World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Millimeter wave scanner

Article Id: WHEBN0016959357
Reproduction Date:

Title: Millimeter wave scanner  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Whole body imaging, Electromagnetic radiation and health, Nudity, Measuring instruments, Narita International Airport
Collection: Measuring Instruments, Security Technology
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Millimeter wave scanner

Active millimeter wave unit

A millimeter wave scanner is a whole-body imaging device used for detecting objects concealed underneath a person’s clothing using a form of electromagnetic radiation. Typical uses for this technology include detection of items for commercial loss prevention, smuggling and screening at government buildings and airport security checkpoints. Several countries employ the scanners for security screening.[1]

It is one of the common technologies of full body scanner used for body imaging; a competing technology is backscatter X-ray. Millimeter wave scanners themselves come in two varieties: active and passive. Active scanners direct millimeter wave energy at the subject and then interpret the reflected energy. Passive systems create images using only ambient radiation and radiation emitted from the human body or objects.[2][3][4]


  • Technical details 1
  • Privacy concerns 2
  • Possible health effects 3
  • Effectiveness 4
  • Deployment 5
    • Canada 5.1
    • Philippines 5.2
  • Other applications 6
  • See also 7
  • References 8
  • External links 9

Technical details

Clothing and many other materials are translucent to EHF radio frequency bands,[5] including the 24–30 GHz band emitted by millimeter-wave scanners.[6][7][8]

With active scanners, the millimeter wave is transmitted from two antennas simultaneously as they rotate around the body. The wave energy reflected back from the body or other objects on the body is used to construct a three-dimensional image, which is displayed on a remote monitor for analysis.[2][3][9]

Privacy concerns

Historically, privacy advocates were concerned about the use of full body scanning technology because it used to display a detailed image of the surface of the skin under clothing, prosthetics including breast prostheses, and other medical equipment normally hidden, such as colostomy bags.[10] These privacy advocates called the images "virtual strip searches".[11] However, in 2013 the U.S. Congress prohibited the display of detailed images and required the display of metal and other objects on a generic body outline instead of the person's actual skin. One technology for displaying such generic body outlines is called Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) software. As of June 1, 2013, all full body scanners in use at U.S. airports have used ATR.[11]

While the radiation itself cannot distinguish between private and non-private areas, software imaging technology can mask specific body parts.[9] Proposed remedies for privacy concerns include scanning only people who are independently detected to be carrying contraband, or developing technology to mask genitals and other private parts. In some locations, travelers have the choice between the body scan or a traditional "patdown". In locations such as the UK and Australia, the scans are mandatory.[12][13][14]

In the United States, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claimed to have taken steps to address privacy objections. TSA claimed that the images captured by the machines were not stored. On the other hand, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted that it had saved thousands of images captured from a Florida checkpoint.[15] The officer sitting at the machine does not see the image; rather that screen shows only whether the viewing officer has confirmed that the passenger has cleared. Conversely, the officer who views the image does not see the person being scanned by the device.[16] In some locations, updated software has removed the necessity of a separate officer in a remote location. These units now generate a generic image of a person, with specific areas of suspicion highlighted by boxes. If no suspicious items are detected by the machine, a green screen instead appears indicating the passenger is cleared.

Concerns remain about alternative ways to capture and disseminate the image. Additionally, the protective steps often do not entirely address the underlying privacy concerns. Subjects may object to anyone viewing them in a state of effective undress, even if it is not the agent next to the machine, or even if the image is not retrievable.

Claims that images are immediately destroyed were questioned after Indian film star Shahrukh Khan said that his image was circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London. This comment appears to be a joke according to one UK media outlet,[17] but reports of full-body scanner images being improperly and perhaps illegally saved and disseminated continue to emerge.[18]

Possible health effects

Millimeter [19][20][21]


The efficacy of millimeter wave scanners in detecting threatening objects has been questioned. Formal studies demonstrated the relative inability of these scanners in detecting objects—dangerous or not—on the person being scanned.[22] Additionally, some studies suggested that the cost–benefit ratios of these scanners is poor.[23] As of January 2011, there had been no report of a terrorist capture as a result of a body scanner. In a series of repeated tests, the body scanners were able to detect a handgun hidden in an undercover agent's undergarments, however the agents responsible for monitoring the body scanners were deemed at fault for not recognizing the concealed weapon. [24]

Millimeter wave scanners also have problems reading through sweat, in addition to yielding false positives from buttons and folds in clothing.[25] Some countries, such as Germany, have reported a false-positive rate of 54%.[26]


Passive Millimeter Wave Unit

While airport security may be the most visible and public use of body scanners, companies have opted to deploy passive employee screening to help reduce inventory shrink from key distribution centers.[27][28][29]

The UK Border Agency (the predecessor of UK Visas and Immigration) initiated use of passive screening technology to detect illicit goods.[30]

As of April 2009, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration began deploying scanners at airports, e.g., at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).[9] These machines have also been deployed in the Jersey City PATH train system.[31] They have also been deployed at San Francisco International airport (SFO), as well as Salt Lake International Airport (SLC), Indianapolis International Airport (IND), Detroit-Wayne County Metropolitan Airport (DTW), Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), and Las Vegas International Airport (LAS).

