Body Scanners: Are They Still Used At Airports?

Do airports still use body scanners? The short answer is yes. Airports around the world have been using body scanners since 2007, when they began to supplement metal detectors. There are three types of body scanners: millimeter wave scanners, X-ray-based scanners, and infra-red thermal conductivity scanners. While some critics have raised concerns about health and privacy, body scanners are still in use at many airports as a way to detect non-metallic objects on passengers and thus improve security.

Privacy concerns

One of the primary privacy concerns relates to the level of detail that body scanners can reveal about an individual's body. Early versions of body scanners, particularly the backscatter technology, produced graphic images that revealed a person's private parts and intimate details such as nipples, genitalia, and the outlines of underwear. These images were viewed by security officers, raising concerns about the potential for misuse or distribution of such sensitive information. In response to these concerns, airports started adopting millimeter-wave technology, which provides a more cartoon-like image and blurs facial features to protect anonymity.

However, privacy advocates continue to question the extent to which passengers may unwittingly reveal personal details through whole-body imaging. For instance, body scanners can detect items such as prosthetics, colostomy bags, and catheters, which individuals may want to keep private. Additionally, there have been concerns about the potential for body scanners to be used for virtual strip searches without probable cause, violating basic human rights and privacy laws.

Another issue that has been raised is the storage and transmission of images. While authorities, such as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the United States, have asserted that images are not stored or transmitted, there have been instances where images have been recorded and even disseminated. In 2010, for example, the US Marshals Service saved thousands of images from a millimeter-wave scanner, and in the same year, 100 out of 35,000 body scan images were leaked online. These incidents have understandably heightened privacy concerns and led to increased scrutiny of the use of body scanners in airports.

The use of body scanners has also raised concerns about the potential for discrimination and unfair treatment of certain individuals or groups. For instance, transgender individuals have reported that full-body scanners have falsely raised alarms based on their anatomy, leading to potential embarrassment and harassment. Additionally, there have been reports of women feeling singled out for repeated screening, as well as concerns about the treatment of religious minorities who wear head coverings or loose clothing.

Lastly, privacy advocates have questioned the necessity of body scanners, arguing that there are alternative methods to ensure security without compromising privacy. These alternatives include chemical-based scanners, bomb-sniffing dogs, and passenger profiling techniques used in countries like Israel.

While the adoption of millimeter-wave technology and privacy safeguards has addressed some of the initial privacy concerns, the debate surrounding the use of body scanners in airports continues, with privacy advocates calling for further protections and transparency in the use of this technology.

Health concerns

The use of body scanners in airports has raised concerns about the potential health risks associated with them. While some scanners use millimeter waves, which are a form of non-ionizing radiation, other scanners use X-rays, a form of ionizing radiation that can cause cancer and other health problems.

Ionizing radiation has enough energy to knock electrons away from atoms, creating free radicals that can damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer. The potential for this type of radiation to cause damage depends on the dose. At low doses, radiation causes biological damage, but cells can repair this damage rapidly. At moderate doses, cells can be permanently changed, becoming cancerous or leading to other abnormalities. At even higher doses, cells cannot be replaced quickly enough, and serious health problems can arise.

Backscatter X-ray scanners, which are commonly used in U.S. airports, use low doses of ionizing radiation to detect suspicious objects hidden under clothing or in the body's cavities. The dosage of radiation received is typically between 0.05 and 0.1 μSv, which is considerably lower than the radiation from a typical chest X-ray, which delivers around 100 microsieverts of radiation. According to Dr. Lewis Nelson, a professor and chair of emergency medicine, the dose of radiation from airport X-ray machines is not high enough to cause any bodily harm. He states that even if a person flew every day for a year, they would still receive only a fraction of the ionizing radiation they absorb from food.

However, critics argue that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is much stronger than officially reported and poses a risk to children and vulnerable populations. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) claim that the amount of radiation is higher than stated because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter X-ray scanners is focused on the skin and surrounding tissues.

In response to these concerns, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented several privacy measures, such as blurring the images of faces, installing software to make the images less provocative, and separating security personnel from passengers. The TSA also claims that scanners deployed in airports cannot save or export images. Nevertheless, reports of improperly saved and disseminated scanner images have raised doubts about these assurances.

While the health risks of airport body scanners are generally considered close to zero for individuals, the risk cannot be entirely ignored for populations, especially with frequent flyers and certain vulnerable groups. Frequent flyers who are scanned three times a day using the backscatter technique would receive an annual dose of about 0.3 millisieverts, which is below the limit set for the general public. However, if all scans were done with the transmission technique, the annual dose could reach 3 millisieverts, exceeding radiation protection standards.

Overall, while the radiation exposure from airport body scanners is relatively low, the potential health concerns, particularly regarding vulnerable groups and frequent flyers, warrant further consideration and ongoing assessment of the technology's safety.

Effectiveness

The effectiveness of body scanners in airports is a highly debated topic. While some argue that they are essential for ensuring the safety of passengers, others claim that they are an invasion of privacy and a potential health risk.

Body scanners have undoubtedly improved security at airports. They can detect a wide range of contraband items, including sharp weapons, bombs, ceramic knives, and 3D printed guns. They are also more efficient than traditional metal detectors, with the capacity to scan up to 400 passengers per hour. This helps to alleviate the long queues often associated with airport security.

