X-ray imaging "under the clothes" of children
The Sunday Telegraph reports that "Schools to get scanners to stop children with knives"
"The proposal, from Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, follows the conviction last week of Alan Pennell, 16, for the murder of Luke Walmsley, 14, in a school corridor - a knife attack that prompted a public outcry.
The police will allow head teachers concerned about the growing number of children taking weapons to school to use a mobile X-ray device.
The scanners, which cost £100,000 each, are normally used by officers to assess potential criminals, terrorists and drug dealers.
Sir John believes that the equipment could play a vital role in averting other tragedies in schools.
"We would use them in any place the headmaster felt there was a problem with knives," Sir John said in an interview with The Telegraph.
"We would also work with the headmaster in hotspots outside schools . . . places where we know knives are carried."
The Metropolitan Police has two of the American-made Secure 1000 scanners. They are used to identify quickly whether a person is carrying weapons, drugs or bombs.
Officials said that the offer would at first apply to Greater London but could be extended to the rest of Britain.
The 4ft-long machines, similar to an airport luggage scanner, use low-level X-rays to penetrate clothes, but not the body. They produce a digital image on a monitor within seconds, reducing the need for a full body search.
They were first used in April in a drugs and guns crackdown in east London and helped to uncover 15 handguns, a rifle, a pump-action shotgun and various other weapons.
Sir John said that his force was about to acquire more of the machines, including a hand-held version that would be easier to use. "There are more machines in the pipeline," he said"
The production of an image showing children without their clothes is totally unacceptable, not necessary to detect knives and is almost certainly illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 68 Interpretation of Voyeurism
"68 Voyeurism: interpretation
(1) For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and-
(a) the person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,"
What is wrong with a traditional metal detector portal gateway or hand held wand, as is used in aitrports throughout the world, which simply bleeps but does not create an electronic digital image looking under your or your child's clothes ?
If these images are even temporarily stored electronically, as they must be inherently in the design of such systems, then this constitutes "making, adistributing or possessing" child pornography c.f. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 84 etc.
Passive Millimetre Wave radar imaging suffers from the same "see under your clothes" problems, but so called "low intensity X-Ray" imaging must raise even more health worries.
Where are the independent clinical trials, rather than the claims by the manufacturers, as to the long term safety of this procedure ?
The "low intensity X-rays" are going to be routinely administered to children, presumably every day of the school term. What might be a safe X-ray dosage for the occaisional airline flight, needs to be looked at much more critically when it becomes a cumulative daily dose directed at growing children, year in year out.
This has got to be orders of magnitude more of a health risk than those which concern so many parents about the proximity of mobile phone base station transmitters or high vo;ltage power lines near to schools. is the school,
Who will pay the legal court costs and damages when the cases start to be filed in court, in a few years time, claiming that this X-ray scanning is partly or wholly to blame ?
Just how exactly are these two £100,000 machines going cover the hundreds of schools within Greater London ?
If these two machines or the "others in the pipleline" are diverted for use at schools, what about the terrorists and gun carrying drug dealers who they were meant to be detecting ?
It is astonishing, that given the high level of anti-terrorist alert which we are supposed to be on, that these machines are not being used at say the Houses of Parliament or at Railway or Tube stations.
Comments
I'm amazed at this marvellous technology. These machines produce x-rays which can penetrate a thick leather jacket but just 'bounce off' your skin causing no ill effects whatsoever. It's fantastic!! Let's get them installed everywhere. I trust Sir John Stevens and David Blunkett absolutely.
Posted by: A Tench | August 2, 2004 9:16 AM
I suspect you are wrong about a voyeurism offense being made out. Quite apart from the doubt about whether being searched by scanner amounts to a private act, the offense requires a motive of sexual gratification. (Call this the News of the World defense...)
Having a sick sense of humour, I'm amused by the collision of two moral panics. Hard to know which way to bet.
