Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jan Jaap van Poelgeest aka nevermelt jjp@******.nl
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 18:20:25 +0200
Ran into this:

http://cnn.com/2000/TRAVEL/NEWS/04/07/superman.scan/

For those that can't watch the video: these days a 2-4 minute x-ray scan
can reveal practically anything beneath a person's clothes.... imagine
what the situation in 2060 is going to be, then (seems those x-ray
glasses of days begone might actually be coming true).
My guess is that something along these lines would practically make it
impossible to carry any weapon not inserted into cyberware into a
decently-guarded building, though of course concealed holsters in the
2060's might be made of something that makes the holster+weapon show up
as part of the flesh.... or the weapons are made of materials that don't
show up on an x-ray scan... or..or..whatever.

Jan Jaap van Poelgeest aka nevermelt
Message no. 2
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:40:03 -0400 (EDT)
"Jan Jaap van Poelgeest aka nevermelt" <jjp@******.nl> writes:
> For those that can't watch the video: these days a 2-4 minute x-ray scan
> can reveal practically anything beneath a person's clothes....

So, could someone fill me in on medical background? I was
under the impression that x-ray scans were not good for the body if
done too often, and I didn't think those normally took more than a
couple of seconds. If they install this at a place people will have
to submit to a 2-4 minute scan often, such as an airport... I would
think that frequent fliers will have serious health risks unless my
information on x-rays is incorrect.

Mark
Message no. 3
From: NaCl(aq) jed7466@******.isc.rit.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:41:39 -0400
Mark A Shieh wrote:

>
> So, could someone fill me in on medical background? I was
> under the impression that x-ray scans were not good for the body if
> done too often, and I didn't think those normally took more than a
> couple of seconds. If they install this at a place people will have
> to submit to a 2-4 minute scan often, such as an airport... I would
> think that frequent fliers will have serious health risks unless my
> information on x-rays is incorrect.
>
> Mark

It's not X-rays. :)



--
NaCl(aq)
-------------
GCS(GAT) d>d-- s-:- a-->a? C++++ S E W+>W++ w PS? PE Y+ R+ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G
e>e+++ h>h+ r--- !y+**
Message no. 4
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:38:59 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark A Shieh" <SHODAN+@***.EDU>

> So, could someone fill me in on medical background? I was
> under the impression that x-ray scans were not good for the body if
> done too often, and I didn't think those normally took more than a
> couple of seconds. If they install this at a place people will have
> to submit to a 2-4 minute scan often, such as an airport... I would
> think that frequent fliers will have serious health risks unless my
> information on x-rays is incorrect.
>
> Mark

>From reading the article, it seemed to me that the whole process took 2-4
minutes, but a person wouldn't be subjected to the rads for the whole time:
assume the pose, scan, lower your arms, turn, assume the pose, scan, wait
for the operator to examine the results, etc. so the actual exposure time (I
would guess) wouldn't be more than 20ish seconds, total. That's still more
than an x-ray, but not as bad as 2-4 minutes of constant bombardment.

Of course, I've known about this technology for all of half an hour, now, so
I'm not what you would call an expert. ;-)

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 5
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:40:20 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "NaCl(aq)" <jed7466@******.isc.rit.edu>

> It's not X-rays. :)

> NaCl(aq)

Maybe I missed something in the article - what is it then?

---Dave ('s not here man)
(Deleted the link)
Message no. 6
From: Edward Huyer arcanum@*****.com
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:58:08 -0400
> Ran into this:
>
> http://cnn.com/2000/TRAVEL/NEWS/04/07/superman.scan/
>
> For those that can't watch the video: these days a 2-4 minute x-ray scan
> can reveal practically anything beneath a person's clothes.... imagine
> what the situation in 2060 is going to be, then (seems those x-ray
> glasses of days begone might actually be coming true).
> My guess is that something along these lines would practically make it
> impossible to carry any weapon not inserted into cyberware into a
> decently-guarded building, though of course concealed holsters in the
> 2060's might be made of something that makes the holster+weapon show up
> as part of the flesh.... or the weapons are made of materials that don't
> show up on an x-ray scan... or..or..whatever.

I don't think that such a scan would ever be used for security, at least not
extensively. It would reduce the flow of normal business traffic (whatever
that happens to be) to a crawl. Also, X-rays are not exactly good for the
human body. I doubt the Important People would allow themselves to be
subjected to this degree of hassle and, over the long term, medical risk,
when entering a party or conference or whatever. On the other hand, you
might encounter it in a really, really secret, ultra-high-security research
complex where there are very few people coming and going.

