8 ms·
Different radiation sources aren't casually comparable as "banana multiples" or by counting (or linearly multiplying) sieverts. In particular, the radiation fr
by gojomo 13y ago
Different radiation sources aren't casually comparable as "banana multiples" or by counting (or linearly multiplying) sieverts.
In particular, the radiation from the decay of potassium in bananas is different particles, wavelengths, and energy than that of X-Rays, so using "banana equivalents" to talk about X-Rays is obfuscatory oversimplification.
- tptacek 13y agoI'm always happy to accept an argument that casts doubt on XKCD comics, so let's stipulate you're right about the banana comparison. But the comparison to the flight itself isn't similarly specious. The point of both comparisons is that the amount of radiation we're talking about is very, very low. (Fun thread on the RadSafe list about banana dose equivalents: http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2011-March/031410.html http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2011-March/031410.html)
- gojomo 13y agoJust because a lot of the cosmic radiation during the flight is also 'X-Rays' also doesn't mean the exposure is equatable by a simple multiplier in tissue effects. The specific energy, delivery, and timing could all be worse or better. Given non-linear effects like hormesis, the scanners (or flight) might even be good, at some levels, then turn bad. It ought to be studied, with the actual devices in real-world scenarios, and to the same level of scrutiny of medical radiation devices -- which have themselves killed people when misunderstood or misprogrammed. Instead, the TSA's use seems rushed through a different less-accountable process, with a bunch of hand-waving "this is kinda like that" reassurances.
- glurgh 13y agoThat's sort of the point of sieverts, though.