4 ms·

Never mind that having a person that stands next to that machine for hours on end wear such a thing is probably not a bad idea. It's the same thought behind an

by talmand 14y ago

Never mind that having a person that stands next to that machine for hours on end wear such a thing is probably not a bad idea. It's the same thought behind an x-ray tech hiding behind the wall as they push the button. But you did give me a thought, it would be interesting to have several people who travel quite a bit to wear these badges to see how they turn out over time. For some people you have to show the danger, not just describe it.

stfu 14y ago
Radiation badges, now that sounds like a kickstarter I would get behind.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Why Kickstarter something you can buy on Amazon right now? http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determining-dosimeter/dp/B004VJ06CI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350669496&sr=8-1&keywords=dosimeter http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determ... To be more precise, there are also badges that are configured to change color once a dose threshold has been breached, and can provide a very precise dosage number if you send it into a lab. At the highest end you also have active dosimeters that can give accurate readings on the spot.
rom16384 14y ago
Airplane crews are exposed to more ionizing radiation than the rest of the population because at the high altitudes the planes fly the thinner atmosphere doesn't protect as well as when at ground level.
- cobrausn 14y ago
  Backscatter workers are not the airplane crews - the exposure concern is from the machines.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Yes, and that's part of the data we've been gathering about radiation dosage. The problem, is that is about radiation that mostly deposits its energy evenly throughout your body. The backscatter machines are set up so most of it goes into your skin, which is particularly cancer prone. Note that the formulas that doctors use to calculate cancer risk from dosage are based on the evenly deposited energy data. These numbers would suggest that skin is less cancer prone than other tissues, but this is mostly because most of the energy would be deposited elsewhere. I don't think I'm unreasonable in suggesting that lots of animal testing would need to be done before unleashing such machines on the general public and 10's of thousands of TSA workers. You don't risk public health on "spherical cow" assumptions.

by talmand 14y ago

stfu 14y ago

Radiation badges, now that sounds like a kickstarter I would get behind.

potatolicious 14y ago
Why Kickstarter something you can buy on Amazon right now? http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determining-dosimeter/dp/B004VJ06CI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350669496&sr=8-1&keywords=dosimeter http://www.amazon.com/RADStickerTM-radiation-exposure-determ... To be more precise, there are also badges that are configured to change color once a dose threshold has been breached, and can provide a very precise dosage number if you send it into a lab. At the highest end you also have active dosimeters that can give accurate readings on the spot.

rom16384 14y ago

Airplane crews are exposed to more ionizing radiation than the rest of the population because at the high altitudes the planes fly the thinner atmosphere doesn't protect as well as when at ground level.

cobrausn 14y ago
Backscatter workers are not the airplane crews - the exposure concern is from the machines.
stcredzero 14y ago
Yes, and that's part of the data we've been gathering about radiation dosage. The problem, is that is about radiation that mostly deposits its energy evenly throughout your body. The backscatter machines are set up so most of it goes into your skin, which is particularly cancer prone. Note that the formulas that doctors use to calculate cancer risk from dosage are based on the evenly deposited energy data. These numbers would suggest that skin is less cancer prone than other tissues, but this is mostly because most of the energy would be deposited elsewhere. I don't think I'm unreasonable in suggesting that lots of animal testing would need to be done before unleashing such machines on the general public and 10's of thousands of TSA workers. You don't risk public health on "spherical cow" assumptions.