A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NEW IMAGING SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES FOR INSPECTING PEOPLE: PART I.

ACTIVE MILLIMETER WAVE RADAR VERSUS XRAY TRANSMISSION SCANNER by Iouri Emelianov (ADANI, Belarus) May 18, 2007 Abstract: Two different security systems, namely X-ray transmission scanner and millimeter wave radar portal, are compared to reveal their limits to detect dangerous objects hidden on the human body or inside it. The concerns upon potential long-term adverse effects of microwave radiation on human health are raised. Key words: security systems, microwave radiation, X-ray transmission, detection ability, health effects 1. Introduction In recent years new imaging security technologies (passive and active terahertz imaging, active millimeter wave imaging, X-ray transmission imaging, X-ray backscattering imaging) have been developed to detect and identify dangerous and prohibited objects concealed on the human body or inside it. The purpose of this study was to reveal the detection limits of different imaging technologies as well as to investigate their potential risks for human health. The X-ray transmission technology, which is better established, is used here as reference to estimate other technologies. In Part I, X-ray transmission scanner and active millimeter wave radar system are compared. X-ray backscattering and passive terahertz imaging technologies will be the subject of the following parts of this study. The comparison is mainly based on the technical information available for the DRS SecureScan (ADANI, Belarus) [1], which is the X-ray digital transmission scanner, and SafeScout 100/360 (L-3 Communications Safe View, USA) [2], which is an active millimeter wave scanning portal. 2. Risks for human health

2.1. Microwave radiation

2 Obviously the manufacturer of SafeScout claims that microwave radiation used in their scanner is absolutely safe for people. This conclusion is predicated upon the following facts: 1) 2) 3) The power density of radiation emitted by the source is very low (0.265 W/cm2), which is much lower than from mobile phones. The microwave radiation is emitted in the wide frequency range 24.25 to 30 GHz, which is totally reflected by the skin layer of the body. No any harmful effects on human health were reported.

The power density of microwave radiation used in SafeScout complies with many international and national standards imposing both general limitations on all (1 mW/cm2, [3-6]) or specific sources (10 W/cm2, [7-9]) of electromagnetic fields in the frequency (SHF) range from 0.3 to 300 GHz. However, this compliance does not mean that microwave radiation is absolutely safe because aforesaid limits were established by accounting for the thermal effect only. Long-term non-thermal biological effects, which were found to exhibit cumulative character [10] (harmful effects on the eyes, such as cataracts), can be more important and dangerous for the human health even at much lower power densities as it has been evidenced by many scientific studies [11-15]. Microwave radiation lies in the frequency range of vital biological processes and can interfere with them causing various adverse effects on human health [16]. The Commission on Science and Technology of European parliament states in the recent report concerning mostly the mobile telephony [17] that the adverse biological effects of microwave radiation at power density of tenth parts of 1 W/cm2 have been convincingly demonstrated and suggests lowering the commonly adopted limitation on power density to 10 nW/cm2. This is 26.5 times lower than the power density used by SafeScout. Some scientists have given the evidence of adverse effects of microwave radiation on adults at power density <10 nW/cm2 and on children at power density as low as 1 nW/cm2 [18]. This is 265 times lower than the power density used by SafeScout. An opinion also exists that there is no safe threshold at all because technologically produced microwave radiation is different strongly by its characteristics (precise transmission frequencies, the polarization of the wives, and modulated digital and analogous signals) from the natural microwave radiation which reaches the Earth surface from the space. Biological systems, however, have no use for the shortest wavelengths, such as Xrays or gamma-rays, because of their ionizing and cell destructive effects [16]. In this respect Xrays are not hazardous for living organisms because they cannot interfere with biological processes. Most above mentioned scientific researches were done for the frequency range of mobile phones, microwave ovens and so on. Few studies were done in the specific frequency range 24-40 GHz [19-20], so called K/Ka band, which is used by police traffic radars [21], in satellite