Three security scanners using millimeter waves were put into use at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam on 15 May 2007, with more expected to be installed later. The passenger's head is masked from the view of the security personnel.

Passive scanners are also currently in use at Fiumicino Airport, Italy.[32] They will next be deployed in Malpensa Airport.[33]

The federal courthouse in Orlando, Florida employs passive screening devices capable of recording and storing images.


Kelowna International Airport in Kelowna, British Columbia hosted the first such device in a Canadian airport. It was pulled from service in 2008 for undisclosed reasons, but may have simply been a test unit on loan.[34]

Scanners are currently in use at Pearson Airport in Toronto, Ontario (YYZ), Montréal – Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport, Quebec (YUL), Calgary International Airport, Alberta (YYC), Vancouver International Airport, British Columbia (YVR), Halifax Stanfield International Airport, Nova Scotia (YHZ), and the Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport (YWG).

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority held a trial of the scanners at Kelowna International Airport in 2008. Before the trial, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPCC) reviewed a preliminary Privacy Impact Assessment and CATSA accepted recommendations from the OPCC.[35] In October 2009, an Assistant Privacy Commissioner, Chantal Bernier, announced that the OPCC had tested the scanning procedure, and the privacy safeguards that CATSA had agreed to would “meet the test for the proper reconciliation of public safety and privacy”.[36] In January 2010, Transport Canada confirmed that 44 scanners had been ordered, to be used in secondary screening at eight Canadian airports.[37] The announcement resulted in controversies over privacy, effectiveness and whether the exemption for those under 18 would be too large a loophole.[38][39][40]


The Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila installed body scanners from Smiths in all four airport terminals in 2015.[41] The scanners are not yet in use, and are controversial among some airport security screeners.[42]

Other applications

Scanners can be used for 3D physical measurement of body shape for applications such as apparel design, prosthetic devices design, ergonomics, entertainment and gaming.

See also


  1. ^
  2. ^ a b
  3. ^ a b
  4. ^
  5. ^ Scanner recognises hidden knives and guns. (2006-09-26). Retrieved on 2012-12-31.
  6. ^ section 2
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^ a b c TSA: Imaging technology.
  10. ^
  11. ^ a b
  12. ^ Pilots criticize security as Britain makes body scanners mandatory – News & Advice, Travel. The Independent (2010-02-02). Retrieved on 2010-09-26.
  13. ^
  14. ^ Australia Airport Body Scanners - FAQ. Australian Government - TravelSECURE (2013-02-25). Retrieved on 2013-02-25.
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^ Shah Rukh Khan's body scanner image was not printed, says Heathrow Airport | Mail Online. (2010-02-10). Retrieved on 2010-09-26.
  18. ^ One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans | Gizmodo (2010-11-16). Retrieved on 2010-11-16.
  19. ^
  20. ^ "Thus, it is clear that RF radiation is not genotoxic and therefore cannot initiate cancer... the majority of such studies have shown that chronic exposure of animals to RF in the range of 435 to 2,450 MHz did not significantly alter the development of tumors in a number of animal cancer models... the same acceleration of skin cancer development and reduction in survival occurred in animals exposed to chronic confinement stress in the absence of RF exposure, suggesting that the RF effect could possibly be due to a non-specific stress reaction."
  21. ^
  22. ^ German TV on the Failure of Full-Body Scanners. (2010-01-18). Retrieved on 2012-12-31.
  23. ^ Why Europe Doesn't Want an Invasion of Body Scanners. (2010-01-26). Retrieved on 2012-12-31.
  24. ^ Stinchfield, Grant. (2011-02-21) TSA Source: Armed Agent Slips Past DFW Body Scanner | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth. Retrieved on 2012-12-31.
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^ Marsico, Ron (2006-07-12) PATH riders to face anti-terror screening Program will begin at station in Jersey City. Star-Ledger
  32. ^
  33. ^
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^
  37. ^
  38. ^
  39. ^
  40. ^
  41. ^
  42. ^

External links

  • List of American airports that currently/will use Millimeter Wave Scanners in their passenger searches
  • Challenge to Airport Body Scanners
  • Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.