Posted by: Guy Herbert | August 2, 2004 10:03 AM
The SOA did not come into force until the beginning of May, so it this has not yet been tested in court.
There are two aspects to the Voyeurism offence - the sexual one and the "expectation of privacy" one (specifically including use of a Lavatory or Bathroom). It is under the latter that I think these "see under the clothes" imaging systems fall foul.
Surely it is to be "reasonably expected" that a child entering a school building should not have to be strip searched ?
It is not necessary or "proportionate" to produce a digital image, in order to use passive or active Millimetre Wave radar, Terahertz rays, or "Low intensity x-rays" to detect the presence of metal or explosives or drugs. An audible bleep which means that a "characteristic signature" has been detected (just like the different Gold or Iron type settings on a hand held treasure hunting electro-magnetic metal detector), is sufficient to screen people for a further "empty your pockets or bag please" airport style search.
It is the digital imaging aspect of these technologies and the "security theatre" mindset which treats human beings just as if they were pieces of luggage, which is so intrusive.
Posted by: wtwu | August 2, 2004 11:42 AM
What an interesting read. While much of this is important to discuss, I think "authorities" miss the point. If people (and in this case kids), want to committ an act of violence, they will easily get around most surveillance/scanning systems - perhaps next time it will be a knife fashioned of plastic or clay?
A school is inherently open (as are most educational institutions), and bringing inappropriate materials into the school (even with 20 scanners), would seem a simple exercise for most of these kids today.
Posted by: Kolya | August 3, 2004 2:48 PM
Who are the US manufacturers that are referred to ... I would like to assess their claims? Please forward details to (garth.jagles@blueyonder.co.uk) should you know?
Posted by: Garth | August 5, 2004 1:46 PM
The scanners seem to be RapiScan Secure 1000 devices, for which the manufacturers claim
"Emission per Scan: Less than 10 microREM per scan"
http://www.rapiscan.com/secure1000.html
Who knows if this claim is actually true, and what the health effect of this would be on children being subjected to this dose of ionizing radiation every single day throughout the school year, rather than the odd holiday trip through an airport scanner ?
If the scanners are not used every single day at a school, then what is the point ?
They can hardly be introduced in secret to catch children carrying knives on a particular day at random, given that it will be obvious that a police van has turned up at a school and that so many children have mobile phones to tip each other off with.
Posted by: wtwu | August 5, 2004 2:02 PM
I don't care how "little" radiation this device is supposed to emit, I hate the idea of being irradiated, since when does ionising radiation stop at the skin?! Come on anything with enough power to tear apart an atom HAS to do some damage.
I would accept something that uses ONLY background radiation to form an image, something that you would be exposed to anyway. Secondly who will be responsible for the maintenance of these contraptions i would bet a poorly configured one of these would release a hell of a lot more.
I also resent the whole concept of under the clothes bullshit. Surely conventional metal detectors are fine for the job and are relatively unobtrusive.
Posted by: mickfactor | November 8, 2004 4:00 PM
You all miss the point;
metal detectors do not pickup explosives, plastic knives or plastic guns (glock 17 etc), making them essentially useless.
However the systems discussed here produce a "naked" image of the subject to highlight outlines of concealed weaponry, hardly a new concept. And if you ask me I would much rather have these systems in schools than not.
After all, it is speculation that ionising radiation like this is actually harmful however I can bet my bottom dollar that know one will argue with me on the harm caused by guns and knives.
On the privacy issues, I would rather this than some unkown man "patting" down me or my children.
Some food for thought.
Posted by: Deane | November 8, 2004 8:54 PM
How about someone develope an inexpensive MRI type machine instead too scan people like this? (ie: would use MF/EMF (Magnetic Fields and/or Electrical Fields) instead of X-Rays)
No radiation danger there. People are already exposed to MF/EMF several times every day...
Posted by: Joe | November 8, 2004 9:18 PM
To the chap who mentions the plastic knives/guns, and explosives.
