RE: questions

["Westerdale, Bob" <bwesterdale@edax.com>]

As an Engineer for Philips X-Ray in the 80's, I worked to develop a digital

X-Ray TV system which was used extensively in airport security screening

installations.  We struggled to refine the designs to enable the detection

of 30 gauge wire ( bomb detonation circuits) and to maximize the shades of

gray on the TV monitor to enable the operator to see whatever plastic

explosives had been packed in with the regular suitcase stuffing.  Using

very sensitive Phosphors and photodiodes, we were able to keep the dose

'film safe' while still resolving a high quality psuedo-real time B&W

picture.  I trained the airline personnel, who as security system trainers

were responsible for hiring and managing the crews that X-Rayed all the

carry-ons. A trained eye could easily see the difference between a possible

threat and a normal vacationer's travel bag.

(Before I go further, I sincerely apologize to the many airport security

agents who have performed their duties with exceptional attention to detail,

I'm sure they have prevented untold numbers of   low-lifes from carrying

dangerous goods on board.......)  Having said that, the fundamental problem

with airport baggage inspection is that the operators- the folks watching

the video- are very often simply not able to scrutinize the screen on a

continuous basis. The become distracted, choosing instead to chat with their

co-workers, watch the passengers, or even simply day-dream while peering at

the monitor.  Many of these folks are paid  barely above minimum wage, and

might be politely called 'under-achievers'.  Economic pressures in the

Airline business are intense, and the temptation to reduce the cost of

screening the passengers is obvious.  

	My Point?  the weak link is the person watching the TV Monitor.  It

is unlikely that we'll ever have a foolproof computerized weapon-image

recognition system, so IMHO, until the airlines ( or maybe the FAA now! )

makes the transition  to 100% serious, attentive baggage screeners, the

opportunity for concealed weapons getting onboard will continue to exist.  I

repeat my apology to those Inspectors who are conscientious and vigilant in

their duties. There are plenty of them, but as evidenced by the recent

events, there is a lot of room for improvement.

Bob Westerdale  

RSO, EDAX, Inc.         



-----Original Message-----

From: Ted de Castro [mailto:tdc@XRAYTED.COM]

While waiting to pick someone up at the airport someday - just watch the

inspection station.  I did that and saw at least one obvious way to by

pass both metal detector and xray and a way that would have easily

allowed a ceramic weapon or 1/2 pound of plastique to pass undetected. 

And in the 1/2 hour I watched I saw this happen 5 times!



I am not advocating more airport security!!  I don't like what we

already have!  BUT - they make a show of pretending to have security by

"nudging" personal rights and inconveniencing the average person - but

all the while being totally ineffective against anyone who really wants

to get away with something!



Paul William Shafer wrote:

> 

> Dear radsafe members:

> 

> My first question is related to airport security:

> 

>    If a terrorist conceals a ceramic razor in a

> plastic case placed in the soles of shoes or boots or

> in a belt, would this be detected by any current or

> proposed security measure at airport boarding areas?

> 

> This same question would apply to C-4 explosive

> material implanted in shoes or belts or for that

> matter temporarily ingested in a plastic bag just

> prior to entry into a plane?

> 

>

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.