backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by Souka.. on Jul 5 at 2:27 PM


Unique Solutions Limited's "mybestfit" kiosk  (Source: geniusbeauty.com)
Unique Solutions' newest technology is called "mybestfit," and it utilizes the body scanning technology used in airports -- except it keeps your clothes on

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding body scanners at the airport since they began producing nude photos of the public. While many have complained about the new technology, Unique Solutions Limited has found a new use for it that keeps the public's clothes on.

Unique Solutions Limited, which was established in 1994, specializes in personalized shopping. It originally started out as a company that provides custom sewing patterns tailored to fit customers' body shapes perfectly. Its goal is to provide clothing that fits an individual, since many clothing stores offer set sizes that may or may not fit the way they should. The company has expanded to offer technology that can provide this convenience.

Unique Solutions' newest technology is called "mybestfit," and it utilizes the body scanning technology used in airports -- except it keeps your clothes on.

Mybestfit was developed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Unique Solutions Limited licensed the technology from Batelle, which manages the laboratory.

Mybestfit utilizes radio waves to penetrate clothing and "bounce" signals off the body. These signals are then sent to a computer, and the data is used to calculate exact measurements of your waist, hips, arms, legs and weight. These measurements are given to the user, and they use such measurements to decide which sizes to buy at the store.

The mybestfit kiosk was first placed at the King of Prussia Mall in Pennsylvania, and is a free service. It was made to increase shopping convenience, since some shoppers either do not know what size they are, or are too embarrassed to reveal their size and weight to store assistants.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

health risks
By Wierdo on 7/1/2011 4:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
I recall the airport body scanners triggered concerns of increasing risks of cancer, it's a small risk - basically the same chance of dying from a terrorist attack - but still it would be a turn off for something like this is there's a health risk, especially since people probably shop for clothes more than they fly on planes.




RE: health risks
By Wierdo on 7/1/2011 4:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
if*


RE: health risks
By kaborka on 7/1/2011 4:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
The x-ray backscatter machines are very low dose, but the problem is that the energy is absorbed in the skin.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126 833083


RE: health risks
By chrnochime on 7/1/2011 5:59:39 PM , Rating: 4
This is not X-ray backscatter. This is millimeter wave.


RE: health risks
By slickr on 7/2/11, Rating: 0
RE: health risks
By PrinceGaz on 7/3/2011 10:18:58 AM , Rating: 3
It is not *ionising* radiation like X-rays, the machine uses RF energy, not dissimilar to what your mobile-phone emits. It might be a slightly shorter wavelength than the phone, but the effect it has on you is essentially the same.

Now whether mobile-phones are safe or not is another matter entirely :)


RE: health risks
By DanNeely on 7/1/2011 4:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
X-ray back scatter machines do give a non-zero radiation dose. Millimeter wave scanners do not (these are between IR and microwaves). The measuring machine uses millimeter waves.


RE: health risks
By jtemplin on 7/1/2011 5:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
You got it backwards. Backscatter gives the low dose of ionizing, millimeter does not.


RE: health risks
By someguy123 on 7/1/2011 6:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm believe that's what he said (non-zero or above zero).


RE: health risks
By Mr Perfect on 7/1/2011 6:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hold on, so the nude scanners are just as likely to kill you as the terrorist attacks it's supposed to stop? Who said that?


RE: health risks
By Solandri on 7/1/2011 8:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
No. You'd get several hundred to several thousand times the radiation dose during the flight than you'd get from the scanner. When you're up at high altitude, there's less air to absorb radiation from space. So more of it reaches you and gets absorbed by your body. The average annual dose received by long-haul aircrews (5-10 mSv) is actually much higher than the average annual dose for a nuclear power plant worker (1.3 mSv).
http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181873-1.html

However, by most estimates the scanners are still more likely to get you killed than a terrorist attack. They're discouraging people from flying. Those people are driving instead, where they have a considerably higher chance of being killed in an accident. Consequently, while the scanners may improve safety aboard planes, their net effect is getting more people killed.


RE: health risks
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: health risks
By Wierdo on 7/2/2011 11:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, my understanding is that statistically they're both one in 30 million, got this off google:

http://wacki.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/odds-airport...


RE: health risks
By mmatis on 7/3/2011 9:29:18 AM , Rating: 1
If the risks ARE that low, then why:
http://www.infowars.com/cancer-surges-in-body-scan...
are the scanner operators getting cancer? Is it from their grope-a-thons where they make 95 year old grandmothers remove their Depends?

Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people. EVERY ONE OF THEM took an oath to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...", yet not one of them will respect the 4th Amendment. The stench is overwhelming.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki