[flash]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA?version=3&hl=en_US[/flash]

Ever since the events of September 11, there has been a major focus on security around public forms of transport, and in particular airport security. While making traveling safer is welcomed, some of the techniques and devices used to do so have caused major controversy.

Top of the list has to be the full-body X-ray scanners used in airports. As they produce an almost nude image of a person they are seen as intrusive. There’s also health concerns due to the fact you are subjected to an extended shot of radiation. The risk of cancer is there, and has lead to the machines being banned across Europe.

If it makes us safer, then the intrusion and shot of radiation is worth it, right? Well, even if you accept using them as a necessary risk, your decision is based on the fact the scan will detect anyone carrying a weapon. However, that has been debunked.

The video you see above has been created by Jonathan Corbett, who was also the first person to sue the TSA over their use of body scanners and the their “pat-down molestation program.” Regardless of whether you share his views about the TSA and the scanners, you can’t ignore what he has discovered.


Due to the way in which a full body scan works, it is possible to conceal a metal object in a pocket on your side and have it rendered invisible to the scanner. The metal detectors we used to rely on in airports would have found it, but the full-body scanners don’t detect metal and give an audible warning, they instead just produce scans of what is seen that are then viewed by a TSA agent.

Corbett has tested this technique out by placing a heavy metal case in a side pocket and going through security at an airport severeal times. The case was never detected, and could have easily been replaced with other metallic objects such as a gun.

The main takeaway from this is that no one security measure is going to detect everything. This side pocket problem with full-body scanners can be solved by adding a metal detector to the security checks. However, with the health risks and privacy concerns associated with full-body scanners, their high cost, and the fact they are easy to circumvent, are they really worth having in our airports?

Source

Quick question @Poster, what does the word "Proven" mean to you? According to the article you posted, no proof of the type you claim exists.

Due to the way in which a full body scan works, it is possible to conceal a metal object in a pocket on your side and have it rendered invisible to the scanner. The metal detectors we used to rely on in airports would have found it, but the full-body scanners don’t detect metal and give an audible warning, they instead just produce scans of what is seen that are then viewed by a TSA agent.

Notice the writer does not say that if you do a side scan, you will not detect the metal. Also he adds that the full-body scanners do not give audible warnings when metals are detected, so that is a part of the design.

^^^
Why am I not surprised you ignored the question mark that accompanied the title?