Whilst this might react to high density plastics - it certainly won't pick up low density plastics, as if it did then clothing with a nylon or polyester element would not be transparent. I wouldn't expect it to pick up the average plastic knife, and since plastic guns and explosives are probably overkill (pardon the pun) in most schools - certainly for the kids - then there isn't really a lot of use in these scanners. And as for 'the harm from ionising radiation is only speculated', well so it was for gamma radiation, mercury poisoning, opium, nicotine, pesticides, thalidomide - need I go on? Manufacturers should prove non harm - not have non harm assumed until proven otherwise.
Posted by: john | November 8, 2004 9:55 PM
Children probably have access to at least as many potential stabbing weapons as prison inmates who make lethal "shivs". Years ago , when I was at school, it was noticed that you could hone a very sharp edge to a perspex set square or protractor used in mathematics lessons, and then there is canteen cutlery etc. all of which resides within the alleged "safe zone" beyond whatever security scanners are being deployed.
At airports, sniffing for drugs or explosives can be done with trained dogs, but these can only "play" for about 20 minutes or so until they get bored, or with $750,000 portal machines which blow air at you and then analyse the results. Since these take about 15 to 30 seconds, that could mean an extra long queue in all but the very richest airports with multiples of these machines or scanners installed.
15 seconds delay of any kind per passenger equates to over 1 hour 40 minutes extra delay for those unlucky enough to be the last people off a Jumbo jet, unless multople queues are serviced in parrallel, which means employing more staff, negating any cost savings which the scanning machines are supposed to produce.
US scanner manufacturers are sheltering behind the astonishing SAFETY Act (Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act) of 2002, which, if they get on the approved list, shelters them from public liability court actions if either their technology simply does not work, and bombs or weapons are let through by their equipment, or if they accidently damage the health of members of the general public or of security operational staff as a result of any design or manufacturing defects or negligence.
There is no need for, and no excuse for "see under your clothes" imaging , no matter what the technology being used , backscatter X-rays or Passive (or Active) Millimetre Wave or the forthcoming UltraWideband imaging etc.
Posted by: wtwu | November 8, 2004 10:25 PM
In response to the question of developing an MRI type machine to do this rather than using "X-Rays" (and speaking from 3 years of Nuclear Engineering trainging at a University), the idea that an MRI does not emit radiation is all fallacy. In the non-medical fields, these machines are actually referred to as NMR machines, rather than MRI, but they are one in the same. NMRI stands for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, In medical, they dropped the "Nuclear" because of the connotations that are associated with it. An MRI machin does essentially the same thing as an "X-Ray" detector, they bombard you with particles and have detectors to create an image. The only difference between the two is the type of particle you are bombarded with.
As for dosage, 10microREM per scan is really nothing compared to what you're exposed to daily by everything else around you. If you note http://healthandenergy.com/rad_chart.htm , you will notice a standard x-ray image in a hospital is 40milliREM, average dosage from the AIR is 200, and so on and so forth.
Posted by: maestro | November 9, 2004 7:32 AM
Don't schools teach woodwork, metalwork or chemistry any more? There are a large number of sharp, corrosive or otherwise dangerous objects inside schools, or is it assumed that the idiots carrying guns and knives are too dumb to realise this.
Posted by: Allan Dyer | November 9, 2004 7:33 AM
"10microREM per scan" is what the US manufacturer claim in their sales literature.
How exactly is this calculated ? Are they averaging the intensity of the ionising radiation over the whole nominal volume of the scanner cubicle ? Does the scanning beam follow the usual pattern of distribution with an orders of magnitude higher intensity in the central spot compared with the outer edges of the beam ? Are there other hotspots produced by the shielding configuration of the machine ? What about the dosage that an operator gets from being nearby, day in, day out ?
Maybe all these questions have been asked and answered, but these machines have not been investigated or approved by competent United Kingdom radiological health authorities.
As noted before, the US manufacturers are shielded from public liability lawsuits by the SAFETY Act 2002 in the USA.
