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

101–110 of 193 posts

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

#101

Post by Blunt »

bambax wrote: post #70
lylejohnson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So would the President choose the radiation naked picture method or the deep groping method for his daughters? I'd seriously like that question asked at some point by the press. No one in the press has the guts to ask him this. But man, I'd love to see that too.

There is a meme growing on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#search?q=%40cnn Mr. President: Would you send Michelle/Sasha/Malia through TSA screening? Naked photos or invasive genital groping, you get to pick.

Airforce-1 doesn't have this.

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

#102

Post by eru »

Legion wrote: post #7
batasrki wrote: post #2

A positive spin on this idiotic story, nicely done. Activism need not be violent nor do people need to be yelled at or talked down to. I still firmly believe that any TSA employee who doesn't want to be a part of this should refuse to, just as any traveller should refuse to go through the machine. But, there need not be drama. In fact, I'd say that refusal without drama and in public has a more powerful effect than a…

> Activism need not be violent nor do people need to be yelled at or talked down to. The lack of self-righteousness in the story was extremely refreshing. As the author said: "Information, properly delivered , is power." Emphasis mine.

Yes. The article also shows the power of wearing Vibram FiveFingers.

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

#103

Post by jokermatt999 »

daten wrote: post #46
hfinney wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 radiat…

I could be wrong here, but I believe hfinney was referring to the footnote about how people claim "X causes cancer" because they're against X, not because of evidence. Opponents of cell phones/power lines have frequently claimed they cause cancer, thus making it another valid example for the footnote, because their claims are untrue.

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

#104

Post by kyro »

j79 wrote: post #77

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…

As pleasant as your experience was, this shouldn't be taken in any way as justification for the procedure. I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do; it's just that I can see people reading this and saying to themselves "Well, what's the big deal? It's not that bad."

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

#105

Post by detst »

j79 wrote: post #77

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…

> You think passengers have it bad? I have to stand in front of this thing all day!

I encourage anyone that opts out to plant this fear in the TSA agents head. "I'm a little concerned about the radiation myself but I can't imagine what it's like for you to stand near this machine all day. It must be worrying".

Getting the TSA agents on our side certainly can't hurt.

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

#106

Post by ohyes »

Steuard wrote: post #100
ohyes wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: s/mwbs/bs/g; per comment below Well, X-rays cause cancer. BS uses X-rays So it is a cancer risk. And it is a little more founded than someone randomly saying' this causes cancer'. In terms of risk... This says dental x-rays are about 2-3 mrem: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/dental.htm This says BS is about .006-.009 mrem: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm Keep in mind that under cer…

Backscatter X-ray scanners use X-ray photons. Millimeter-wave scanners use far-infrared/microwave photons. To the best of my knowledge, nobody's every shown that microwaves or infrared light cause cancer: the photons just don't have enough energy to cause that kind of cell damage. (Yes, this is quibbling about what was probably just an error in definition; I think your comments are right as applied to backscatter X-r…

Yes, of course you are right, I was just looking at it from a perspective of the x-ray scanners. I have no idea about the microwave based scanners.

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

#107

Post by DanI-S »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #49
DanI-S wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

"When a photon interacts with a cell, it has a certain (small) probability of causing a carcinogenic mutation."

I'm also no expert, but surely there is a risk of more significant, irreparable genetic damage accumulating if several photons interact with the same skin cell, as opposed to those same photons interacting with several different cells throughout the body?

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

#108

Post by Tamerlin »

Semiapies wrote: post #84
j79 wrote: post #77

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…

"I have to stand in front of this thing all day!" You know, I never thought about that. Considering how x-ray technicians stand behind lead guards and aren't scanning people rapid-fire all day, I wonder what the dosage the TSA folks are getting.

X-Ray technicians also hide behind lead-lined walls, so when they're irradiating you they're doing so while protected. The TSA screeners are just standing next to the machines and are probably getting pretty much the same dose that their passengers are, which given that these machines are in the TSA's hands, probably means that they have absolutely no idea as to what dosage they're actually delivering.

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

#109

Post by something »

jessriedel wrote: post #94
ohyes wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: s/mwbs/bs/g; per comment below Well, X-rays cause cancer. BS uses X-rays So it is a cancer risk. And it is a little more founded than someone randomly saying' this causes cancer'. In terms of risk... This says dental x-rays are about 2-3 mrem: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/dental.htm This says BS is about .006-.009 mrem: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm Keep in mind that under cer…

Here's the key idea: your cross-country flight exposes you to 2-5 mrem. MWBS is about 0.01 mrem. It's trivial.

the UCSF letter explains why this is not a valid comparison. the ambient radiation absorbed in flight and the radiation of the mwbs are not in the same part of the spectrum so they are not comparable using simple agregate statistics. the stopping power of your (or any) body is function of the energy of the incident radiation (or particle) and this not considered in the mrem comparison.

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

#110

Post by jerf »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #85
ohyes wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: s/mwbs/bs/g; per comment below Well, X-rays cause cancer. BS uses X-rays So it is a cancer risk. And it is a little more founded than someone randomly saying' this causes cancer'. In terms of risk... This says dental x-rays are about 2-3 mrem: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/dental.htm This says BS is about .006-.009 mrem: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm Keep in mind that under cer…

(This doesn't take into account other real issues, like 'what if the machine breaks down and we start blasting people with focused beams of radiation'... What if my flashlight breaks down and I start blasting people with focused beams of laser light? What if my cell phone breaks down and the microwaves melt the brains of everyone within 6 feet of me? I don't know a great deal about the engineering of MWBS, but I see…

It is not a theoretical concern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
Post reply on HN