3 ms·
Again, hyperbole. "the equivalent of 10 X-rays in an hour" People routinely get exposed to that during their normal job. An x-ray is a fraction of a year's
by JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Again, hyperbole.
"the equivalent of 10 X-rays in an hour"
People routinely get exposed to that during their normal job. An x-ray is a fraction of a year's natural exposure from the sun. Airline pilots experience this radiation in a few months at work.
The numbers matter. This instance, the device hardly matters. Not as much as a national news report anyway. We'd be better off reading about pay disparity or access to health care.
- dalmo3 4y ago> People routinely get exposed to that during their normal job. What jobs you're referring to? Your examples cite years and months but the quoted sentence states "in an hour."
- roywiggins 4y agoIt's all sort-of fine until someone brings it home and sticks it on a shelf and thereby kills their entire family. Walking around with this in your pocket will kill you eventually. This sort of thing has happened before with loose radioactive sources.
- testplzignore 4y agoTo back up your point: If "X-ray" is a chest x-ray, then per https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ this would be equivalent to one-tenth of a head CT scan, which are routinely done without consideration to any increased risk of cancer. If the goal is to minimize loss of life, I think there are far better things that time could be spent on than looking for this thing. People are bad at thinking about opportunity cost.
- tialaramex 4y agoYou're bad at arithmetic, that's 100 boxes on the XKCD chart, so it's one-hundredth of a head CT scan, and the medics might not tell you they considered increased risk, but if they actually didn't consider it they're incompetent, that's a non-trivial effect.