Arcanum
Edward Huyer
arcanum@*****.com
ICQ# 1667646
-----
"There is no spoon."
fnord
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/AT d-@ s:- a--(+) C++(++++)>$ U P L+ E(-) W+(++) N(+) o? K- w M- V? PS+
PE(+) Y+ PGP t(+) 5 X+ R+ tv(-) b+>++++ DI(+) D++ G- e>+++ h-(!) r-- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: NaCl(aq) jed7466@******.isc.rit.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 14:01:25 -0400
Yiannakos wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "NaCl(aq)" <jed7466@******.isc.rit.edu>
>
> > It's not X-rays. :)
>
> > NaCl(aq)
>
> Maybe I missed something in the article - what is it then?
>
> ---Dave ('s not here man)
> (Deleted the link)

I don't know, but from the pictures in the video, it was not an x-ray
shot. You can't make x-ray's stop at skin, and the reporter mentioned
that it was 'like light'. I'm really just guessing, based on the
pictures which were not your classic x-ray pictures.


--
NaCl(aq)
-------------
GCS(GAT) d>d-- s-:- a-->a? C++++ S E W+>W++ w PS? PE Y+ R+ tv-@ b+ DI+++
G e>e+++ h>h+ r--- !y+**
Message no. 8
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:02:11 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "NaCl(aq)" <jed7466@******.isc.rit.edu>

> I don't know, but from the pictures in the video, it was not an x-ray
> shot. You can't make x-ray's stop at skin, and the reporter mentioned
> that it was 'like light'. I'm really just guessing, based on the
> pictures which were not your classic x-ray pictures.

True. That's a good point. Maybe they use alpha rays which (if I remember -
it's been a long time since chem class) are blocked by skin very nicely.
You'd think that clothes would interfere with them, though.

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 9
From: NaCl(aq) jed7466@******.isc.rit.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 14:16:39 -0400
--Boundary_(ID_AU0OlmNjzKJw/OppneOYYQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Yiannakos wrote:

>
> True. That's a good point. Maybe they use alpha rays which (if I remember -
> it's been a long time since chem class) are blocked by skin very nicely.
> You'd think that clothes would interfere with them, though.
>
> ---Dave ('s not here man)

Ok, just popped up the video again. They refer to them as 'x-ray light' which
makes little sense to me. But oh, well, I didn't expect a good answer.



--
NaCl(aq)
-------------
GCS(GAT) d>d-- s-:- a-->a? C++++ S E W+>W++ w PS? PE Y+ R+ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G
e>e+++ h>h+ r--- !y+**


--Boundary_(ID_AU0OlmNjzKJw/OppneOYYQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Yiannakos wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>True. That's a good point. Maybe they use alpha rays which (if I remember
-
<br>it's been a long time since chem class) are blocked by skin very nicely.
<br>You'd think that clothes would interfere with them, though.
<p>---Dave ('s not here man)</blockquote>
Ok, just popped up the video again. They refer to them as 'x-ray light'
which makes little sense to me. But oh, well, I didn't expect a <i>good</i>
answer.
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p>--
<br>NaCl(aq)
<br>-------------
<br>GCS(GAT) d>d-- s-:- a-->a? C++++ S E W+>W++ w PS? PE Y+ R+ tv-@ b+
DI+++ G e>e+++ h>h+ r--- !y+**
<br>&nbsp;</html>

--Boundary_(ID_AU0OlmNjzKJw/OppneOYYQ)--
Message no. 10
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:16:54 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Huyer" <arcanum@*****.com>
> I don't think that such a scan would ever be used for security, at least
not
> extensively. It would reduce the flow of normal business traffic
(whatever
> that happens to be) to a crawl.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Having metal detectors and searches
in airports slow traffic to a crawl, and from reading the message board that
accompanied that article (not the best source, I know,) most people want
more security, even if it means sacrificing convenience and privacy. That
feeling, I think, will spill over from airports into other areas. Today's
(American) society seems willing to make great personal sacrifice for the
cause of safety and security.

Back on topic, do you folks think that that trend: "Safety at all costs"
would/will extend into the 2060s? Or will it reverse and have people wanting
personal freedom even at the expense of safety? It's a lot more dangerous
world out there...

