4 ms·

I bet you get more radiation during your flight. Still, if this fuels irrational public fear of scanners such that it outweighs irrational public fear of terro

I bet you get more radiation during your flight. Still, if this fuels irrational public fear of scanners such that it outweighs irrational public fear of terrorism, I'll consider it a good thing.

theoj 16y ago
With radiation you shouldn't bet, you should know with certainty.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  Japan bet that they wouldn't have an earthquake over, what, 7.8? I forget what the nuclear plants were engineered to withstand. Life is risk management. I agree with others, though, that the TSA should know, to a reasonably high degree of certainty, what the maximum dose of radiation will be from any given scan. But what can you expect from an organization that judges success by the number of water bottles and nail clippers confiscated...
swaits 16y ago
We will let you test that theory out. Certainly you don't have a problem with someone else, perhaps more cancer prone and risk averse than you, opting out. Right?
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  Opting out is absolutely fine. I am in no way supporting these stupid backscatter machines. The only thing that will get rid of them is public outrage, and that is never, in my experience, rational.
stcredzero 16y ago
I take exception here. The geometry of exposure is completely different. This is designed to deposit energy near the surface of your body. All of the numbers we have put together for cancer exposure risk are based on data concerning higher energy radiation that tends to pass through you and deposit energy throughout your body. This is why the skin -- which is cancer prone because it's continually replacing cells -- has lower multipliers for risk in those models. The data we have -- the data used in the model used to conclude this stuff is safe -- is for the wrong geometry. Please, no "spherical cow" assumptions when it comes to my health. Zap a bunch of little furry creatures with the same equipment, then I'll feel safe.

I bet you get more radiation during your flight. Still, if this fuels irrational public fear of scanners such that it outweighs irrational public fear of terrorism, I'll consider it a good thing.

theoj 16y ago

With radiation you shouldn't bet, you should know with certainty.

georgieporgie 16y ago
Japan bet that they wouldn't have an earthquake over, what, 7.8? I forget what the nuclear plants were engineered to withstand. Life is risk management. I agree with others, though, that the TSA should know, to a reasonably high degree of certainty, what the maximum dose of radiation will be from any given scan. But what can you expect from an organization that judges success by the number of water bottles and nail clippers confiscated...

swaits 16y ago

We will let you test that theory out. Certainly you don't have a problem with someone else, perhaps more cancer prone and risk averse than you, opting out. Right?

georgieporgie 16y ago
Opting out is absolutely fine. I am in no way supporting these stupid backscatter machines. The only thing that will get rid of them is public outrage, and that is never, in my experience, rational.

stcredzero 16y ago

I take exception here. The geometry of exposure is completely different. This is designed to deposit energy near the surface of your body. All of the numbers we have put together for cancer exposure risk are based on data concerning higher energy radiation that tends to pass through you and deposit energy throughout your body. This is why the skin -- which is cancer prone because it's continually replacing cells -- has lower multipliers for risk in those models. The data we have -- the data used in the model used to conclude this stuff is safe -- is for the wrong geometry. Please, no "spherical cow" assumptions when it comes to my health. Zap a bunch of little furry creatures with the same equipment, then I'll feel safe.