4 ms·

I don't think it's a good idea to spread FUD based on irrational fears of 'radiation'. That has done enough damage to our lives already. These machines or no mo

I don't think it's a good idea to spread FUD based on irrational fears of 'radiation'. That has done enough damage to our lives already. These machines or no more dangerous than microwaves, GSM telephones or regular flying. Now of course, people will respond to me citing authorities or papers claiming otherwise. However, that doesn't mean a thing. There is no issue in the world on which you can't cite someone or something seemingly relevant to support some point. However, if that point is a minority opinion, we usually trust the majority. We accept the majority opinion of doctors, engineers and other professionals in science-backed professions all the time. Straying from that principle in this specific case, because you want to believe that this case is different, is being inconsistent. Inconsistency breeds distrust, which is a reason not to behave inconsistently if you can help it. Therefore, don't just start believing stuff and spreading FUD about it because it suits you. There's nothing to complain about the radiation of these scanners, if you accept there is nothing sufficiently unsafe about microwaves, WiFi, GSM and regular flying.

audeyisaacs 16y ago
>These machines or no more dangerous than microwaves, GSM telephones Not necessarily true. Some of these machines use x-rays, which are far more dangerous than WiFi(ISM Band 2.4GHz) and GSM(<2GHz). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
- Confusion 16y ago
  I Am A Physicist and well aware of that. My arguments is based on the safety ratings of these machines and the research supporting those ratings. I'm not arguing that the safety of microwaves carries over to these machines: I'm arguing the same methods of judging the safety carries over. I also didn't include regular flying for nothing. Finally, we used to be sitting behind CRT monitors all the time...
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    People are worried about the x-ray machines, not the microwave ones. The x-ray are by far the majority and that radiation damage is cumulative. That means that it doesn't matter how much we're getting elsewhere, we are adding to the damage unnecessarily, and the TSA workers at an even larger rate.
    - Confusion 16y ago
      Yes, X-ray machines, whose dosage is lower than the amount of X-rays you receive during a reasonable flight or when sitting behind a CRT monitor for a while. You're just repeating FUD, without having actually looked at the numbers. we are adding to the damage unnecessarily That's a value judgment, based on what is 'necessary'. If these machines aren't necessary, then the argument against them shouldn't be based on some fringe notion of a health risk, but should directly focus on the fact that they are not necessary to improve safety.
      - watchandwait 16y ago
        The concern is that these doses, which target the skin by design, may in fact be far more damaging to that tissue than the overall radiation dose would imply.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        >You're just repeating FUD And you're just spewing out the FDA report, which has already been debunked for making false comparisons (e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines). >without having actually looked at the numbers It doesn't sound like you're very well versed on this stuff either, yet you have no trouble running around defending what is likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in so far. >If these machines aren't necessary It's been stated by several security experts (including airport security personnel) that existing techniques can detect more threats then these silly backscatter machines. These machines are only in airports because a form TSA head works for the company that produces them now.
- RockyMcNuts 16y ago
  And, as bizarre as it may seem, Apple and RIM reportedly warn users to hold the phone 5/8" and 1" away from your body, respectively, in other words not against your ear or in your pocket - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=1&...
loewenskind 16y ago
This is a poor tact to take. The fact is that experts in the field have said, unambiguously that more research needs to be done on these things. Since this is something forced on us the burden of proof should be on TSA, not customers trying to use airport services. Until they can prove that there is no danger with these machines, they should not be used. Full stop.
- Confusion 16y ago
  Until they can prove that there is no danger with these machines It's impossible to prove such a thing, just like it's impossible to prove the sun will rise tomorrow. The fact is that experts in the field have said, unambiguously that more research needs to be done on these things Yes, and other 'experts' have deemed these machines safe and noted the amount of radiation is far less than involved in frequent flying. That's why I'm referring to the majority opinion. You can always find an 'expert' with a different opinion. There are thousands of people that can call themselves experts on this subject. There are Nobel-prize laureates promoting the strangest parapsychological theories. It doesn't mean a bloody thing to invoke 'some expert'. The dosage facts are crystal clear.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    What majority? Most of the "answer" has come from the group selling and/or using the machine. Are you calling into question the credentials of all the experts that spoke out claiming more research needs to be done on this? Are you qualified to do so?
    - Confusion 16y ago
      Most of the "answer" has come from the group selling and/or using the machine If they honestly believed those 'answers', they wouldn't have sold or used those machines. These answers are just intended to cover their asses, so they can have it both ways: sell the machines as safe on the one hand; publicly claim they 'have some reservations' on the other hand. The only thing that matters is: who certified the machines and what methods did they use. If the machines are certified for regular use on humans, why is that. It's a wonder we are still allowed to use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging, renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging to get rid of the scary 'nuclear'. Now any notion of 'radiation' is again being ostracized. Everyone just repeats some thing they think they understood, without actually knowing anything of what is actually involved. If you feel X-rays are that scary, stop flying.

