4 ms·
How is the situation actually better? If you believe that these scanners are harmful, then it's pretty hard to argue that shuffling them around has actually do
by daeken 14y ago
How is the situation actually better? If you believe that these scanners are harmful, then it's pretty hard to argue that shuffling them around has actually done any good; it's just doing harm in a different place.
- HelloMcFly 14y agoIf something is harmful, I consider the situation "better" every time significantly fewer people are exposed to the harm. I'd rather have three backscatter scanners operating at Yeager Airport in Charleston, WV than operating in Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
- zheng 14y agoOf course, if you live in Charleston, WV, then this doesn't really help you much personally.
- mosburger 14y agoYeah - as a resident of Portland, Maine who frequently flies out of my home airport to visit clients, I'm not so psyched about the small airports getting the old radiation machines.
- HelloMcFly 14y agoJust opt-out. I always did. It's not a great situation, but slow progress beats no progress.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- bunderbunder 14y agoWell, if they're moving them from busy airports to less-busy ones then hypothetically less harm is being done overall, on account of fewer people being exposed. Less bad is still no good. . . but it's still less bad, too.
- mcantelon 14y agoRural folks may be statistically less likely to be aware of the issue or make a fuss.
- sologoub 14y agoAgreed, I'd rather not have them anywhere...
- hartez 14y agoAnd all that shuffling costs tax dollars.
- Laremere 14y agoIt shows that they're aware of the negative public pressure. They may just be playing a shell game at the moment, but at least the pressure is forcing them to respond.