The fear and worry surrounding any use of ionising or non-ionising radiation has a noticable placebo health effect, which has been recognised in the controversy regarding the siting of mobile phone masts near schools or homes.
The major problem with both the active backscatter x-ray or the passive millimetre wave imaging is the totally unecessary imaging of the naked human body. If the system can distinguish metal, plastic , explosives or drugs from human flesh, there is no need to display that human flesh at all.
For a portal scanner of whatever kind, where individuals are checked one at a time, if the machine detects something suspicious in your left hand trouser pocket, and you are then subjected to a pat down search by a security guard, how much time has been saved by knowing that the object is in the left pocket as opposed to the right ?
In real life the security guard will check *both* pockets and the extra spatial resolution of the scan compared with a simple "something suspicious has been detected" signal, counts for nothing in the overall time and motion of the security checking procedure.
The temptation is to use this back scatter x-ray technology as a "drive by scanner" using much higher intensities and longer ranges, to check whole queues or crowds of people without their knowledge, just like the systems which are used to scan commercial vehicles and freight, as described in John Lettice's article in The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/08/heathrow_scanner_pilot/
Posted by: wtwu | November 9, 2004 10:36 AM
Argh. I can't believe how often I see this sort of thing mixed up whenever the word "nuclear" enters a conversation. There is a reason NMR (nuclear magnetic RESONANCE) was renamed, and it is because of this sort of stupidity. They don't bombard someone with particles or radiation. Instead, the thing to be examined (we use it all the time in chemistry research to identify compounds) is placed within an extremely powerful magnetic field. This causes the nuclei of atoms to vibrate (hence the nuclear in NMR), which can be picked up (the resonance part of NMR). The resonance is affected by what other nuclei are around and chemically bonded, and thus can be used to figure out what molecules are are and where. To see how it is used in chemical research, look up 'proton nmr' or 'carbon-13 nmr'. In the future, if you don't know about something, you might at least try google.
Posted by: @wtwu | November 9, 2004 12:49 PM
As an aside the Glock 17 (and indeed G19 G18C G34 and so on) will quite happily show up with a metal detector. They are about as plastic as an M16! The lower reciever is indeed a polymer, but the rounds, magazine, slide, barrel, chamber and so on are all the usual metal. The 'plastic' reputation of the Glock was a result of the usual journalistic sensationalism reading 'polymer' in the description and running with it instead of actually reading all the specs.
Plastic guns are availible in very limited numbers to special agencies but tend to be two shot two barrel jobs with ceramic workings and very expensive and limited to government sales.
Not saying you couldn't get one if you tried, but I doubt most kids would have the money or contacts to do so.
You can throw all the technology you like at a problem but if the underlying systems aren't changed first it jsut tends to burn money.
Posted by: xrs444 | November 9, 2004 1:07 PM
This is either political correctness gone mad or technology for technologies sake. Either way its stupid.
... this is: ineffective (ways around it), inefficient (very costly), potentially dangerous to health (truely independant research on these company facts), sends out the wrong message (welcome to prison), impedes on privacy, illegal as voyeurism, potential for pictures to be used to blackmail the child ....
... but besides all that we don't have a major problem with children killing eachother anyway. Why not have these on entrance to pubs? there you might at least catch a few dangerously dumb fanatics.
Posted by: Jeffrey Lake | November 9, 2004 1:14 PM
NMR/MRI is not what is being used for these scanners and detectors. How does one build a portal scanner through which one can walk vertically, rather than be passed through horizontally like on a medical imaging NMR scanner ?
Extremely high strength magnetic fields are not without their health effects either, but there is also the likelyhood of human flesh being trapped between a metal object strongly attracted by the powerful magnets needed for NMR. There is also the effect on nearby electronic equipment, aeroplane navigation systems etc. (if such technology was to be used at airports)
Posted by: wtwu | November 9, 2004 1:34 PM
Once again, technology is presented as the answer to a human problem. Technology will not prevent murder and mayhem. It is entirely possible to kill or maim with everyday objects, IF THERE IS A WILL TO DO SO. We should be seeking means to create a more civilised society in which people are less motivated to harm each other.
