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

Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 137 posts

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#31

Post by Confusion »

aphyr wrote: post #21
zbanks wrote: post #4

More tellingly, on an average two-hour flight, you'd receive about 100 times the radiation from a single scan. But, by using the transitive property, you're more likely to die from radiation at flying altitudes than from a terrorist attack on said airplane. EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to include the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effect... Which comes from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/…

This comparison is meaningless. The risk of cancer is caused by DNA errors. Your cells are constantly checking and repairing your DNA for mutations and damage. They can usually repair or detect a low error rate, like the kind you get from living at high altitude, in a house with a minor radon source, or flying on a plane. What they can't deal with as well is a sudden burst of many errors. Backscatter X-ray scanners d…

Where 'an entirely different biological impact' may just as well mean 'no impact at all': it may even turn out to prevent melanomas.

While everyone is busy losing themselves in radiation hysteria, where facts are only guessed at, the government is laughing their ass off, because everyone lost sight of the actual problem: that these machines are assumed to improve safety in the first place. The radiation scare is an enormous red herring that mainly harms the public perception of 'radiation', that wasn't too good to begin with, for all the wrong reasons.

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#32

Post by Vivtek »

goldenthunder wrote: post #17

Maybe I suck at basic prob/stats but if you remove the scanners, I bet the chance of a plane getting blown up by a terrorist is significantly increased. ;)

I would take that bet. I also have an inside track on a great bridge for sale, and some choice coastal real estate, if you're interested.

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#34

Post by smokeyj »

shasta wrote: post #29
burgerbrain wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only holds if being sexually molested and having naked pictures of yourself taken is weighted at zero. Furthermore, this statistic in no way indicates that these screenings reduce the risk of dying in a terrorist attack. 1 plus 1 does not equal 0. You've allegedly doubled your risk of dying, not reduced it.

Well, you're right to question what the reduction in risk these scanners produce, but your first point is way off. The cost of terrorist attacks is hardly limited to death. Those planes and buildings aren't free. Not that cancer treatments are, either, but if you weigh in the psychological damage to the public (you know, why they call it "terrorism"), terrorist attacks are far more costly.

A "terrorist" would just find another way to terrorize.. duh. Real terrorism is a drama, as orchestrated by our overlords, to polarize the public in attempt to deprive them of their liberty. That is all.

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#35

Post by wnoise »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #20
eru wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the other replies, I guess you should put explicit sarcasm tags around your comment.

Yes. And then it still won't be very funny. It's too similar to something an actual TSA flack would say.

If it weren't similar at all it wouldn't be funny either. It's a hard balance to set.

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#36

Post by sequoia »

My takeaway: -I don't like the privacy ramifications of these scans. -I don't like being bombarded with additional radiation for no good reason, regardless of whether people think it will harm you.

Just as I will get an x-ray for a good reason, but decline getting one for a silly reason, I would decline this if able. Maybe taking an aspirin a day is bad for you, maybe it's not, but I'm not going to start doing it for no reason.

So one more reason I don't like the scan.

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#37

Post by jcl »

stretchwithme wrote: post #22

Yes, but the peace of mind one experiences while being groped or ionized makes it all worth while. Regarding how much radiation you receive on the plane itself, I always try to sit away from the window and on the north side of the plane if possible.

My impression was that the increased radiation experienced on a flight was due to cosmic radiation, not radiation from the sun. So it shouldn't matter where you sit on the plane, right?

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#38

Post by aphyr »

Confusion wrote: post #31
aphyr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comparison is meaningless. The risk of cancer is caused by DNA errors. Your cells are constantly checking and repairing your DNA for mutations and damage. They can usually repair or detect a low error rate, like the kind you get from living at high altitude, in a house with a minor radon source, or flying on a plane. What they can't deal with as well is a sudden burst of many errors. Backscatter X-ray scanners d…

Where 'an entirely different biological impact' may just as well mean 'no impact at all': it may even turn out to prevent melanomas. While everyone is busy losing themselves in radiation hysteria, where facts are only guessed at, the government is laughing their ass off, because everyone lost sight of the actual problem: that these machines are assumed to improve safety in the first place. The radiation scare is an e…

We know that short-term small doses of X rays results in increased probability of developing skin cancer. We know that prolonged exposure to low-level radiation sources increases your probability of developing skin cancer. We know that acute high doses of ionizing radiation leads to your skin falling off. Skin cancers are abnormally elevated in radiologists, survivors of Hiroshima who experienced even relatively low doses, radioisotope miners, and people who are treated with X rays for skin conditions.

I'll hazard a guess here and say there's close to zero probability that backscatter machines are lowering your risk of cancer.

Don't get me wrong: I love radiation. I think Cherenkov glow is the coolest thing about working in a reactor. I've handled more sources than I probably should have by this point in my life. At the same time, we should be honest that there is probably a small risk, and it is probably higher than currently stated.

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#39

Post by ax0n »

burgerbrain wrote: post #9
wnoise wrote: post #2

Oh, well if they're equal, then that means this is a perfectly proportional and appropriate response.

That only holds if being sexually molested and having naked pictures of yourself taken is weighted at zero. Furthermore, this statistic in no way indicates that these screenings reduce the risk of dying in a terrorist attack. 1 plus 1 does not equal 0. You've allegedly doubled your risk of dying, not reduced it.

The second paragraph is almost verbatim to the statement I was about to say in response to the OP.

Blacklists do not work. Antivirus software checks for a hundred thousand individual known problems, yet viruses and malware continue to evolve and bypass the blacklist. So do explosives hiding in containers that the TSA doesn't expect to find explosives in.

Re: Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism

#40

Post by eleusive »

noonespecial wrote: post #16

I'm going to go ahead and take this to mean that the TSA just doubled my chances of death. Seems appropriate in the current climate of hysteria, and makes an excellent sound bite.

I'll take it to mean that (given the 1 in 30 million estimate and that there are well over 250 million outgoing airplane seats filled per year by U.S. airlines), the expected number of scans which will cause cancer is nearly 10. That's 10 people who's lives may be put in very real danger.

It doesn't make a very good soundbite, but it plays well to the climate of hysteria!

Post reply on HN