Standing in line at Malta International Airport, you’re about to step into the body scanner. You’ve heard whispers about these machines, rumours that they’re harmful. But how true are these claims? Let’s debunk the myths and shine a light on the reality of airport security scanners.

Airport body scanners use two main types of technology: millimetre-wave and backscatter X-ray. The former uses low-energy radio waves to create a 3D image of your body. The latter, used less frequently, emits a low-dose X-ray to create a silhouette. Both are designed to detect hidden objects, not to see through your clothes or cause harm.

Malta’s airport primarily uses millimetre-wave scanners. You’ve probably seen them – they look like large, upright letterboxes. You stand inside, raise your hands, and the scanner rotates around you, taking a quick 3D image. It’s quick, it’s painless, and it’s safe.

This is perhaps the most widespread concern. But let’s put it to rest. The radiation emitted by these scanners is extremely low. To put it into perspective, a single scan delivers about the same dose as two minutes of natural background radiation. That’s less than what you’d receive on a short flight or even a day at the beach in Malta.

Dr. Joseph Cuschieri, a local radiologist, confirms this. “The radiation dose from airport scanners is negligible,” he says. “It’s far less than what we’re exposed to daily from natural sources.” So, you can breathe easy as you walk through the scanner at Malta International Airport.

Another common worry is that these scanners violate our privacy. But here’s the thing: the images they produce are not detailed enough to see any intimate body parts. They’re designed to detect objects, not to see through clothes. In fact, the operator doesn’t even see your image directly. They watch a screen in another room, where the image is distorted to show only a generic outline.

Malta’s airport authority ensures privacy by using gender-neutral operators and displaying signs reminding staff not to store or share images. So, your privacy is protected, both by design and by policy.

Some argue that airports should use pat-downs instead of scanners. But pat-downs are more time-consuming and can be invasive. They also require more staff training. Plus, they’re not as effective at detecting non-metallic threats like explosives or liquids.

On the other hand, advanced imaging technology (AIT) like the scanners used in Malta can detect a wider range of threats quickly and efficiently. They’re also less intrusive than pat-downs. So, while no security measure is perfect, airport scanners strike a good balance between safety and passenger comfort.