# So just what do the new airport scanners catch that a metal detector can't? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 17, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032 "2010-11-17T23:10:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/41 "2010-11-19T17:49:38Z")
> [@ashenRiot](#): > > Bad news, [Gizmodo](http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans) recently had a post about the TSAs in Orlando saving body scan images. Granted, the faces are obscured in the link but I’m sure in the originals they are clear. Either way, there they are, on the internet. > > As to the OP, I recently “failed” a scan cause I had forgotten to take a lighter out of my pocket. The pat down didn’t really bother me but it was annoying since it slowed us down. Read more carefully. It wasn’t TSA. It was the U.S. Marshals at a Federal courthouse. This was their press release on the subject: [U.S. Marshals Response to Body Scan in Orlando Courthouse](http://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2010/080510a.htm) TSA’s scanners are supposed to have their save and print functions disabled by the manufacturer before delivery. Until I see evidence to the contrary I’ll assume this is true. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/42 "2010-11-19T17:52:53Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I read the full body scanners can not pick up plastics, liquids or chemicals. So how are they better than a metal detector? > Answer: they make passengers feel safer. That is what they are after. Then you read some misinformation, because they pick up anything that doesn’t behave (to gamma rays) like skin. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/43 "2010-11-19T17:55:55Z")
> [@ratatoskK](#): > > Yes but if millions of people go through thousands of machines, over time the chance of a screw-up of some sort is pretty likely, in my opinion. Why? The machines are built to emit very low-power gamma rays. They’re not designed like medical equipment to have variable high-power output. This is the sort of fear-mongering that was associated with microwave ovens 30 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/44 "2010-11-19T21:12:02Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Why? The machines are built to emit very low-power gamma rays. They’re not designed like medical equipment to have variable high-power output. This is the sort of fear-mongering that was associated with microwave ovens 30 years ago. Problem with that analogy - microwave ovens are supposed to irradiate what’s inside the oven, so the health problems that microwaves will cause can be stopped with adequate shielding. Since microwaves will bounce off of metal, and are relatively large to boot, this is not a hard thing to accomplish. OTOH, these scanners are aimed directly at a person’s body. In addtion, any effective shielding would cancel the stated purpose of the scan. ---
**Author:** ![Improvisor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/50afbb/32.png) [@Improvisor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Improvisor)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2010, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/45 "2010-11-20T05:17:48Z")
My complaint about them is not what they can see or can’t see or the pat down if you refuse, but it takes FOREVER to get through security now. I’ve flown twice since they have been installed, and the wait in the security lines are awful. I think the s\*\*\* is gonna hit the fan this Thanksgiving travel season when it takes hours for traveling families to make it through security. ---
**Author:** ![ashenRiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/65b543/32.png) [@ashenRiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashenRiot)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2010, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/46 "2010-11-20T06:15:22Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > Read more carefully. It wasn’t TSA. It was the U.S. Marshals at a Federal courthouse. This was their press release on the subject: > > [U.S. Marshals Response to Body Scan in Orlando Courthouse](http://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2010/080510a.htm) > > TSA’s scanners are supposed to have their save and print functions disabled by the manufacturer before delivery. Until I see evidence to the contrary I’ll assume this is true. DOH! :smack: my mistake. But i think the point can still be made… they are body scans, and they are out on the internet. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2010, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/47 "2010-11-20T07:14:52Z")
> [@Zyada](#): > > How are you getting this number? > > And I’m still trying to figure out what you mean by putting scientist in quotes. Are you saying that [this guy](http://en.scientificcommons.org/john_w_sedat.)isn’t really a scientist? There is nothing in his CV to indicate that he has any expertise in the area of Health Physics. As far as this area is concerned his is just another layman. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_Physics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Physics) ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/48 "2010-11-21T04:46:35Z")
Looking at the research that Sedat is doing, I will concede that he is not doing research on the effects of radiation on organisms; however he is doing research on the cellular structures that ionizing radiation affects, so I think this makes him much less of a layman on this subject than you or I. I went to the Health Physics Society’s home site and found the following. From [here](http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8440.html): > [@](#): > > the idea that these x rays “penetrate clothing and not skin” is pretty misleading. While there isn’t much absorbed radiation in the body, there is some. The society’s [position on the scanner](http://hps.org/documents/securityscreening_ps017-1.pdf) can be summed up as thus: > [@](#): > > 1. The practice should be limited to those applications that result in an overall net benefit to society. > 2. When the practice is used to screen members of the general public, screening systems and their use should > conform to the requirements of ANSI/HPS N43.17.1 This Standard limits the reference effective dose2 delivered > to the subject to 0.25 microsieverts (25 microrem) per screening. Additionally, a screening facility should not > expose any individual to more than 250 microsieverts (25 millirem) reference effective dose in a year. > 3. Subjects should be informed of the radiation exposure. This leads me to these thoughts: 1. IMO, not only no, but hell, no. 2. If the scanners are conforming to the requirements, then it would take 3-4 exposures per day to fall outside of their recommendations. Do people working in the secured areas have to get re-scanned every time they go out for a smoke? And has TSA made sure that the scanners they are using do conform to these requirements? 3. Is this really happening? ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032/49 "2010-11-22T14:04:20Z")
> [@ashenRiot](#): > > DOH! :smack: my mistake. But i think the point can still be made… they are body scans, and they are out on the internet. Irrelevant. The only reason the courthouse pictures got out is that they were released as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. Unlike the Department of Justice TSA regulations specifically exempt electronic images from screening equipment from FOIA. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-just-what-do-the-new-airport-scanners-catch-that-a-metal-detector-cant/561032.md?page=2)