3 ms·

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

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.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  You're just spewing pro-TSA propoganda all over this thread. This is far from a closed issue, as pointed out here [1], among other places. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913457 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913457
  - Confusion 16y ago
    I'm spewing anti-anti-radiation facts. Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place. As for [1]: yes, fine, the effective dosage may be larger than suggested. Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter. Secondly, the 'letter of concern' mainly asks questions about some possible risks. Thirdly, it does not support the claims in this thread in any way. The OP was worried about it 'spewing radiation all over the place'. The dosage of people working there is completely negligible compared to what people inside the machine receive.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >I'm spewing anti-anti-radiation facts. You've ignored every counter that was already provided to your "facts". That doesn't strike me as arguing in good faith. >Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place. Nonsense. If you care about people's rights, why would you want to bring the discussion to a place of utter irrelevance? The american people accepted The PATRIOT act for God's sake. Do you think they're going to give a shit about being scanned naked, so long as it's fast? >Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter. The damage is cumulative. How can it possibly not matter. Damage done by the X-ray doesn't "go away" right? So every little extra dosage you get is just making things worse for you. You can say it's less than taking a cross Atlantic flight but I have to take the flight. Trust me, if there were another way I wouldn't go near a plane. I still fly. I get X-rays when I think I've broken something. I love bananas. These are all sources of radiation that I'm going to be exposed to for some benefit to me (sometimes the risk of not doing it is worse than the radiation risk) and am willing to take the risks. These scanners don't help me in any way. This is radiation I'm enduring for no benefit to me what so ever. Even if I did buy the party line about terrorists, dying in a car accident would be vastly more likely than being killed by a terrorist so I'd rather take my chances with them than with this machine.

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.

loewenskind 16y ago
You're just spewing pro-TSA propoganda all over this thread. This is far from a closed issue, as pointed out here [1], among other places. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913457 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913457
- Confusion 16y ago
  I'm spewing anti-anti-radiation facts. Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place. As for [1]: yes, fine, the effective dosage may be larger than suggested. Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter. Secondly, the 'letter of concern' mainly asks questions about some possible risks. Thirdly, it does not support the claims in this thread in any way. The OP was worried about it 'spewing radiation all over the place'. The dosage of people working there is completely negligible compared to what people inside the machine receive.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >I'm spewing anti-anti-radiation facts. You've ignored every counter that was already provided to your "facts". That doesn't strike me as arguing in good faith. >Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place. Nonsense. If you care about people's rights, why would you want to bring the discussion to a place of utter irrelevance? The american people accepted The PATRIOT act for God's sake. Do you think they're going to give a shit about being scanned naked, so long as it's fast? >Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter. The damage is cumulative. How can it possibly not matter. Damage done by the X-ray doesn't "go away" right? So every little extra dosage you get is just making things worse for you. You can say it's less than taking a cross Atlantic flight but I have to take the flight. Trust me, if there were another way I wouldn't go near a plane. I still fly. I get X-rays when I think I've broken something. I love bananas. These are all sources of radiation that I'm going to be exposed to for some benefit to me (sometimes the risk of not doing it is worse than the radiation risk) and am willing to take the risks. These scanners don't help me in any way. This is radiation I'm enduring for no benefit to me what so ever. Even if I did buy the party line about terrorists, dying in a car accident would be vastly more likely than being killed by a terrorist so I'd rather take my chances with them than with this machine.