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 11
From: Raveness Ravensbane ravenessravensbane@*****.com
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
I could only assume that rather than tying up the
lines until you need to go to the airport a week
before your flight just to stand in line, that these
would be used for those people who don't pass one of
the initial metal or drug detectors...


====~Raveness

http://www.sova.net/trish/roleplaying/shadowrun/pocketsecretary/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 12
From: NaCl(aq) jed7466@******.isc.rit.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:43:35 -0400
Raveness Ravensbane wrote:

> I could only assume that rather than tying up the
> lines until you need to go to the airport a week
> before your flight just to stand in line, that these
> would be used for those people who don't pass one of
> the initial metal or drug detectors...
>

This was mentioned in the video: only those who are asked to submit to a
pat down would be subjected to this scan. It's an option that a person
can take instead of being patted down. ( Like if the security guard is
some 19 year old loser guy, and you are an attractive young woman and
don't want him touching you or something. )

--
NaCl(aq)
-------------
GCS(GAT) d>d-- s-:- a-->a? C++++ S E W+>W++ w PS? PE Y+ R+ tv-@ b+ DI+++
G e>e+++ h>h+ r--- !y+**
Message no. 13
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:01:41 GMT
>From: "Yiannakos" <Yiannako@*******.edu>
>Back on topic, do you folks think that that trend: "Safety at all costs"
wanting
>personal freedom even at the expense of safety? It's a lot more dangerous
>world out there...
>

I'm pretty sure that in 2060 (what with the return of magic, the fact that
no nations seem to like each other any more, a bunch of indians tore up the
U.S. and assassins being able to fit in briefcases), everyone will have
safety on their minds - possibly more so than today. However, as I see it;
dangers come in so many forms (of which few people understand a lot)
everyone will like to be able to trust someone with a gun who looks like
they know what they are talking about: security officers will be listened to
without question.

Phil
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 14
From: Edward Huyer arcanum@*****.com
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 19:29:45 -0400
> > I don't know, but from the pictures in the video, it was not an x-ray
> > shot. You can't make x-ray's stop at skin, and the reporter mentioned
> > that it was 'like light'. I'm really just guessing, based on the
> > pictures which were not your classic x-ray pictures.
>
> True. That's a good point. Maybe they use alpha rays which (if I
remember -
> it's been a long time since chem class) are blocked by skin very nicely.
> You'd think that clothes would interfere with them, though.

Aren't alpha rays even more harmful than X-rays? I'm not sure. Anyway,
what about magnetic resonance?

Arcanum
Edward Huyer
arcanum@*****.com
ICQ# 1667646
-----
"There is no spoon."
fnord
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/AT d-@ s:- a--(+) C++(++++)>$ U P L+ E(-) W+(++) N(+) o? K- w M- V? PS+
PE(+) Y+ PGP t(+) 5 X+ R+ tv(-) b+>++++ DI(+) D++ G- e>+++ h-(!) r-- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 15
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 19:29:36 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Huyer" <arcanum@*****.com>

> Aren't alpha rays even more harmful than X-rays? I'm not sure. Anyway,
> what about magnetic resonance?
>
> Arcanum
> Edward Huyer

If I remember right (and this was six years ago, so give me some leeway,)
alpha rays are more dangerous than gamma rays but are unable to penetrate
human skin. So don't put them in your mouth.

I don't know a damn thing about mag res, so I'll leave that up to someone
who does.

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 16
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:56:19 +0200
According to Mark A Shieh, at 13:40 on 8 May 00, the word on the street
was...

> So, could someone fill me in on medical background? I was
> under the impression that x-ray scans were not good for the body if
> done too often, and I didn't think those normally took more than a
> couple of seconds. If they install this at a place people will have
> to submit to a 2-4 minute scan often, such as an airport... I would
> think that frequent fliers will have serious health risks unless my
> information on x-rays is incorrect.

I haven't looked at the article, but I suspect this is the same tech that
I saw a program on Discovery Channel about last year. IIRC from that, the
x-rays are extremely low intensity, only enough to penetrate clothing, and
you're not exposed to them for the full time (as others pointed out). It's
not going to be like Total Recall :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
But it's obviously a dream, as I'm waiting for that beam...
--Millencollin, "Vulcan Ears"
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 17
From: Edward Huyer arcanum@*****.com
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 12:33:26 -0400
> > Aren't alpha rays even more harmful than X-rays? I'm not sure. Anyway,
> > what about magnetic resonance?
>
> If I remember right (and this was six years ago, so give me some leeway,)
> alpha rays are more dangerous than gamma rays but are unable to penetrate
> human skin. So don't put them in your mouth.
>
> I don't know a damn thing about mag res, so I'll leave that up to someone
> who does.