3 communications [22], and currently in security systems [2]. In previous studies various adverse effects on the health were found at power density >20 W/cm2 [19]. It means that adverse effects could be observed at lower power density, but no through researches were done with respect to long-term cumulative effects. Yet, the small penetration depth of microwaves in K/Ka band does not mean that radiation makes no effects on living organism either. Skin contains numerous periphery sensorial nerve endings that are closely interrelated with other vital biological systems, and the eyes surface layer is very susceptible to radiation. In [20], general conclusion was made that neither the laboratory nor human research literature is sufficient at this time to make a definitive assessment of the health risk of long-term, low-level exposure to microwaves, e.g. which may have occurred for some police officers using traffic radars in the past. Thus the innocence of microwaves even at low power densities remains in question due to lack of proper scientific studies of long-term biological effects of this non-ionizing radiation. Until it is proven to be safe, the active microwave scanners should not be considered as absolutely safe and used freely, and the record of number of exposures should be restricted and controlled like it is normally done for X-ray scanners.

2.2. X-ray radiation X-rays are classified as ionizing radiation of which properties and biological effects are well known. Deterministic effects of ionizing radiation can only occur at very high dose that is far beyond the medical and security equipment useful range. Therefore, only stochastic effects (cancer risk and hereditary diseases) should be of concern. The effective dose [23] was introduced to limit the risk of stochastic effects of radiation exposure and is used for regulatory purposes worldwide. The Table 1 shows the annual effective dose constrains for radiation workers and general public from all non-medical man-made sources adopted by International Commission on Radiation Protection [23] and national authorities (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (USA) [24] and Ministry of Health (Russia, Belarus) [25-26]).

4 Table 1. Limitations for annual effective dose from different standards ICRP (1991, 2005) Occupational exposure1 General public exposure2
1

NCRP (USA, 1993); ANSI 43.17 1 mSv

Ministry of Health (Russia, 1999; Belarus, 2000) 20 mSv

20 mSv

1 mSv

1 mSv or 250 Sv

1 mSv or 300 Sv

For pregnant women (operators) the equivalent dose on the surface of abdomen must not exceed 2

mSv (ICRP), 0.5 mSv/month (NCRP) or 1 mSv (Russia, Belarus) for pregnancy period after its declaration.
2

If information relating to other sources of radiation exposure is not available, lower limits should

be applied for any given radiation source For general public there is no difference in dose limits for men and women, but some additional limitation is recommended for pregnant women who are the radiation workers. It is recommended that the X-ray facility for scanning people for non-medical reasons shall be operated to ensure that no individual scanned receives from the facility an effective dose in excess of 0.25 mSv [24, 27], i.e. 25% of the annual effective dose limit as mentioned above. However, assuming the individual did not receive radiation exposure from any other non-medical source, the annual quote of the dose for one person in case of repeated inspections of him/her can be as high as 1 mSv. It follows from these recommendations that two different subject dose limits are applicable to the DRS SecureScan as the situation requires. If the user of the scanner is able to make a record of doses received by the individuals from all man-made, non-medical radiation sources during any twelve-month period, e.g. in prisons, the maximum annual subject dose from DRS SecureScan can be as high as 1 mSv. If such the control is not possible, e.g. at the airports, the annual effective dose limit of 0.25 mSv shall be applied. If the dose per scan is 0.1 Sv or less, the number of scans is not limited [27]. Table 2 gives the limitation for annual permissible number of scans which depends on the dose per scan. These data are typical for DRS SecureScan.

5 Table 2. Permissible number of scans per annum for DRS SecureScan Annual limit, mSv 1 500 Permissible number of scans per annum as function of dose per scan 2.0 Sv 1.5 Sv 1.0 Sv 0.5 Sv 666 1000 2000 0.1 Sv unlimited Prisons, military sites, nuclear power stations, precious stones mines 0.25 125 166 2502 500 unlimited Airports, customs offices, public places Sometimes questions are asked on how big the dose per scan is or what is the risk to get cancer. The diagram in Fig.1 compares the typical effective dose received by a person from 1 scan at DRS Secure Scan with other typical doses from different sources. It can be easily seen how small it is. Typical applications

