31–40 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but I would take getting them banned on any ground. In a few years, we will call them cancer machines again and see if we can win then. If you have a way to win on privacy issues the more power to you, but I doubt it can be done.
That's called dishonesty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not matter if they are safe (which they aren't), it matters that they be removed. A little fud now and then is a good thing.
> A little fud now and then is a good thing This, my friend, is the problem with politics and science today.(And probably all of human history, but I was going for affect.)
But until then, I have to work with what we have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not matter if they are safe (which they aren't), it matters that they be removed. A little fud now and then is a good thing.
> A little fud now and then is a good thing This, my friend, is the problem with politics and science today.(And probably all of human history, but I was going for affect.)
That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least…
We have two facts here:
* These machines should not be in use as they do nothing to help security and they are ripe for abuse (and have already been abused in their short time of being used)
* The public is not ever going to be bothered enough by privacy concerns to actually do something about it. They would, however, do a great deal if they felt their lives depended on it.
Taking these two facts into account, if a leading scientist says these things may be dangerous I would tend to take his word for it without digging into it. That sounds bad but how else can one deal with people who value convenience over what is right?
That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least…
>It's easy to spread FUD, but these devices are likely safe. We have two facts here: * These machines should not be in use as they do nothing to help security and they are ripe for abuse (and have already been abused in their short time of being used) * The public is not ever going to be bothered enough by privacy concerns to actually do something about it. They would, however, do a great deal if they felt their live…
It is falsity that is allowing people to convince airport authorities that these machines make sense. If you want to get into the bullshitting arms race, know a priori that you will lose; those people are much better at it than you are, and they have more to gain or lose.
That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least…
if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes.
This looks like science to me, not FUD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're willing to say anything to make the other side look bad, why should anyone give you credence?
Maybe they shouldn't, but when you're going up against the kind of ruthlessness that will stop at nothing to invade your privacy by any means, limiting your angles of attack for ethical concerns might not be palatable for everyone. I'd like these machines to be banned for privacy concerns as well, but if they're banned for safety concerns that I made up, that's still better than them being put in every airport.
It's like torture; one can't torture on behalf of the 'good guys' and say it's for a higher purpose, because acceptance of torture as a legitimate means of inquiry is exactly the sort of thing that divides good government from bad (this, of course, assumes one is opposed to the practice in the first place).
I found the most interesting part of this to be the end when they list one of the concerns as Software. For those who want a point of reference of what could go wrong check out the Therac-25 story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
"Because this device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's easy to spread FUD, but these devices are likely safe. We have two facts here: * These machines should not be in use as they do nothing to help security and they are ripe for abuse (and have already been abused in their short time of being used) * The public is not ever going to be bothered enough by privacy concerns to actually do something about it. They would, however, do a great deal if they felt their live…
I accidentally upvoted you. There is the truth and there is falsity. None of our principles, including the one that says minimum wage security workers shouldn't be looking at us naked, mean anything if we can't look each other in the eyes and articulate them truthfully. It is falsity that is allowing people to convince airport authorities that these machines make sense. If you want to get into the bullshitting arms r…