Posted by: A Taormina | November 9, 2004 11:11 PM
John Lettice has written an article in The Register about the lack of offical UK testing or advice on possible health risks of these x-ray scanners
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/18/blunkett_xray_blank/
A more recent thread on the use of the Rapiscan 1000 equipment at Terminal 4 Hearhrow Airport can be found at:
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/2004/11/heathrow_termin.html
Posted by: wtwu | November 18, 2004 7:19 PM
"Extremely high strength magnetic fields are not without their health effects either"
~We arn't magnetic you got false information somewere.
"impedes on privacy, illegal as voyeurism, potential for pictures to be used to blackmail the child ...."
~If you had seen an actual image that these scanners show and still consider them to be a true nude or anything resembling a true nude image then cudos on your imagination.
Posted by: waraugh | February 21, 2005 11:40 PM
Who are you referring to waraugh ?
"We arn't magnetic you got false information somewere."
NMR/MRI scanners (which these are not, but which came up as a topic in the comments above) are intensly magnetic.
Be aware that under UK law, even "pseudo images" of naked children are likely to be considered as child porn.
Posted by: wtwu | February 22, 2005 12:30 AM
"If you had seen an actual image that these scanners show and still consider them to be a true nude or anything resembling a true nude image then cudos on your imagination."
Try here: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-05-15-airport-xray-bottomstrip_x.htm
The photo is cut off near the waist, but what's shown certainly looks like a shirtless man to me. The waistband is somewhat opaque, but below the waistband you can see that it becomes more transparent.
Posted by: Daisy | May 17, 2005 6:25 PM
I am absoultely astounded at the suggestion of irradiating children on a daily basis to "look under their clothes". As a student radiographer, I am aware of the risks associated even with the lowest doses of radiation - in fact, low energy doses such as those used by these scanners are more harmful than high energy doses because they can accumulate in body tissues. Even if they cannot penetrate skin, if they can penetrate clothes then they can easily penetrate vitrious fluid in the eyes and reach the particularly radiosensitive lens of the eye. How ridiculous and Draconian.
Posted by: PH | August 16, 2005 6:07 PM
If none of you can really see how disgusting the idea of putting these spying devices into schools are, then there is something severely wrong.
Posted by: Dennis | May 27, 2006 9:17 PM
Hello there!
i write this, mabe someone's capable to help me with some information. few days ago, turning back from a holliday in teneriffe, i had to put my sunglasses into the luggage x ray scanner. unfortunately i had to pick them up by hand from inside the machine. at that point, was nobody to stop me, and when i place my hand inside the machine to grab the sungalsses, i had an unpleasent experience, it was like i put my hand into a bucket full with electricity. after that experience, at first it was just my hand that hurt, but now, all of my arm start to feel week, and i'm very tired, and sleepy. did anyone actualy know how dangerous is, and what should i do in this situation? please e-mail me at raduselen@yahoo.com
thank you very much!
Posted by: selen | July 28, 2007 8:10 AM
At Halliburton/KBR, sexual assault is just part of the workplace experience for women Like many viewers, I watched this ABC 20/20 report when it first aired in December with jaws-open, eyes-bugging horror. It told the story of two women workers for Halliburton/KBR who had been sent to Iraq. There, one, Jamie Lee Jones, a young computer tech, was gang-raped on her fourth day by coworkers after being drugged; the other, Tracy Barker, was sexually assaulted by a State Department employee. Both immediately reported their assaults, only to have KBR first lock them in isolation, then question their accusations. In the case of Jones, it even "lost" the medical report that documented evidence of gang rape.
Click on a small picture to see shocking photos:
Posted by: SletleSen | February 22, 2008 11:24 PM