7 ms·

> If I shine my high beams on your car, or have a cellular phone call next to well - too bad. I'm entitled to bombard you with radiation if I want to. I think

> If I shine my high beams on your car, or have a cellular phone call next to well - too bad. I'm entitled to bombard you with radiation if I want to. I think this is a really good point, actually. Do all these electronic devices need to be FCC approved? And if so, how do these vans' dosage gybe with any FCC regulations?

randyrand 11y ago
All electronics yes. But (nearly?) everything emits radiation. Candles, fire, your body. and those things are not FCC approved.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  That's equivocation at its best. Candles do not emit ionizing radiation in measurable quantities. X-Ray machines do. There's a huge distinction, similar to the distinction we make between shining an incandescent bulb up at a helicopter or passenger plane, and shining a laser pointer.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    So we regulate X-Ray machines keep the radiation leak below the level that would oblige to ask people in the area for consent. GP has a point. The concern in this thread is based entirely on the notion that "radiation" is a scary-sounding thing.
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      No, the concern in this thread is based entirely on the notion that innocent people are potentially being exposed to X-rays, without their knowledge or consent. You're arguing against a strawman. HN commenters aren't idiots. The technology in question is using ionizing X-rays, which can have harmful health effects.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I never assume HN commenters are idiots. That's the very reason I hang out here - I learn a lot from what people say in this place. Having said that, this thread is dominated by commenters who refuse to do the math. X-rays sound scary but they aren't death rays; if you add up the numbers you'll see that it's not even worth to talk about them here. There's higher probability they'll harm someone by introducing more cars onto streets. EDIT: oh, I forgot. The Chart: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/.
        learc83 11y ago
        What if there is a machine malfunction? Lack of proper maintenance? Operator error? Sure there should be fail-safes, but accidents happen. Bouncing around in the back of a van, something goes wrong. Instead of a rapidly moving beam of x-rays that doesn't stay in one location long enough to cause problems, you get a focused beam.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Those are fair concerns. I haven't seen the estimate for maximum amount of radiation the X-ray machine could generate when malfunctioning. We need those to see whether or not there is something to worry about.
        learc83 11y ago
        If it works anything like the backscatter machines the TSA was using (rapidly moving beam), a failure mode like what I mentioned is definitely enough to be dangerous. There was a physics professor from Arizona state who said that the TSA machines could even cause radiation burns if the fail-safes failed and the beam kept going while stuck in one position. It many not work that way though. Who knows? That's the problem with being secretive about the whole thing. They don't publicly release data on potential malfunctions. One of my biggest concerns is the amount of training the operators receive on recognizing and reporting potential malfunctions. I suspect it's not sufficient, but again who knows? They won't talk about it because terrorists.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
      "radiation" is a scary-sounding thing. That's because scientists who know about this sort of thing have repeatedly warned the public that it can kill you dead in a very scary manner.
- mattkopecki 11y ago
  So, in any case, the FCC has set limits for acceptable amounts of radiation exposure from certain classes of the electronics that we find all around us every day, and I guess I was just wondering how those limits would compare to the radiation dosage of these vans. It might not be approved by the FCC, but if it's equivalent to something that the FCC would allow you to carry around in your pocket anyway, it's hard to justify being upset these vans driving around from the perspective of being exposed unawares to their radiation. There are a number of other reasons to be upset about such vans, though.
- retrogradeorbit 11y ago
  Go point a laser directly in your open eye. Don't worry. Any blindness you endure is FCC approved.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    A banana dose is equivalent here to light bouncing from my skin directly in your open eye. Does my skin need to be FCC-approved? I didn't expect HN of all places to fall into "radiation sounds scary therefore its bad for you" line of thinking.
    - retrogradeorbit 11y ago
      So why don't you try the laser experiment. Use a 1 milliwatt laser. That's _less_ energy than the light bouncing from your skin. That's nothing. And it's non ionizing radiation. So it's totally safe. Point it right in your eye. See what happens. By the completely over simplified thinking that you are undertaking here you will be fine. Right?
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I meant that light bouncing from skin to eye is a proper analogy for banana dose. But since you challenge me - I shined the usual ~5mW red laser pointers many times straight into the eye, and had strangers shine them at me as well. It's annoying, but it doesn't hurt. My vision is ok. I'm totally fine. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer#Eye_injury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer#Eye_injury.

