Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#41

Post by pjscott »

jcromartie wrote: post #5

Just as a general policy, I don't willingly step into superfluous machines intended to irradiate me.

The airplane itself is much less superfluous, but irradiates you far more than the backscatter machines. Are you sure you're not just putting a sort of halo of evilness around the backscatter machines because you dislike them for other reasons?

(Full disclosure: I'm not particularly bothered by backscatter machines as such, but I vehemently object to the paranoid, theatrical, and statistically silly approach to security that has provided the impetus for their installation.)

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#42

Post by uvdiv »

pygy_ wrote: post #3
sstone wrote: post #2

The document was linked here before but is very detailed and interesting, even naming specific issues: A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging. B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because t…

I've been told by an engineer friend of mine that the radiation dose these scanners deliver was dwarfed by the in-flight cosmic irradiation. He didn't give me numbers, though. It would be nice if a radiotherapist (or another expert) could chime in on this topic. ---------------------------- edit: answering my own question: he's wrong. from [1] : >The estimated occupational effective dose for the aircraft crew (A 320)…

No, actually your data validates him. Maybe you are confusing 'm' with 'μ', that is, milli- (10^-3) with micro- (10^-6)?

>The estimated occupational effective dose for the aircraft crew (A 320) working 500 h per year was 1.64 mSv.

1.64 mSv (milliSieverts) / 500 hours = 3.28 μSv/hour. A 3-hour flight is 10 μSv.

For comparison, the FDA letter [1] linked in another comment here cites the effective dose of the backscatter x-rays as 0.25 μSv.

The cosmic ray dose from a 3 hour flight is 40 times that of the backscatter x-ray. Pretty much "dwarfs it".

(Note that while the FDA letter says the effective dose is 0.25 μSv, the footnote there (11) says that RapiScan is While I'm in these parentheses, NOAA has a table [3] of cosmic ray doses as a function of altitude. Pretty much consistent with your source -- 3 μSv/hr at 30,000 ft, 6 μSv/hr at 40,000 ft).

[1] http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt...

[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1268330...

[3] http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/RadHaz.html

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#43

Post by chc »

anigbrowl wrote: post #38
bluedanieru wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a dangerous path to go down; if we abandon factual standards or arguing issues on the legal merits, then what's left is basically just marketing. And there will always be someone who can afford better marketing. 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 div…

I think the point is that we're already at that place. These machines are only there because of what you call marketing. You may think a knife is an elegant weapon for a more civilized age, but you're still screwed if you bring one to a gunfight. It's a difficult choice.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#44

Post by pjscott »

DanI-S wrote: post #33

Airport security is ridiculous. What do we do when the first bright terrorist figures out they can blow up 500 people in the line for the scanner?

We'll faint dead away!

Seriously? We could implement pipelined multi-stage inspections, like a security line to get into another security line, and hire more TSA people to make sure everyone is spread out. And have bomb-sniffing dogs everywhere. This would be silly, but I wouldn't put it past the TSA to actually do it.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#45

Post by catch23 »

pjscott wrote: post #41
jcromartie wrote: post #5

Just as a general policy, I don't willingly step into superfluous machines intended to irradiate me.

The airplane itself is much less superfluous, but irradiates you far more than the backscatter machines. Are you sure you're not just putting a sort of halo of evilness around the backscatter machines because you dislike them for other reasons? (Full disclosure: I'm not particularly bothered by backscatter machines as such, but I vehemently object to the paranoid, theatrical, and statistically silly approach to secur…

what's your source that the radiation emitted from sitting in the airplane cabin is higher than a cat scan machine?

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#46

Post by alex_c »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #29

I believe what's happening is the use of the radiation concerns is a proxy for the underlying problem: regularly taking naked pictures of the population in the name of security. I don't think anybody can effectively argue that the whole enterprise is in dire need of grownups -- too easy to get screwed the next time there is an attack. But you could argue that radiation is a key factor, or just wave your arms around a…

The problem, of course, is that you are not solving the underlying problem... you are, at best, potentially treating one isolated symptom, and you are doing so by deflecting the conversation from the real problem as well as potentially compromising some scientific integrity along the way.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#47

Post by pygy_ »

uvdiv wrote: post #42
pygy_ wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been told by an engineer friend of mine that the radiation dose these scanners deliver was dwarfed by the in-flight cosmic irradiation. He didn't give me numbers, though. It would be nice if a radiotherapist (or another expert) could chime in on this topic. ---------------------------- edit: answering my own question: he's wrong. from [1] : >The estimated occupational effective dose for the aircraft crew (A 320)…

No, actually your data validates him. Maybe you are confusing 'm' with 'μ', that is, milli- (10^-3) with micro- (10^-6)? > The estimated occupational effective dose for the aircraft crew (A 320) working 500 h per year was 1.64 mSv. 1.64 mSv (milliSieverts) / 500 hours = 3.28 μSv/hour. A 3-hour flight is 10 μSv. For comparison, the FDA letter [1] linked in another comment here cites the effective dose of the backscatt…

Indeed. I know the difference between µ and m, but I missed it here.

/hides

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#48

Post by tomjen3 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #38
bluedanieru wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a dangerous path to go down; if we abandon factual standards or arguing issues on the legal merits, then what's left is basically just marketing. And there will always be someone who can afford better marketing. 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 div…

True, but that genie has been out the bottle for thousands of years. It is called being human.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#49

Post by Dylanlacey »

chopsueyar wrote: post #27
jcromartie wrote: post #5

Just as a general policy, I don't willingly step into superfluous machines intended to irradiate me.

Why, what are you hiding?

And THAT is the magic, but ultimately farsical response that opponents often have to defend against.

Not saying you're not being frivolous, but it's annoying how often people take the easy route.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#50

Post by loewenskind »

tptacek wrote: post #36
loewenskind wrote: post #35

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…

I'm not saying to lie. I'm saying if someone with credentials comes out and says there may be health issues with these things we don't need to look any further. They shouldn't be in the airport whether they present a safety risk or not. Instead of wasting energy chasing something that doesn't change the over all outcome (finding out they're safe still doesn't mean they should be used), use that energy to research things that do matter. It's just about being efficient. :)
Post reply on HN