5 ms·

>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

>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.
      - Confusion 16y ago
        yet you have no trouble running around defending what is likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in This is exactly why you and many others fail to accept this simple factual point. I'm not defending the TSA. I'm arguing against a single, silly, unnecessary and counterproductive, argument against them. Arguing against an argument against something, does not make someone a proponent of that thing. And you're just spewing out the FDA report From my study I have experience with medical applications involving these kinds of radiation. I know effects and dosages. Even if there are false comparisons, they are irrelevant: the numbers are the numbers and they are clear. Dosage: minimal. Even an additional factor 100 due to focusing on the skin is not noteworthy. The different energy might, but there are many reasons to believe it doesn't matter. Finally, the entire point is irrelevant. That it is thought the TSA needs these things in the first place, that is the problem. Focusing on this possibly associated problem does more damage to the general opinion about 'radiation', then it serves the cause of banning these machines. (e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines) Sigh. Doctors also comfort patients by telling them the dosage of an X-ray photograph provides a similar dosage to flying to Australia. Yes, there are some caveats. Those caveats on that comparison do not debunk the FDA report. The general point of that comparison is valid. These doctors aren't lying to their patients about the risks involved.
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&...

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.
    - Confusion 16y ago
      yet you have no trouble running around defending what is likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in This is exactly why you and many others fail to accept this simple factual point. I'm not defending the TSA. I'm arguing against a single, silly, unnecessary and counterproductive, argument against them. Arguing against an argument against something, does not make someone a proponent of that thing. And you're just spewing out the FDA report From my study I have experience with medical applications involving these kinds of radiation. I know effects and dosages. Even if there are false comparisons, they are irrelevant: the numbers are the numbers and they are clear. Dosage: minimal. Even an additional factor 100 due to focusing on the skin is not noteworthy. The different energy might, but there are many reasons to believe it doesn't matter. Finally, the entire point is irrelevant. That it is thought the TSA needs these things in the first place, that is the problem. Focusing on this possibly associated problem does more damage to the general opinion about 'radiation', then it serves the cause of banning these machines. (e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines) Sigh. Doctors also comfort patients by telling them the dosage of an X-ray photograph provides a similar dosage to flying to Australia. Yes, there are some caveats. Those caveats on that comparison do not debunk the FDA report. The general point of that comparison is valid. These doctors aren't lying to their patients about the risks involved.

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&...