randyrand 11y ago

All electronics yes. But (nearly?) everything emits radiation. Candles, fire, your body. and those things are not FCC approved.

bediger4000 11y ago
That's equivocation at its best. Candles do not emit ionizing radiation in measurable quantities. X-Ray machines do. There's a huge distinction, similar to the distinction we make between shining an incandescent bulb up at a helicopter or passenger plane, and shining a laser pointer.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  So we regulate X-Ray machines keep the radiation leak below the level that would oblige to ask people in the area for consent. GP has a point. The concern in this thread is based entirely on the notion that "radiation" is a scary-sounding thing.
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    No, the concern in this thread is based entirely on the notion that innocent people are potentially being exposed to X-rays, without their knowledge or consent. You're arguing against a strawman. HN commenters aren't idiots. The technology in question is using ionizing X-rays, which can have harmful health effects.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I never assume HN commenters are idiots. That's the very reason I hang out here - I learn a lot from what people say in this place. Having said that, this thread is dominated by commenters who refuse to do the math. X-rays sound scary but they aren't death rays; if you add up the numbers you'll see that it's not even worth to talk about them here. There's higher probability they'll harm someone by introducing more cars onto streets. EDIT: oh, I forgot. The Chart: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/.
      - learc83 11y ago
        What if there is a machine malfunction? Lack of proper maintenance? Operator error? Sure there should be fail-safes, but accidents happen. Bouncing around in the back of a van, something goes wrong. Instead of a rapidly moving beam of x-rays that doesn't stay in one location long enough to cause problems, you get a focused beam.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Those are fair concerns. I haven't seen the estimate for maximum amount of radiation the X-ray machine could generate when malfunctioning. We need those to see whether or not there is something to worry about.
        learc83 11y ago
        If it works anything like the backscatter machines the TSA was using (rapidly moving beam), a failure mode like what I mentioned is definitely enough to be dangerous. There was a physics professor from Arizona state who said that the TSA machines could even cause radiation burns if the fail-safes failed and the beam kept going while stuck in one position. It many not work that way though. Who knows? That's the problem with being secretive about the whole thing. They don't publicly release data on potential malfunctions. One of my biggest concerns is the amount of training the operators receive on recognizing and reporting potential malfunctions. I suspect it's not sufficient, but again who knows? They won't talk about it because terrorists.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
    "radiation" is a scary-sounding thing. That's because scientists who know about this sort of thing have repeatedly warned the public that it can kill you dead in a very scary manner.
mattkopecki 11y ago
So, in any case, the FCC has set limits for acceptable amounts of radiation exposure from certain classes of the electronics that we find all around us every day, and I guess I was just wondering how those limits would compare to the radiation dosage of these vans. It might not be approved by the FCC, but if it's equivalent to something that the FCC would allow you to carry around in your pocket anyway, it's hard to justify being upset these vans driving around from the perspective of being exposed unawares to their radiation. There are a number of other reasons to be upset about such vans, though.
retrogradeorbit 11y ago
Go point a laser directly in your open eye. Don't worry. Any blindness you endure is FCC approved.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  A banana dose is equivalent here to light bouncing from my skin directly in your open eye. Does my skin need to be FCC-approved? I didn't expect HN of all places to fall into "radiation sounds scary therefore its bad for you" line of thinking.
  - retrogradeorbit 11y ago
    So why don't you try the laser experiment. Use a 1 milliwatt laser. That's _less_ energy than the light bouncing from your skin. That's nothing. And it's non ionizing radiation. So it's totally safe. Point it right in your eye. See what happens. By the completely over simplified thinking that you are undertaking here you will be fine. Right?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I meant that light bouncing from skin to eye is a proper analogy for banana dose. But since you challenge me - I shined the usual ~5mW red laser pointers many times straight into the eye, and had strangers shine them at me as well. It's annoying, but it doesn't hurt. My vision is ok. I'm totally fine. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer#Eye_injury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer#Eye_injury.