artifacts on their person" which describes the actual body scanner machine. Afterwards, the introduction continues to discuss minimization in how the operator may not see the original detailed image. I think this distinction is important because this article is titled "Full body scanner" not "Full body scanner operators". Please share your thoughts on this point. Full Decent (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have made several other edits which bring attention to the concerns of privacy minded individuals. I believe this is written in a balanced way, but am requesting review by the community to confirm that my additions have been encyclopedic. Full Decent (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Full body scanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Full body scanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130601134012/http://flyingpasties.com/ to http://www.flyingpasties.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Child pornography?[edit]

"May be used to create child pornography"? That is one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard in my life. The quality of the images generated is nowhere near clear enough to be pornography, certainly not the sort to be distributed. At worst, you get an operator who's a pedophile, he might feel a bit aroused by the sense of voyeurism when a child passes through the scanner, but it's not something you could distribute. It doesn't show anything that pictures of kids in bathing suits show. Hell, the web is full of "naturalist/nudist" sites, full fo images of naked children. There are hundreds of "child modeling agencies" online full of pictures of children posing suggestively, wearing very little clothing. And that's in addition to all the actual nude and/or hardcore child porn that can be gotten relatively easily (if it couldn't, it wouldn't be a multi-million dollar industry). I don't think that blurry x-ray images from an airport are something to worry about, even if the operator had some easy way of recording the images and bringing them home with him (or her, actually, to be honest). My only consolation is that this is probably just another attempt by people who are desperate to find any argument against scanners that they can; if logical and coherent isn't cutting it, then accuse the enemy of making child pornography, see if you can't get a witch hunt going. The way people overreact at the slightest hint of this issue makes me ill; see Bill Henson. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even cartoon representations of child pornography violate current US Federal Law, and people are currently in prison for possession and distribution of anime and Simpsons-themed pornographic content. The images captured by these machines would be in violation of child pornography laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion and discussion[edit]

Several of my edits have been reverted by @Bgwhite. I have updated one of them now to include better references (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Full_body_scanner&oldid=720728739). But another unclear/misleading item is now back in the article:

* "In the U.S., TSA currently uses Millimeter Wave AIT scanners exclusively, which show no identifying characteristics of the person being scanned." This is an equivocation. The clause "to the operator" should be added. Maybe this is too much, but we can clarify: "it should be noted that although that standard operating procedure does not allow the operator to see the detailed images, those images are still collected by the machine."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulldecent (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Full body scanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Full body scanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120020329/http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/634724.html to http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/634724.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Backscatter x-ray image of TSA Security Laboratory Director Susan Hallowell[edit]

I suggest that this image should be deleted because it does not illustrate the technology currently used: "An image of Susan Hallowell, Director of the Transportation Security Administration's research lab. [1] taken with backscatter x-ray system, which is in use for airport security passenger screening. This is not the image that screeners see at the airports. The machine that took this image does not have the privacy algorithm." Rwood128 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell "pictures of naked bodies" are no longer allowed/recorded, and unless there are objections I will edit accordingly. Rwood128 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Full body scanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usage at London rail stations[edit]

This edit was reverted because it was an advert. The BBC (original story) doesn't do adverts, so I'm reinstating it, with the useful link to the manufacturer removed.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: the disputed edit helps towards dealing with the outstanding {{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|}} tag heading the page.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messurement of independent safety[edit]

Sandia National Laboratories, measurements made July 1991. Published as Sandia Report: Evaluation Tests of the SECURE 1000 Scanning System (1992), National Technical Information Service, DE92013773 FDA, dose measurements re-verified via computational evaluation, September 15, 1998 N43.17 working group, measurements made at Folsom State Prison on November 15, 1999 FDA & NIST, Assessment for TSA, July 21, 2006 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU APL), Assessment for TSA, October 2009

following sources could be used to expand the US history section or be used to add a completely new section. this could be used to expand the statement about safety aspects " Safety aspects of the Secure 1000 have been assessed in the US by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and other independent sources since the early 1990s." Sauceboss12 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

body scanner reai[edit]

Subobakse@gmail 103.159.99.226 (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.riseproject.eu/_fileupload/ETHICS%20OF%20BODY%20SCANNER%20POLICY%20REPORT%20NEW.pdf, see bullet 3 on page 6 of 47

[2] ttp://www.tek84.com/bodyscanner-more.html

[3] ttp://www.riseproject.eu/_fileupload/ETHICS%20OF%20BODY%20SCANNER%20POLICY%20REPORT%20NEW.pdf, see bullet 3 on page 6 of 47

[4] ttp://www.tek84.com/bodyscanner-more.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]