1 scan = 7.3 h natural background 1 scan =18 minutes (air flight, 10000 m altitude) 50 scans = 1 chest X-ray examination

100 Sv (1 chest X-ray exam) 61.6 Sv (London-Los Angeles, 10 h) (6.5 Sv/h on average at 10000 m altitude)

6.6 Sv (average natural background, 24 h) (typical range 2.7-27 Sv, 24 h) < 2 Sv

(1 scan, DRS SecureScan)

Fig.1. Dose comparison from different sources Typical doses for air flights were taken from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Research Center for Environment and Health (GSF, Germany) reports [28-29]. Some missing data were interpolated by using dose per hour values for similar air flights from the above

6 mentioned reports. Cosmic radiation dose depends upon departure and destination geographical locations, flight time, flying path and typical altitudes along path. Natural radiation background varies with geographical location on the Earth. Worlds average data were taken from UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation) 2000 Report [30]. Data for cancer risk, which were adapted from [31-32], are shown in Fig.2. One chest X-ray radiography (100 Sv) is equivalent to 50 scans with DRS SecureScan in cumulated effective dose, from which we can assume the risk of cancer for 50 scans with DRS SecureScan to be approximately the same.

1 chest X-ray radiography

50 scans
(DRS Secure Scan)

1.5 cigarettes

30 cans diet soda 100 charcoal steaks 40 tablespoons peanut butter

Fig.2. Risk of cancer inducing due to different reasons (1 person per 1,000,000 persons) In summary, one can conclude that the dose from DRS SecureScan is very low and the corresponding risk of stochastic effects is negligible and is compared well with risks from nonradiation sources. 3. Detection thresholds 3.1. Concealed objects Both scanners are declared to detect all kinds of materials and objects concealed on the human body. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compare the detection ability of the scanners with respect to the object dimensions, object materials and its location on the human body in a scientifically right manner due to the lack of the unified checking procedure and test phantoms. Currently work is going on to come up with a new standard [33] for quality assessment of X-ray and gamma-ray personal scanners, which will establish the scientific background for comparison of different

7 technologies using ionizing radiation. X-ray backscattering technology is in some way similar to microwave technology, and this standard could be probably used for comparative studies. Nevertheless, the two systems exhibit the evident difference in their ability to detect objects concealed inside of the body (swallowed or hidden in natural anatomical cavities) and inside of the prosthetic devices and casts. The microwave scanner cannot detect such the objects and the X-ray transmission scanner certainly can as illustrated in Fig.3.

Swallowed drugs

Artificial arm

Fig.3. X-ray transmission images of swallowed drugs and artificial arm with cavity that can be used to conceal something.

8 Moreover, microwaves in the frequency range specified are reflected by natural leather, especially when it is impregnated with water. Therefore, it is no problem to make some case from this or another disguising material, which would follow the landscape of the human body, and place any objects inside of it. Microwave scanner will never detect any objects hidden in this manner, while X-ray scanner will see through any casing easily. Besides, the microwave scanner will hardly detect the objects hidden inside shoes, and the X-ray scanner can detect such objects (see Fig.4).

Fig.4. Images of mens and womens shoes taken with DRS SecureScan 3.2. 2D versus 3D SafeScout makes the 360 scan of the human body and 3D surface image is mathematically reconstructed. It can help to recognizing a limited number of objects by their particular shapes, but many objects are very similar by their shapes, and some others, e.g. plastic explosives can be cast in either shape. The objects can also be concealed in casual disguising casings making it impossible to see their contours. Thus, there are many situations when 3D analysis is helpless. DRS SecureScan makes 2D image of the whole body, which shows the inner structure of the objects. The inner structure can tell more about the objects to classify them as potential threat or innocent stuff. Fig. 5 demonstrates how the radio receiver was classified as innocent object.

antenna loud speaker

Fig 5. The image of the radioreceiver taken with DRS SecureScan. 3.3. Wire detection The capability of detecting thin wires is very important for any security system because wires usually take part of typical and improvised explosive devices. Such information is not available for microwave scanners, but there is significant doubt that their ability to detect wires is less than that of X-ray scanners (copper wire as thick as 0.2 mm in diameter can be detected, Fig.6). Furthermore, microwave scanners will not see the wires inside of the device.

