5 ms·

I feel a little silly linking an XKCD image, but it's accurate and relevant: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/ An average human receives 1

I feel a little silly linking an XKCD image, but it's accurate and relevant: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/ An average human receives 10 uSv during an average day from background radiation, and 40 uSv on a cross-country flight. Living in Denver, CO for a year will expose you to 1800 uSv. Some more dosages for various routine living situations and medical procedures (note, they are in mSv, not uSv): http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Rad...

epoxyhockey 14y ago
I get that and I appreciate the additional info on radiation exposures (I had not seen the 2nd link you posted before). I was trying to imply that the argument of "it's not that bad" can quickly become moot considering that imaging companies have more powerful scanners standing by for purchase & use. It really becomes a question of how much is too much? And, for what benefit am I being dosed with an extra amount of radiation? Unfortunately, most travelers are unaware that they are even being dosed with radiation by a scanner. No doubt, the TSA would like to keep that fact hidden.
- polyfractal 14y ago
  Yeah, I agree that it is a slippery slope. The difference between their two models right now is the difference between someone throwing dust at you, vs throwing grains of rice. Neither hurt...but it could quickly escalate to throwing pennies or bricks. And for basically no value-add, since it's the TSA. All in all, I think the TSA is awful and would love them gone. At the very least there should be regulation on the max amount of radiation that is allowed by a machine (not sure if this exists).
  - sneak 14y ago
    They actively prohibit their screeners (that work next to the machines all day) from wearing dosimeters.

epoxyhockey 14y ago

I get that and I appreciate the additional info on radiation exposures (I had not seen the 2nd link you posted before). I was trying to imply that the argument of "it's not that bad" can quickly become moot considering that imaging companies have more powerful scanners standing by for purchase & use. It really becomes a question of how much is too much? And, for what benefit am I being dosed with an extra amount of radiation? Unfortunately, most travelers are unaware that they are even being dosed with radiation by a scanner. No doubt, the TSA would like to keep that fact hidden.

polyfractal 14y ago
Yeah, I agree that it is a slippery slope. The difference between their two models right now is the difference between someone throwing dust at you, vs throwing grains of rice. Neither hurt...but it could quickly escalate to throwing pennies or bricks. And for basically no value-add, since it's the TSA. All in all, I think the TSA is awful and would love them gone. At the very least there should be regulation on the max amount of radiation that is allowed by a machine (not sure if this exists).
- sneak 14y ago
  They actively prohibit their screeners (that work next to the machines all day) from wearing dosimeters.