3 ms·
you just don't get it, don't you? The exposure amount is just one variable. Just for example of how exposure amount alone is meaningless to determine the outcom
by VladRussian 15y ago
you just don't get it, don't you? The exposure amount is just one variable. Just for example of how exposure amount alone is meaningless to determine the outcome - locally deposited ~60Sv (with ~20Sv deposited into healthy tissue) during radiotherapy course is rarely fatal while 5Sv received whole-body during the same period of time would almost always be fatal.
- refurb 15y agoMaybe you don't get it? I'm guessing that's the case since you're using an extreme example. The point is, the levels of radiation experienced in back-scatter scanners is several thousand fold LESS than that experienced while in flight. Both are total body exposures, although one could argue that the exposure times are different. Either way the exposure is well below the limits that cause concern, therefore my original point (that low levels of radiation may be beneficial), still stands.
- VladRussian 15y ago>Both are total body exposures, no. Again, you just don't get it. The absorbtion site and effects on it also depends on the type and frequency of the radition. Back-scatter is mostly absorbed by skin while the radiation experinced while in the flight comes in different frequency range (more energetic gamma rays which pass through and backscatter less from the matter, incl. aircraft shell and human body and thus result in more even absorbtion through the body).