Fig.6. Wire detection ability of DRS SecureScan

10 4. Peoples privacy Since the human body is highly reflective to microwave radiation, the system easily captures detailed images of a person's anatomy. FAA officials still say they're not sure the 3-D scanner is the ideal solution for its security needs because they are concerned over the extremely detailed images the system gives of each person's anatomy under clothing [34]. The bodily detail is probably more than most travelers would feel comfortable with, said an FAA official. In contrast, the images taken with X-ray transmission scanners do not show too detail of the human anatomy which could be offensive. This technology does not undress people like surface sensitive technologies, and the appearance of intimate areas can be tolerated (see. Fig.7). male female

Fig.7. Appearance of male and female intimate areas on the images taken with DRS SecureScan

5. Conclusions As it follows from the literature review, the innocence of microwaves in the frequency range of 20 to 40 GHz remains in question even at low power densities due to lack of proper scientific

11 studies of long-term biological effects of this non-ionizing radiation. Until it is proven to be safe, the active microwave scanners should not be considered as absolutely safe and used freely, and the record of number of exposures should be restricted and controlled like it is normally done for X-ray scanners. X-ray transmission scanners use very small exposure doses per scan (typical range is 0.1-2 Sv), that are comparable with average natural radiation background level and are much less than doses that aircraft passengers receive from cosmic radiation during intercontinental flights. The assessment of the cancer risk shows that it is negligible. The 50 scans (dose per scan of 2 Sv) on DRS SecureScan are equivalent in cancer risk to smoking 1.5 cigarette or drinking 30 cans of diet cola. The unified checking procedure and test phantoms are needed to compare the detection ability of the scanners with respect to the object dimensions, object materials and its location on the human body in a scientifically correct manner. However, some limitations of microwave technology are evident and are summarized in the Table 3. Table 3. Detection thresholds for different technologies Detection parameter Swallowed objects Objects concealed in natural anatomical cavities Objects concealed under casing made of disguising materials (natural leather, especially impregnated with water) Objects in shoes Copper wire 0.2 mm (diameter) Yes Yes ? ? Can the system detect this? DRS SecureScan Yes Yes Yes SafeScout No No No

Peoples privacy issues are important for microwave scanners whereas there are no such concerns about X-ray transmission scanners. References 1. Technical 2. Technical information information on on DRS SafeScout SecureScan, 100/360, available available at at

http://www.adani.by/products/security/securescan/. http://www.safeviewinc.com/frontend/index.aspx.

12 3. ICNIRP guidelines Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz), published in Health physics, 1998, v.74, n.4, p.494-522, available at http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf. 4. The Swedish radiation protection authoritys general advice on limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields, 28th October, 2002, available at http://www.ssi.se/forfattning/pdf_eng/2002_1e.pdf. 5. IEEE standard C95.1-2005 IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3kHz to 300 GHz, 2006, available at http://www.cost281.org/download.php?fid=1104. 6. Russian sanitary norms and rules 2.2.4/2.1.8.055-96 Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) under occupational and living conditions, 1996, available at http://www.cqham.ru/sannormy.htm. 7. Russian sanitary norms and rules for mobile phones 2.1.8/2.2.4.019-94, available at http://www.vrednost.ru/doc019.php. 8. Russian sanitary norms and rules for microwave ovens 2666-83, data compilation is available at http://www.pole.com.ru/norm.htm#ncell. 9. Russian sanitary norms and rules for household devices 001-96, available at http://www.tehbez.ru/Docum/DocumShow_DocumID_521.html. 10. J.Carlton Gallawa The complete Microwave Oven Service Handbook, 2006, Ch.3. Safety of microwave energy, available at http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/Ch3.html. 11. S.Banik, S.Bandyopadhyay, S.Gangulu, Bioeffects of microwave a brief review, Bioresource Technology, 2003, v.87, n.2, p.155-159, available for purchase at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/09608524/2003/00000087/00000002/art00169. 12. A.Firstenberg, Microwaving our planet: the environmental impact of the wireless revolution, 13. A.Firstenberg, 1997, Radio available wave packet, for 2001, purchase available at at http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Microwaving-Planet-Firstenberg1997.htm. http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/radio_wave_packet.pdf. 14. G.J.Hyland, Potential adverse health impacts of mobile telephony. Memorandum, 2000, University of Warwick (UK) and International Institute of Biophysics (Germany), available at http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/EMF/hyland/hyland.htm. 15. S.Hagjiloucas et al., Preliminary results on the non-thermal effects of 200-350 GHz radiation on the growth rate of S. cerevisiae cells in microcvolonies, Phys.Med.Biol.,2002, v.47, p.3831-3839, available for purchase at http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/search=21257509.1/0031-9155/47/21/322.

