by Frank James
Tired of having to ditch your water and shampoo bottles before you enter the airport gate area because security officials can't now distinguish between harmless compounds and bomb ingredients?
The scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory think they're on to an answer, a variation of the hospital MRI machine that can distinguish between chemicals by reading each ones distinct signature. Don't hold your breath though. The technology is still years away from showing up at airports, if it ever does.
As Los Alamos explains:
An innovative application of a technology first used for medical imaging may enhance airport security if Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists are successful. Los Alamos technologists have adapted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technology from the familiar medical device to create MagViz, a new tool that distinguishes potential-threat liquids from the harmless shampoos and sodas a regular traveler might take aboard an aircraft.
Funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the MagViz system is a new, ultra-low-field MRI approach first designed for brain imaging, but with a unique variation. Given a container of something that shouldn't be on board an airplane, the MagViz system highlights the image in red for the security screening staffer to examine further. A prototype MagViz machine was unveiled today at the Albuquerque International Sunport, where it is undergoing field testing. Should the development process continue successfully, machines could be in airports by 2012.
That last sentence is key. There is no guarantee the technology will pan out. But Los Alamos wants the public to know it looks promising. Getting the word out, including to members of Congress, may make it easier for Los Alamos to retain and maybe even increase funding for the project since it's an idea with a lot of obvious appeal for the traveling public, including those aforementioned lawmakers.
Ever since 9/11 there's been the hope that technology would provide the answer to better screening of potential threats to airplane passengers and aircraft.
But progress on that front has been grudging. As a Washington Post story from earlier this year explained:
In the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, government officials and industry leaders talked excitedly about how they expected technology to plug many of the gaps in airport security.
They envisioned machines that would quickly detect explosives hidden in luggage, spot plastic explosives or other weapons through people's clothing, identify a flicker in the eye of a suspicious character.
But six years later, little has changed at airport checkpoints. Screeners still use X-ray machines to scan carry-on bags, and passengers still pass through magnetometers that cannot detect plastic or liquid explosives. The Transportation Security Administration has yet to deploy a machine that can efficiently detect liquid bombs, forcing millions of air passengers to check bags or pare down their toiletries to three-ounce containers in carry-on baggies.
The sluggish pace of technological innovation and deployment has left holes in checkpoint security that could easily be exploited by terrorists, according to government officials and outside experts. Congressional investigators reported last year that they were able to smuggle bomb components through checkpoints despite new security measures. Other investigative reports questioned the government's efforts to get emerging technology into the field.
"The snail's pace of deploying new technology is unacceptable," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "We remain vulnerable because we have not kept up with technological innovation."
The TSA in coming months is expected to begin the government's first substantial investment in new checkpoint security technology since the 1970s, according to officials at the TSA, which plans to spend about $250 million on new devices, up from about $89 million last fiscal year. The machines include upgraded X-ray equipment that will provide multiple views of bags and hand-held scanners that can detect liquid explosives in bottles after they are identified by screeners.
Still, TSA officials say it will take years for much of the new technology -- some of which isn't really so new -- to reach checkpoints across the nation. And they are not sure whether the upgrades will allow them to lift nettlesome restrictions on gels and liquids in carry-on luggage.
Lawmakers, government officials and independent analysts point to myriad reasons for the slow deployment of technology at checkpoints.
Top TSA officials blame limited private investment in security development. The security industry blames a lack of federal funding and criticizes the difficulty of navigating a bureaucratic approval process that one executive described as "a maze." They also say frequent turnover in the top ranks of the TSA has sent mixed messages. Congressional investigators have raised concerns about the TSA's strategic vision. And top government security officials remain skittish about quickly deploying technology before they believe it has been fully vetted.
The problems actually started before the 2001 terrorist attacks, when there were few security or technology companies investing much money in such equipment, government officials said.
Even after the attacks, there was no surge in investment, and the TSA was given two mandates by Congress that had little to do with upgrading technology at checkpoints: hire tens of thousands of screeners to take over security from private firms, and buy hundreds of machines to inspect checked bags for explosives.
Security experts had long worried about how easy it would be for a terrorist to smuggle a bomb onto a plane in checked luggage. The government spent more than $5 billion over the years to buy, maintain and install explosive-detection systems, which basically scan bags using medical imaging technology, according to government records.
Meanwhile, the government spent only a fraction of that amount -- about $600 million from 2001 to 2007 -- on technology to be used at checkpoints, including upgrades of X-ray machines and devices that can analyze a swab taken of passengers' clothing for traces of explosives.
Even when companies did approach the TSA with new ideas, government officials said they were less than impressed with the results.
For those seeking more information about how the technology works, Los Alamos offers this primer:
In an MRI machine, magnetic fields cause hydrogen atoms to line up and spin in a substanc-a bottle of water, a patient's brain, an injured knee-placed within its field. Eventually the atoms begin to wobble, falling out of rhythm. This wobbling of hydrogen atoms occurs in unique patterns for different chemicals. And sensors in the MRI machine detect these slightly different frequencies, which are in effect chemical fingerprints that can tip off technicians to the presence of distinct substances when translated to an image. In a hospital MRI, for example, the subtleties in the chemical composition of a tumor compared with that of healthy brain tissue result in a contrasting image.
The fainter signals that MagViz teases out with a weaker magnet challenged the Los Alamos team to make sense of the less-distinct images. To increase the strength of the signal, the team incorporated a prepolarization field 100 times stronger than the magnet used to measure the spin. And the technology relies on sophisticated detectors called superconducting quantum interference devices, or SQUIDs. Whereas a hospital MRI detects spin with a sensor akin to a radio antenna, tuned to a specific set of frequencies, SQUIDs can pick up the oscillation of hydrogen or other atoms at any frequency.
Linked with a computer database, MagViz can now reliably identify some 50 liquids from their chemical fingerprints. And that's only the beginning. "That's one of the beauties of this technology," project leader Michelle Espy said. "We can add different threats as we become aware of them."
If MagViz finds a chemical designated as a threat, the machine will mark the container with a red dot on the screen. Harmless substances get a green dot, and if the machine can't identify the liquid, a yellow dot appears, indicating that further inspection is needed. As new threats emerge, "we just put them in the database and set the gate," Espy said. Like the sensitivity setting in a metal detector, that "gate" is an adjustable security threshold.
Very cool. But until MagViz shows up at airports, keep pitching those water bottles.
Comments
You need to pack all your liquids in your suitcase which are heavy, but they don't increase your weight limit... what is up with that... Now you have to pay these ridiculous amounts of dollars because your suitcase it way over the 50 lb. limit.... how stuipid....
Posted by: Jo | December 17, 2008 11:34 AM
The airports would be against these machines. They have a monopoly on us right now. You can't bring your drink in but they will be happy to charge you a $1 more for a 20oz coke.
Posted by: Karl | December 17, 2008 8:01 PM