One of the main benefits of body scanners is their ability to detect non-metallic objects, which traditional metal detectors cannot. This is particularly important given that attempts to conceal explosives on airplanes have increasingly involved non-metallic devices. Body scanners can also detect items hidden in body cavities, making them a valuable tool in preventing drug smuggling.

However, the effectiveness of body scanners has been called into question by some experts. For example, in 2012, a scientist and blogger named Jonathan Corbett published a video demonstrating how he was able to smuggle a metal box through backscatter X-ray and millimeter-wave scanners in two US airports. Additionally, an Israeli airport security expert, Rafi Sela, who helped design security at Ben Gurion International Airport, has stated that body scanners are useless and that he can "overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747".

Furthermore, body scanners have faced significant opposition due to privacy concerns. The detailed images they produce reveal intimate body parts and medical equipment, such as colostomy bags and catheters. This has led some critics to liken the scans to virtual strip searches and argue that they violate basic human rights. In response to these concerns, some airports have implemented privacy protections, such as blurring the images of passengers' faces and using generic mannequin outlines instead of actual body images.

In conclusion, while body scanners have enhanced airport security by detecting a wide range of contraband items, questions remain about their effectiveness in preventing terrorist attacks. Additionally, privacy and health concerns have led to ongoing debates about their use in airports worldwide.

Alternatives

While full-body scanners are still used in airports, there are several alternatives to this technology.

Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) Devices

These devices detect explosives at trace levels through vapour or particle analysis. The most sensitive devices can detect explosive matter in terms of parts per quadrillion. ETDs come in a variety of types, including:

• Ion-mobile spectrometry - possess a detection sensitivity of parts per trillion, although the use of radioactive materials poses a challenge in ensuring the machines are properly calibrated and safe.
• Thermo redox - possesses a sensitivity detection that is extremely low and presents a high false alarm rate.
• Chemiluminescence - Low sensitivity.
• Amplifying fluorescent polymer - High sensitivity in the range of parts per quadrillion.

Pat-downs

While pat-downs are invasive, they can detect objects concealed on a person's body that might not be detected by other methods. However, they can be deemed invasive when probing certain areas of the body and could lead to accusations of sexual assault and potential legal action.

Dogs

Dogs have a high detection reliability for explosives and contraband. They are far less invasive, pose no appreciable health risks, and are 100% mobile compared to radiation-based scanners. However, the cost of training dogs and handlers has been cited as a significant impediment to their usage.

Passive Infra-Red Scanners

These scanners have been developed for use in public spaces to collect and analyse the natural heat radiation given off by the human body to detect metallic and non-metallic "threat objects". No external radiation source is used, and privacy is preserved as no body details are revealed. Police are conducting trials of this equipment at London rail stations.

The Puffer and The Guardian

The Puffer, developed by General Electric, detects chemical particles on a person's body and analyses whether or not they are harmful. It works by blowing puffs of chemically-sensitive air around the individual. The Guardian is an explosive trace-detection portal machine similar to the Puffer but more advanced. Its sensors can detect chemical molecules more quickly and in hard-to-detect areas such as the inside of shoes.

Opting out

Body scanners are used at airports to detect objects on or inside a person's body for security screening purposes, without physically removing clothes or making physical contact. There are three types of body scanners: millimeter wave scanners, X-ray-based scanners, and infra-red thermal conductivity scanners.

Millimeter wave scanners use non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation to detect objects, while X-ray-based scanners use low doses of radiation to detect objects hidden under clothing or in body cavities. Infra-red thermal conductivity scanners use slight temperature differences on the surface of clothing to detect foreign objects.

Passengers have objected to the use of body scanners at airports due to privacy and health concerns. The imaging produced by these scanners has been described as a virtual strip search without probable cause, and some countries have banned their use. However, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the United States allows passengers to opt out of body scanners and choose a full-body pat down as an alternative.

If you choose to opt out of the body scanner at a U.S. airport, here is what you can expect:

Placing Items on the Security Belt

First, you will be asked to put all of your items on the security belt. This includes any bags, purses, or personal items you are carrying.

Requesting to Opt Out

Once you have placed your items on the belt, a TSA agent will direct you to walk through the full-body scanner. If you would like to opt out, simply inform the agent that you would like to do so.

Identification of Items

After opting out, you will be asked to identify your belongings on the security belt and/or any buckets containing your personal items.

Public Explanation of Pat-Down Process

A TSA agent will then take you to a public area at the end of the screening belt and describe in detail the full-body pat-down that you are about to experience. You can request to be patted down in a private room if you prefer.

Pat-Down Process

During the pat-down, a TSA agent will run their hands over and underneath your breasts and around the inside and outside of your legs and waist. This process can be intrusive but is meant to ensure your safety and the safety of other passengers.

It is important to note that opting out may result in a longer screening process, as manual checks take more time. Additionally, cross-gender pat-downs are not allowed, and you may need to wait for an agent of the same gender to become available.

While the decision to opt out is a personal one, it is essential to be informed about the potential risks and consequences of both body scanners and pat-downs. Ultimately, the choice is yours, and you should feel comfortable making the decision that best suits your needs and preferences.

Frequently asked questions