4 ms·

I take issue with the bad science involved in saying that terahertz radiation causes cancer. Terahertz radiation is very low energy, far too low to ionize DNA t

by scythe 16y ago

I take issue with the bad science involved in saying that terahertz radiation causes cancer. Terahertz radiation is very low energy, far too low to ionize DNA the way that UV rays do. If they're using actual X-rays, that's another thing entirely.

tomjen3 16y ago
Bad science hasn't prevented the anti-vaccination movement, the creation movement, etc, etc. You may take issue with the science - but you would be missing the bigger picture: this is about politics, not science.
- davidw 16y ago
  > this is about politics, not science. So keep it the fuck off Hacker News, dammit! You people can downvote me all day long, but I don't give a shit. I'd give away all this stupid "karma" to keep HN from being filled with TSA/taser/injustice of the month stories ala Reddit.
marze 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray Well, it does use x-rays, they are called "x-ray backscatter scanners". Serious scientists have expressed concern. The concern is with the fact that inadequate testing has been performed, and comparisons made with other radiation sources are flawed because they take the absorbed dose and average over the entire volume of a person. Anyone in radiation safety understands the important number is the dose absorbed in specific portions of the body. In this case, the x-ray radiation is absorbed in the skin (minus the very small scattered fraction), not your entire body volume, resulting in a much higher local dose than you would expect if you modeled the exposure as uniform through the volume. Since the x-ray source strength is quite low (assuming the machine isn't multifunctioning), the health risks to occasional travelers are assumed to be low. Maybe frequent travelers or airline employees should have greater concern, or those at risk of cataracts.

by scythe 16y ago

tomjen3 16y ago

Bad science hasn't prevented the anti-vaccination movement, the creation movement, etc, etc. You may take issue with the science - but you would be missing the bigger picture: this is about politics, not science.

davidw 16y ago
> this is about politics, not science. So keep it the fuck off Hacker News, dammit! You people can downvote me all day long, but I don't give a shit. I'd give away all this stupid "karma" to keep HN from being filled with TSA/taser/injustice of the month stories ala Reddit.

marze 16y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray Well, it does use x-rays, they are called "x-ray backscatter scanners". Serious scientists have expressed concern. The concern is with the fact that inadequate testing has been performed, and comparisons made with other radiation sources are flawed because they take the absorbed dose and average over the entire volume of a person. Anyone in radiation safety understands the important number is the dose absorbed in specific portions of the body. In this case, the x-ray radiation is absorbed in the skin (minus the very small scattered fraction), not your entire body volume, resulting in a much higher local dose than you would expect if you modeled the exposure as uniform through the volume. Since the x-ray source strength is quite low (assuming the machine isn't multifunctioning), the health risks to occasional travelers are assumed to be low. Maybe frequent travelers or airline employees should have greater concern, or those at risk of cataracts.