13 16. W.Volkrodt Electromagnetic pollution of the environment in Environment and Health: A Holistic Approach, 1988, available at http://www.emrpolicy.org/science/forum/volkrodt_elect_pollution_environ.pdf. 17. European Parliament Research directorate, STOA report n.297/574 The physiological and environmental effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, 2001, available at http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/eu_report_2001.pdf. 18. Available at http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htm. 19. R.O.Becker, A.A.Marino, Electromagnetism & Life, Ch.10. Health risks due to artificial electromagnetic energy in the environment, State University of new York, 1982. On-line book is available at http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC.html. 20. W.G.Lotz, R.A.Rinsky, R.D. Edwards, Occupational exposure of police officers to microwave radiation from traffic radar devices, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science and Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, USA, 1995, available at http://www.fop.org/downloads/police%20radar%20exposure.pdf. 21. Internet site Police Traffic Radar Handbook by D.S. Sawicki, 2006, available at http://www.copradar.com/preview/content.html. 22. Available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/ehf.htm. 23. 2005 Recommendations (draft) of International Commission on Radiological Protection (based on 1990 Recommendations, ICRP publication 60 (1991)), available at http://www.icrp.org/icrp_rec_june.asp. 24. NCRP Report 116, Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation, 1993, available for purchase at http://www.ncrppublications.org/. 25. Sanitary norms of Russian Federation on radiation safety, 1999, available at http://www.sbras.nsc.ru/cotreb/docum/for_tema?tema=temadoc_18_11_2004_14_03_42. 26. Sanitary norms of the Republic of Belarus on radiation safety, 2000. 27. NCRP SC 01-12 report, Presidential Report on Radiation Protection Advice: Screening of Humans for Security purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems, 2003, available at http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/PresidentReports.html. 28. Data from FAAs Radiobiology Research Team Web Site, 2001, available at http://www.faa.gov/education_research/research/med_humanfacs/aeromedical/radiobiology/ 29. H.Schraube, Determining radiation exposure of airline staff, GSF National Research Center for Environment and Health, Institute of Radiation Protection, 2002, available at http://www.gsf.de/epcard2/index_en.phtml.

14 30. UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation) 2000 Report, Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, Vol.1, p.140, available at http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications.html. 31. Pochin, E. E., Why be quantitative about radiation risks?, Louristan Taylor Lecture Series in Radiation Protection and Measurement, Lecture 2, NCRP, 1978, data compilation is available at http://www.medims.muhc.mcgill.ca/radprot/RadPerspectives.htm. 32. Cohen, E. L.: A catalog of risks, Health Physics Vol. 36, 1979, p. 707- 722, data compilation is available at http://www.medims.muhc.mcgill.ca/radprot/RadPerspectives.htm. 33. ANSI 42.47 (draft, 2007) American National Standard for measuring the imaging performance of X-ray and Gamma-ray systems for security screening of humans. 34. Available at http://www.spokesmanreview.com/newsstory.asp?date=092201&ID=s1027747#top.