Full Body Scanners will not detect or show as an image the most popular explosives!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by NightHawk, Nov 20, 2010.

  1. NightHawk
    Offline

    NightHawk Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Is our audience aware these machines (full body scanners) will not detect or show as an image the most popular explosives used by the terrorists? These explosives are RDX and PETN.

    The entire security exercise at our airports is a waste of time.

    Both Semtex and C-4 contain two powerful explosives RDX and PETN [also known as cyclonite and pentaerythritol tetranitrate] but differ in the plastic binder material. The explosives RDX and PETN are manufactured worldwide. Plastic bonded explosives containing RDX and PETN and binders are manufactured in several other countries, and theft is possible resulting in the explosive following into the hands of terrorists. Iran is believed to manufacture plastic bonded explosives. By agreement, several countries that manufacture plastic bonded explosives (U.S., Canada, Austria) incorporate tracer materials to enable the explosive to be traced to the country of origin.

    When officials were asked if full body scanners would have detected the small quantity of explosives involved in the underpants incident Christmas 2009, they replied as follows.

    “The indications are that given where the PETN was placed, there would have been a remote chance of its being detected.”

    “Scanners can certainly pick up metal objects including knives, but whether they could have detected powder plastic explosive such as the 3 oz of PETN is extremely doubtful. The kind of explosive the “underwear bomber” used was low-density and so probably wouldn’t have shown up on the scanner.”
     
  2. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,064
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,124
    Figures.

    They should use dogs. Or this

    More at link.

    Out-sniffing bomb-sniffing dogs
     
  3. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    I wonder what Israel does. Surely they, of all nations, know how to look for people with explosives on them.
     
  4. Toome
    Offline

    Toome Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    906
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +259
    I remember the first time I saw a police bomb dog in action. I wasn't impressed. We were directed to clear the area not because of a potential explosion but because dogs can apparently be distracted by onlookers. Also, we had to place three additional boxes that were similar to the package suspected of containing a bomb. Apparently, this is to make sure that the dog wasn't "alerting" on a package as a way to get a treat as a reward. If it didn't alert on the three non-suspect boxes and alerted on the suspect box, then it was a "good test." The dog didn't alert on the three non-suspect boxes, didn't do an alert on the suspect box but "showed interest." (That's what the cop said. He couldn't confirm whether or not the suspect box had a bomb, so we were right back to where we started.) Turned out that the suspect box did not contain a bomb.

    Point here is that bomb dogs aren't exactly 100% reliable. Perhaps they're good for the one suspect package but I don't think they would be reliable in an airport screening situation because of distractions, fatigue, boredom and other similar things that pose a similar problem for performance animals. If put in a routine situation, they tend to lose effectiveness.
     
  5. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
  6. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,320
    Thanks Received:
    2,088
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,326
    If it is a waste of time, what would YOU have them do?
     
  7. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Fearmonger! Terrorist sympathizer!

    Did I forget something? It seems like I did. I remember.

    Right wing partisan wingnut hack!

    Now I know why some lefties (and righties) post like that, it doesn't require thinking. You just have to keep a list of catch phrases and post them at random.
     
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    The best dogs run around 75% effectiveness in controlled tests. They are effective in searching a building for explosives because it is not that difficult to investigate false positives and eliminate them. They would be all but useless in an airport where people can have food in their luggage. That is why companies are working so hard to develop artificial noses and other sceening technology. If dogs would work they would have been deployed by now.
     
  9. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
  10. MikeK
    Online

    MikeK Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    13,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,985
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Brick, New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +3,724
    It's true. Those body scanners are not 100% effective. Go here:
    Schneier on Security: German TV on the Failure of Full-Body Scanners

    Enough PETN to blow a huge hole in the fuselage of an airliner can easily be concealed in a rectum or vagina (it doesn't take much).

    So it is important to know that these machines are being marketed to the TSA by the former head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. (He's the guy who looks like a ghoul.)_
     

Share This Page