5 ms·

As others have pointed out, there is little basis for your assertion that "backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers." As my father (a physician) e

As others have pointed out, there is little basis for your assertion that "backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers." As my father (a physician) enjoys pointing out: we used to use X-rays to treat acne -- they were thought to not pose any health risk either! More generally, the history of technology is littered with arrogant overshoots where risks were dismissed until evidence became overwhelming; while one cannot conclude that backscatter is at a level to be dangerous, one can certainly not conclude that it "doesn't pose any health risk." Or to flip it around, I opt out because I happen to know something that the TSA doesn't: I pose no risk to the aircraft, and scanning me in no way makes the aircraft safer. I can therefore assert with absolute certainty that my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned poses a risk to me. (Plus, I think I might secretly enjoy TSA agents awkwardly and apologetically rubbing the backs of their hands on my crotch.)

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tedunangst 14y ago
The radiation one received to treat acne was substantially more than the amount of radiation one received in the car ride to the doctor's office.
- daniel-cussen 14y ago
  Then why does anyone have acne?
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Because we don't zap people with lots of radiation to treat it anymore.
ghshephard 14y ago
I'm completely comfortable with people who are concerned about the radiation we are getting from "Back Scatter X-Rays" - but I'm just wondering where they heck they were when trying to protect us from the radiation we get while flying? If those brief, minimal x-ray scans we get during TSA searches is worth considering, then I wish someone would do something about shielding us while we're flying, and getting a great deal more radiation...
- daeken 14y ago
  Yes, you are exposed to radiation while flying -- significantly more than when passing through body scanners -- but it's not a risk with no benefit: you're flying. Body scanners, on the other hand, are a risk (I'll grant, a tiny one) with absolutely no reward as they do nothing to actually increase the security of flights. We take risks every day and that's completely okay as long as the benefits make up for it. I'll take a 0.1% chance of dying for a million dollars, but I won't take it for a sandwich; I'll take a bit of radiation to fly, but not because of a half-assed security mechanism.
- nnnnnnnn 14y ago
  Your reply reminds me of the post-9/11 "get some priorities" troll: http://everything2.com/user/NotBridgetJones/writeups/slashdot+troll http://everything2.com/user/NotBridgetJones/writeups/slashdo... It's a classic false dichotomy. Specifically, a person can care about both issues simultaniously. The problem is that we're not producing the radiation in the air -- it's already there. Radiation shielding is heavy and infeasible for use in current airplane technology. It's a very, very hard problem. BackScatter scanners, in contrast, are optional. They are completely and utterly unnecessary. It's very easy to get rid of them; indeed it would have been easiest and cheapest to never have forced them upon an an unwilling community of travelers.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  And you also expose yourself to dangers of breaking a leg when you go on a hiking adventure. When you drive you also are very vulnerable. Every time you step into the shower you can slip, snap your spine or hit your head and remain paralyzed or dead. But you know what makes those things different than TSA? -- You get something back in return for that risk. You have fun hiking, you get to work faster, you get cleaned so you don't repulse friends and strangers with BO. But you get _nothing_ back by going through the TSA scanners except getting your cells blasted by energy enough to mutate your DNA. Yes you get the same in flight, but you are getting some place pretty darn fast as a trade-off. To continue the analogy. Imagine you go through a machine every morning that has a spring loaded hammer when you exit you house to leave. Most of these machine will do nothing to you, but every rarely those machine are known to release their hammer and smash limbs or cause injury otherwise. That is exactly the equivalent of TSA scanners. You get nothing back for the risk of injury.
shykes 14y ago
> my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned poses a risk to me Since you are part of the traveling public, you can further simplify your sentence to: "my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned". That's like a 5-word trim! :)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tedunangst 14y ago

The radiation one received to treat acne was substantially more than the amount of radiation one received in the car ride to the doctor's office.

daniel-cussen 14y ago
Then why does anyone have acne?
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Because we don't zap people with lots of radiation to treat it anymore.

ghshephard 14y ago

I'm completely comfortable with people who are concerned about the radiation we are getting from "Back Scatter X-Rays" - but I'm just wondering where they heck they were when trying to protect us from the radiation we get while flying? If those brief, minimal x-ray scans we get during TSA searches is worth considering, then I wish someone would do something about shielding us while we're flying, and getting a great deal more radiation...

daeken 14y ago
Yes, you are exposed to radiation while flying -- significantly more than when passing through body scanners -- but it's not a risk with no benefit: you're flying. Body scanners, on the other hand, are a risk (I'll grant, a tiny one) with absolutely no reward as they do nothing to actually increase the security of flights. We take risks every day and that's completely okay as long as the benefits make up for it. I'll take a 0.1% chance of dying for a million dollars, but I won't take it for a sandwich; I'll take a bit of radiation to fly, but not because of a half-assed security mechanism.
nnnnnnnn 14y ago
Your reply reminds me of the post-9/11 "get some priorities" troll: http://everything2.com/user/NotBridgetJones/writeups/slashdot+troll http://everything2.com/user/NotBridgetJones/writeups/slashdo... It's a classic false dichotomy. Specifically, a person can care about both issues simultaniously. The problem is that we're not producing the radiation in the air -- it's already there. Radiation shielding is heavy and infeasible for use in current airplane technology. It's a very, very hard problem. BackScatter scanners, in contrast, are optional. They are completely and utterly unnecessary. It's very easy to get rid of them; indeed it would have been easiest and cheapest to never have forced them upon an an unwilling community of travelers.
rdtsc 14y ago
And you also expose yourself to dangers of breaking a leg when you go on a hiking adventure. When you drive you also are very vulnerable. Every time you step into the shower you can slip, snap your spine or hit your head and remain paralyzed or dead. But you know what makes those things different than TSA? -- You get something back in return for that risk. You have fun hiking, you get to work faster, you get cleaned so you don't repulse friends and strangers with BO. But you get _nothing_ back by going through the TSA scanners except getting your cells blasted by energy enough to mutate your DNA. Yes you get the same in flight, but you are getting some place pretty darn fast as a trade-off. To continue the analogy. Imagine you go through a machine every morning that has a spring loaded hammer when you exit you house to leave. Most of these machine will do nothing to you, but every rarely those machine are known to release their hammer and smash limbs or cause injury otherwise. That is exactly the equivalent of TSA scanners. You get nothing back for the risk of injury.

shykes 14y ago

> my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned poses a risk to me Since you are part of the traveling public, you can further simplify your sentence to: "my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned". That's like a 5-word trim! :)