3 ms·

If it's (3) saying in _zero_ harm then it's almost certantly a lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_n

by nullc 14y ago

If it's (3) saying in _zero_ harm then it's almost certantly a lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model), if it's a (3) saying the harm is very low and so it wins on cost benefit — well, that is possible but it seems really unlikely considering how insanely low the base rate of terrorism is, much less the subset of attacks which the scanners actually prevent (vs just shuffling around the attack mechanisms).

pdonis 14y ago
it seems really unlikely considering how insanely low the base rate of terrorism is, much less the subset of attacks which the scanners actually prevent This is an argument for not screening passengers, or at least doing it very differently from the way we do now. It's not an argument for using one type of scanner rather than another, given that you are going to screen with scanners. That's the only question at issue in the OP: whether TSA should use X-ray scanners or another type.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  The cost/benefit is likely to be different between the X-ray backs after and millimeter wave scanners.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    Different, sure. But different doesn't necessarily mean better.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Explain how risk/reward could be different without one being better than the other. Is one going to come out as an imaginary number or something? Actually, now that I think about it more, you're probably going to be dividing by zero to calculate that risk over reward so testing equality will be a challenge...
      - pdonis 14y ago
        Because risk/reward requires tradeoffs; it isn't a single linear scale. Different tradeoffs can be judged differently based on who is doing the judging and what criteria they are using. There isn't a single "right answer".
        jlgreco 14y ago
        For anyone's subjective answer, one is going to be better than the other, unless they are freakishly identical. Whoever provides the most rational defense of their analysis is the person we listen to. We don't need to play fast and loose with the calculation though. Real data would be trivial to accumulate, were it permitted.
- gknoy 14y ago
  If more people are likely to die per year from cancer caused by the scanners than are likely to die from terrorists, I think that's a convincing argument that using the scanners screen passengers is worse than not screening them at all.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    using the scanners screen passengers is worse than not screening them at all. Sure, that's true (given your assumptions) if the scanners pose any risk that's worse than just walking a distance equivalent to the space taken up by the checkpoint. But as I said, that's not the question under discussion; the question is whether there is any significant difference between one type of scanner and another, given that you're going to scan passengers.
glenra 14y ago
It's actually plausible that the scanners - if working as designed - might cause net health benefit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis ). The tricky thing is that we have no way of knowing if the machines are operating as designed and the powers that be have a looooong history of outright lying to passengers. I still remember when they told people sending your camera through the X-ray wasn't bad for the film - this was a lie, but it made security's job easier to tell that lie, so they told it. Knowing that the TSA is a bunch of incompetent and untrustworthy nitwits, I don't trust them to operate dangerous equipment safely. Since a machine that's not being maintained correctly or isn't being used correctly could be really dangerous, I generally choose to opt out.

by nullc 14y ago

pdonis 14y ago

it seems really unlikely considering how insanely low the base rate of terrorism is, much less the subset of attacks which the scanners actually prevent This is an argument for not screening passengers, or at least doing it very differently from the way we do now. It's not an argument for using one type of scanner rather than another, given that you are going to screen with scanners. That's the only question at issue in the OP: whether TSA should use X-ray scanners or another type.

stcredzero 14y ago
The cost/benefit is likely to be different between the X-ray backs after and millimeter wave scanners.
- pdonis 14y ago
  Different, sure. But different doesn't necessarily mean better.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Explain how risk/reward could be different without one being better than the other. Is one going to come out as an imaginary number or something? Actually, now that I think about it more, you're probably going to be dividing by zero to calculate that risk over reward so testing equality will be a challenge...
    - pdonis 14y ago
      Because risk/reward requires tradeoffs; it isn't a single linear scale. Different tradeoffs can be judged differently based on who is doing the judging and what criteria they are using. There isn't a single "right answer".
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        For anyone's subjective answer, one is going to be better than the other, unless they are freakishly identical. Whoever provides the most rational defense of their analysis is the person we listen to. We don't need to play fast and loose with the calculation though. Real data would be trivial to accumulate, were it permitted.
gknoy 14y ago
If more people are likely to die per year from cancer caused by the scanners than are likely to die from terrorists, I think that's a convincing argument that using the scanners screen passengers is worse than not screening them at all.
- pdonis 14y ago
  using the scanners screen passengers is worse than not screening them at all. Sure, that's true (given your assumptions) if the scanners pose any risk that's worse than just walking a distance equivalent to the space taken up by the checkpoint. But as I said, that's not the question under discussion; the question is whether there is any significant difference between one type of scanner and another, given that you're going to scan passengers.

glenra 14y ago

It's actually plausible that the scanners - if working as designed - might cause net health benefit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis ). The tricky thing is that we have no way of knowing if the machines are operating as designed and the powers that be have a looooong history of outright lying to passengers. I still remember when they told people sending your camera through the X-ray wasn't bad for the film - this was a lie, but it made security's job easier to tell that lie, so they told it. Knowing that the TSA is a bunch of incompetent and untrustworthy nitwits, I don't trust them to operate dangerous equipment safely. Since a machine that's not being maintained correctly or isn't being used correctly could be really dangerous, I generally choose to opt out.