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

When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

blog.izs.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 193 posts

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#41

Post by jcl »

ars wrote: post #23
batasrki wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, firstly, the fact that the TSA employee didn't challenge that statement tells me that either that employee isn't properly informed or he/she knows more than what is publicly known. I'm gonna go on a limb and say it's the former rather than latter. Secondly, it shouldn't be a question of whether the machine is x-ray or millimeter wave. Both of those emit radiation and until there's definitive proof that one or b…

There is definitive proof that millimeter wave does not cause cancer, considering it's basically far infrared light which hits you all day every day. Millimeter wave and X-ray scanners are not the same thing and should never be confused. I personally would never go through an X-ray scanner. Are the scanners marked in some way so I know which is which?

From an NPR blog entry:

By the way, you might be wondering: Can the average traveler standing in a security line tell the difference? Yes, a TSA spokesman says. The X-ray type is blue and has two walls. The millimeter-wave machine is grayish-white and is more cylindrical.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest...

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#42

Post by kenjackson »

rdouble wrote: post #24

I recently flew JFK->SFO and back on Virgin. There are no backscatter machines at the Virgin terminal at JFK. They do have them at SFO. About every 10th person was selected to go through the scanner. Nobody opted out. Contrary to most reports, the TSA agents at both airports were pretty nice and helpful. At JFK, they were helping a number non-english speaking travelers speed their way through the line so they wouldn'…

If anything was off, a couple of the agents at SFO were too chipper at 6am

Probably because they were looking forward to seeing some hotties.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#44

Post by danilocampos »

ck2 wrote: post #40
danilocampos wrote: post #4

Never underestimate the potential for convincing an underpaid federal employee to cut corners. If you make this stuff too inconvenient for the guys on the ground, the policy gets eroded from the inside. Until Napolitano cracks down. But that's several moves ahead.

I think most of them are intoxicated on the power, I mean how much would someone have to pay you to grope people all day? I'd quit in an hour. Have you seen the photo where this horrifying parody http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg is the wallpaper on the computer screen in the TSA office? http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg I mean think about the mentality - in the very workplace they do it.

I'm actually more horrified by my tax dollars paying for the TSA to sit in Herman Miller chairs, but damn. Beggars belief.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#45

Post by anthonycerra »

danilocampos wrote: post #4

Never underestimate the potential for convincing an underpaid federal employee to cut corners. If you make this stuff too inconvenient for the guys on the ground, the policy gets eroded from the inside. Until Napolitano cracks down. But that's several moves ahead.

Also, never underestimate the power we have in numbers. The challenge is in maintaining civility among a group during those fight or flight situations.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#46

Post by daten »

hfinney wrote: post #27
yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants c…

Don't forget cell phones, they cause cancer too.

You're not forced to use a cell phone in order to fly. The radiation from the phone is not concentrated and directed at your entire body. It's a different frequency and intensity. A lot more time has been spent studying the dangers of RF from consumer phones than the dangers of these new machines based on medical devices that require lead clothing or lead walls for safe use.

You're also exposed to a variety of radiation when you fly in the high atmosphere or eat a banana. It doesn't mean additional radiation from insufficiently tested machines is a good idea.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#47

Post by jamesaguilar »

kreneskyp wrote: post #37
jamesaguilar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get a pretty decent radiation dose from flying around high in the atmosphere too. From what I have read the crossover point where you absorb more x-ray radiation in the flight than the scanners is about an hour and a half. See here for a bunch of things to read ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effect... ). According to this page, 42 minutes of ordinary living is sufficient to give you a sim…

Radiation is cumulative. Saying that you will absorb more radiation in flight is not a justification for accepting radiation from another source. You will still absorb more total radiation. It's a lot easier to avoid the scanner, than it is to find an alternate mode of transportation across long distances.

In one situation, large quantities of X cause no visible concern to people. In another situation, much smaller quantities of X cause serious outcry, even when no harmful effects from those smaller quantities have been demonstrated over twenty years of study.

I suppose it's possible for someone to be genuinely concerned over these very small quantities of radiation. But it strikes me that for the average person what underlies the panic is

1. a counter-factual belief that more health-harm is done by a new technology than actually is,

2. a diversionary appeal to concern for safety when health risks are not really a significant negative of a new technology.

This happens in all kinds of areas. Artificial sweeteners, GMO foods, irradiated meat products, and vaccines have all fought or are fighting this battle. The only reason this type of thinking is given a pass here or anywhere reasonable people congregate is because the community is so opposed to the technology for other reasons.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#48

Post by scott_s »

ck2 wrote: post #40
danilocampos wrote: post #4

Never underestimate the potential for convincing an underpaid federal employee to cut corners. If you make this stuff too inconvenient for the guys on the ground, the policy gets eroded from the inside. Until Napolitano cracks down. But that's several moves ahead.

I think most of them are intoxicated on the power, I mean how much would someone have to pay you to grope people all day? I'd quit in an hour. Have you seen the photo where this horrifying parody http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg is the wallpaper on the computer screen in the TSA office? http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg I mean think about the mentality - in the very workplace they do it.

Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor as a coping mechanism.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#49

Post by yummyfajitas »

DanI-S wrote: post #26
yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants c…

There's a letter here from a group of X-ray imaging and cancer experts recommending further study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-co...

I'm no expert, but I have a basic understanding of radiation physics. And this letter reads like FUD:

The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue.Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.

This statement is very shady. When a photon interacts with a cell, it has a certain (small) probability of causing a carcinogenic mutation. The probability that the radiation is safe is (1-P)^N, where N is the number of interactions [1]. The fact that it is all deposited in the skin is irrelevant to leading order [2], this simply makes skin cancer more likely than breast or liver cancer.

I.e., if the dose in the form of a chest x-ray caused a 1e-9 chance of skin cancer and 1e-9 chance of breast cancer, it instead causes a 2e-9 chance of skin cancer with comparably reduced breast cancer risk.

[1] I'm ignoring high field (nonlinear) effects, since if the field were strong enough to cause them, it would probably also vaporize the person being scanned.

[2] It's actually a good thing since many skin cells are dead or will soon die, and thus carcinogenic mutations will harm them less.

Re: When we got to the scanner, I opted out. Then they opted out.

#50

Post by ck2 »

scott_s wrote: post #48
ck2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of them are intoxicated on the power, I mean how much would someone have to pay you to grope people all day? I'd quit in an hour. Have you seen the photo where this horrifying parody http://imgur.com/Nu5f8.jpg is the wallpaper on the computer screen in the TSA office? http://imgur.com/1xFBp.jpg I mean think about the mentality - in the very workplace they do it.

Saying "I would do X when presented with Y" is easy to say when you have not been presented with Y. Regarding the wallpaper, yes, it's inappropriate. Perhaps it is an indication that the people are drunk with power. But it could also be another instance of people in an uncomfortable situation using humor as a coping mechanism.

If your job makes you that uncomfortable, you can't do it properly and you should seek other employment immediately.

That's like excusing cops for not following the law themselves because they have a "difficult" job.

Post reply on HN