4 ms·

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 tha

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.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >I'm arguing against a single, silly, unnecessary and counterproductive, argument against them. It's absolutely not counterproductive. At the end of the day, people don't give a shit about their rights being violated. Look at what american citizens have already given up. Sure, they'll bitch about it around the watercooler, might even make a facebook group but that's as far as it will ever go. I bet you could go as far as doing full on rectal examinations and so long as accepting that was faster than not people would still do it without protest because convenience trumps almost all. Almost. If the people think there is a chance that these things cause cancer then it becomes a life and death situation that they will do something about. A poster elsewhere has had some success with this issue with TSA workers. I'm certainly not going to advocate making things up to get our way but real experts have come out on this requesting a more thorough study. TSA wont release various figures about the radiation. X-ray damage is cumulative. Taken all these things together I really believe there is a chance these things aren't safe and if there's even a chance of it that should be enough to block their usage. The burden of proof lies with the people who want to bring these things in, not with people who need to fly but don't want the added cancer risk.

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.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >I'm arguing against a single, silly, unnecessary and counterproductive, argument against them. It's absolutely not counterproductive. At the end of the day, people don't give a shit about their rights being violated. Look at what american citizens have already given up. Sure, they'll bitch about it around the watercooler, might even make a facebook group but that's as far as it will ever go. I bet you could go as far as doing full on rectal examinations and so long as accepting that was faster than not people would still do it without protest because convenience trumps almost all. Almost. If the people think there is a chance that these things cause cancer then it becomes a life and death situation that they will do something about. A poster elsewhere has had some success with this issue with TSA workers. I'm certainly not going to advocate making things up to get our way but real experts have come out on this requesting a more thorough study. TSA wont release various figures about the radiation. X-ray damage is cumulative. Taken all these things together I really believe there is a chance these things aren't safe and if there's even a chance of it that should be enough to block their usage. The burden of proof lies with the people who want to bring these things in, not with people who need to fly but don't want the added cancer risk.