What’s the difference between the security screening gate and the other security equipment?

There are significant differences between the security screening gates and other common security equipment in terms of the principles of operation, detection targets, radiation type and application landscape. The following is a specific comparative analysis:

I. Comparison of the principles of work

Equipment type	The rationale.	Radiation type
Scene security screening gate (metal detection door)	Insisting changes in the magnetic conductivity of metal objects by low-frequency electromagnetic fields, triggers an alarm.	Non-ionizing radiation (very low intensity)
X-ray baggage screening machine	Using X-ray penetrating of object imaging, hazard identification is done by absorption differences between different materials and rays	Ionizing radiation (to shield)
Handheld metal detector Zippo	Electromagnetic induction principles are used to cause the sound of magnetic field changes when approaching the metal.	No radiation
mm human scanner	Launching of millimetre wave through clothing, building of human profile images by reflecting signals, detection of hidden non-metal hazardous materials	Non-ionizing radiation (microwave frequency band)

II. Detective capabilities and applicable scenarios

Equipment	Detecting Object	Typical application scenario	Privacy and efficiency considerations
– I’m sorry.	Metal items (stabbing, firearms, etc.)	Rapid initial screening of airports, stations and entrances to the premises	No privacy dispute. Passing fast.
X-ray security machine	Liquids, explosives, metals and non-metal prohibited goods	In-depth inspection of luggage, packages	Operator’s chart is required. It could leak the privacy of the item.
Handheld detector.	Precision of metal items	Second check after the security alarm.	Contact inspection, less efficient
mm-wave scanner	Non-metal items such as ceramic weapons, drugs, liquids, etc.	High-risk airfield routes, prisons, and other high-security requirement locations	Generate a profile of the human body, with a much more controversial privacy.

Zero-Type. Radiation safety comparison.

1. – I’m sorry.

   • Zipamium non-ionising radiation: very low electromagnetic field strength (about 0.00) 1-1 mT, below 1/100 radiation during cellular phone calls only, instantaneously through no cumulative risk [2] [5].
   • (b) Unblocked demand: GB 15210-2003, which allows safe passage for pregnant women and for the wearing of pacemaker [4].

2. X-ray security machine

   • Zippoonium ionising radiation: Leak dose after lead curtain shield < 1 m Sv/h (natural background radiation approximately 0.0 1-0. 2 m Sv/h) Perception of long-term close exposure [6].
   • Protection requirements: Staff members are required to wear dosimeters and perimeter security areas around the equipment.

3. mm-wave scanner

   • Non-ionizing radiation : power density of about 0.00 0.000mW/cm2, well below safety limit (1mW/cm2), but sensitive populations may be concerned about long-term exposure [8].

Integrated use strategy

• The airport is usually used in combination with fast-track metal filtering of the door, then baggage checks through the X-ray machine, and, if necessary, priority screening with hand-held detectors or mm wave scanners.
• (a) Cost and efficiency: low security gate costs, simple maintenance (approximately $10,000-$/station) suitable for densely populated sites; The cost of a single station for millimeter wave equipment can be up to $1 million, much more for high-risk scenarios such as counter-terrorism.

V. Summary

• • Security check-up doorbell: specialized metal detection plaster, safe and efficient, suitable for initial screening.
• X-ray machine: -perfect object detection , which needs to balance radiation protection with the depth of inspection.
• mm wave scanners: non-metal threat recognition , privacy and cost limit

The selection of equipment needs to be combined with the actual scenes of risk-grade, human flow and privacy requirements.