audeyisaacs 16y ago

>These machines or no more dangerous than microwaves, GSM telephones Not necessarily true. Some of these machines use x-rays, which are far more dangerous than WiFi(ISM Band 2.4GHz) and GSM(<2GHz). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Confusion 16y ago
I Am A Physicist and well aware of that. My arguments is based on the safety ratings of these machines and the research supporting those ratings. I'm not arguing that the safety of microwaves carries over to these machines: I'm arguing the same methods of judging the safety carries over. I also didn't include regular flying for nothing. Finally, we used to be sitting behind CRT monitors all the time...
- loewenskind 16y ago
  People are worried about the x-ray machines, not the microwave ones. The x-ray are by far the majority and that radiation damage is cumulative. That means that it doesn't matter how much we're getting elsewhere, we are adding to the damage unnecessarily, and the TSA workers at an even larger rate.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    Yes, X-ray machines, whose dosage is lower than the amount of X-rays you receive during a reasonable flight or when sitting behind a CRT monitor for a while. You're just repeating FUD, without having actually looked at the numbers. we are adding to the damage unnecessarily That's a value judgment, based on what is 'necessary'. If these machines aren't necessary, then the argument against them shouldn't be based on some fringe notion of a health risk, but should directly focus on the fact that they are not necessary to improve safety.
    - watchandwait 16y ago
      The concern is that these doses, which target the skin by design, may in fact be far more damaging to that tissue than the overall radiation dose would imply.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >You're just repeating FUD And you're just spewing out the FDA report, which has already been debunked for making false comparisons (e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines). >without having actually looked at the numbers It doesn't sound like you're very well versed on this stuff either, yet you have no trouble running around defending what is likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in so far. >If these machines aren't necessary It's been stated by several security experts (including airport security personnel) that existing techniques can detect more threats then these silly backscatter machines. These machines are only in airports because a form TSA head works for the company that produces them now.
RockyMcNuts 16y ago
And, as bizarre as it may seem, Apple and RIM reportedly warn users to hold the phone 5/8" and 1" away from your body, respectively, in other words not against your ear or in your pocket - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=1&...

loewenskind 16y ago

This is a poor tact to take. The fact is that experts in the field have said, unambiguously that more research needs to be done on these things. Since this is something forced on us the burden of proof should be on TSA, not customers trying to use airport services. Until they can prove that there is no danger with these machines, they should not be used. Full stop.

Confusion 16y ago
Until they can prove that there is no danger with these machines It's impossible to prove such a thing, just like it's impossible to prove the sun will rise tomorrow. The fact is that experts in the field have said, unambiguously that more research needs to be done on these things Yes, and other 'experts' have deemed these machines safe and noted the amount of radiation is far less than involved in frequent flying. That's why I'm referring to the majority opinion. You can always find an 'expert' with a different opinion. There are thousands of people that can call themselves experts on this subject. There are Nobel-prize laureates promoting the strangest parapsychological theories. It doesn't mean a bloody thing to invoke 'some expert'. The dosage facts are crystal clear.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  What majority? Most of the "answer" has come from the group selling and/or using the machine. Are you calling into question the credentials of all the experts that spoke out claiming more research needs to be done on this? Are you qualified to do so?
  - Confusion 16y ago
    Most of the "answer" has come from the group selling and/or using the machine If they honestly believed those 'answers', they wouldn't have sold or used those machines. These answers are just intended to cover their asses, so they can have it both ways: sell the machines as safe on the one hand; publicly claim they 'have some reservations' on the other hand. The only thing that matters is: who certified the machines and what methods did they use. If the machines are certified for regular use on humans, why is that. It's a wonder we are still allowed to use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging, renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging to get rid of the scary 'nuclear'. Now any notion of 'radiation' is again being ostracized. Everyone just repeats some thing they think they understood, without actually knowing anything of what is actually involved. If you feel X-rays are that scary, stop flying.