Alpha rays: Sure, they may stop at your skin, but do you want radiation that
dangerous coming in contact with you at all?

Arcanum
Edward Huyer
arcanum@*****.com
ICQ# 1667646
-----
"There is no spoon."
fnord
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/AT d-@ s:- a--(+) C++(++++)>$ U P L+ E(-) W+(++) N(+) o? K- w M- V? PS+
PE(+) Y+ PGP t(+) 5 X+ R+ tv(-) b+>++++ DI(+) D++ G- e>+++ h-(!) r-- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 18
From: joseph shannon joeandjeanie@*********.ca
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 19:58:10 -0700
Greetings
Actually, a while ago Sony recalled over 100,000 camcorders
with the low light feature. Apparently, if you used the low light during the
day, and the person you were filming was wearing light clothing, you could
see right through what they were wearing. Needless to say, when this was
read in the media, stores quickly sold out of them, and few were returned. I
guess there must be a lot of pervs out there.

Joe.

Jan Jaap van Poelgeest aka nevermelt wrote

> For those that can't watch the video: these days a 2-4 minute x-ray scan
> can reveal practically anything beneath a person's clothes.... imagine
> what the situation in 2060 is going to be, then (seems those x-ray
> glasses of days begone might actually be coming true).
Message no. 19
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:23:41 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "joseph shannon" <joeandjeanie@*********.ca>

>I guess there must be a lot of pervs out there.
>
> Joe.

Hey Doc, I think he's talkin' about you...

;-)

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 20
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "joseph shannon" <joeandjeanie@*********.ca>
>
> >I guess there must be a lot of pervs out there.
> >
> > Joe.
>
> Hey Doc, I think he's talkin' about you...
>
> ;-)
>
> ---Dave ('s not here man)

What is this? Have I got a sign on my forehead? I'm
NOT a perv, dammit!!!

<sotto voce>
Uh, Joe...know where you can buy one of those cameras?
</sotto voce>

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 21
From: Achille Autran aautran@*************.fr
Subject: So much for taking the plane...
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:19:11 +0200
> > > I don't know, but from the pictures in the video, it was not an x-ray
> > > shot. You can't make x-ray's stop at skin, and the reporter mentioned
> > > that it was 'like light'. I'm really just guessing, based on the
> > > pictures which were not your classic x-ray pictures.
> >
> > True. That's a good point. Maybe they use alpha rays which (if I
> remember -
> > it's been a long time since chem class) are blocked by skin very nicely.
> > You'd think that clothes would interfere with them, though.
>
> Aren't alpha rays even more harmful than X-rays? I'm not sure. Anyway,
> what about magnetic resonance?

Well, it seems to be time for a short physics course... *Taping the desk
with a ruler* Quiet please...

Alpha rays aren't rays per se. They are high velocity helium nucleus
(two protons and two neutrons, without electrons), not electro-magnetic
waves as light or gamma rays. As quite large objects, anything from a
sheet of paper stops them- skin as well, but with time they cause
unpleasant effects like cancer. However they stay on surface, and a
shower can wipe them off easily. Ingesting an irradiated item is
therefore a very bad idea, as cleaning will be somewhat hindered.

Beta radiation is another specy, much more penetrating (high velocity
electrons or positons). To protect from this one you need a layer of
dense (lead) or thick material.

With gamma rays (very high energy light), here we have the basic set of
dangerous radiations that appear in nuclear environment - way more
deadly than x-rays.

Magnetic resonance imagery consists of making the patient ingest water
mixed with a marker, a few days or hours before examination. Then
response to magnetic stimulation from the marker patterns are studied,
which provide a clear picture of the inside of the patient- where marked
water slowly spreads. Definitely not suited to casual security. IIRC,
not too sure about this one.

End of the class, move out in order. *rumble rumble stupid students
rumble rumble SOB teacher*
I hope I cleared the topic, if you don't mind the patronizing tone.:)

The detection device that you talked about may be based on transparency
measures by UV light. There are researches going on with this for
cancerous cells analysis without surgery. Same techniques with lower
intensity/exposure, that would pass only through clothes ?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about So much for taking the plane..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!