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

51–60 of 137 posts

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

#51

Post by BCM43 »

tibbon wrote: post #24
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. ;)

Two things have made the US safer 1- Pilots with guns & keeping the doors closed for the full flight 2- Passengers not willing to allow others on the plane do harm to the plane. If passengers see things happen now, they will stand up and makes attempts to stop them. We won't have a 9/11 style hijacking. Even if someone gets a box cutter in, people will take them down before they'll let them take the plane. I can't im…

What we are trying to stop has shifted from someone hijacking the plane to someone trying to blow it up. However, this is not a new threat at all, and there are always more ways of getting a bomb on the plane as well as more targets.

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

#52

Post by Confusion »

aphyr wrote: post #38
Confusion wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

  We know that short-term small doses of X rays results in
  increased probability of developing skin cancer.
An increase that is so minute that we don't mind the dentist or doctor X-raying us. An increase that is so minute that we would accept it, if it actually reduced our chances of dying due to a terrorist attack. The radiation is not the problem: it is the intended goal that we have no reason to believe in.

  We know that prolonged exposure to low-level radiation
  sources increases your probability of developing skin
  cancer
Do we? Not WiFi or the low-energy spectrum of the sun. What energy is 'low' in this respect?. And how long is 'prolonged exposure'? These claims are undoubtedly true for some values of the aforementioned quoted terms, but are they relevant here? Do most of the people repeating this stuff even wonder about that? Again, the problem is a slightly increased risk. But why is that increased risk a problem in the first place?

  I'll hazard a guess here and say there's close to zero
  probability that backscatter machines are lowering your
  risk of cancer.
And I agree. But the "we don't know for sure" argument is pretty shallow, when we accept certain risks on a daily basis and when we all know certainty doesn't exist and we all take aspirin to prevent a second heart-attack, even though a thousand doctors will argue with another thousand doctors about whether that actually works, all citing studies supporting their side, and the net effect is quite small even according to the side affirming it works.

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

#53

Post by jerf »

josefresco wrote: post #44
jerf wrote: post #43

So, the risk from a backscatter radiation machine is roughly equal to the risk from terrorism. The Federal Government, via the FDA, tells us that the risk of the backscatter machine is "minuscule". Therefore, in the Federal government's own risk terminology, the risk from terrorism is "miniscule". Why are we spending all this money on a "miniscule" threat? Why are sexually molesting the population over a "miniscule"…

Terrorism can in both small and very large ways effect entire nations. backscatter radiation? Not so much. It's illogical to compare the two and make judgments on based solely on the death rate. You don't need to kill people (all of them) to influence them.

Erosion of civil liberties can in both very small and very large ways affect entire nations.

I'm actually way more worried about that, and I think that's the rational answer.

(Edit: Implicit in the way I phrased that, BTW, and I'm now making explicit, is that I agree you have a good point and you shouldn't have been downmodded. I believe the secondary effects of civil liberties erosion outweigh the secondary effects of terrorism as the situation now stands, but I agree that your point must absolutely be considered to make a decision based on all the facts.)

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

#54

Post by drawkbox »

roc wrote: post #50
eleusive wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 617,977,711 passengers on domestic flights in 2009 [1]. At the (incredibly optimistic) risk rate of 1 in 30 million, that's about 20 people given cancer, each year, if this policy goes forward and these devices become standard procedure. [1] http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1

The TSA kills 20 people per year. Keep the hysteria simple.

Are you willing to kill 20 people per year to keep safe?

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

#55

Post by yeahsure »

rbarooah wrote: post #49
josefresco wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorism can in both small and very large ways effect entire nations. backscatter radiation? Not so much. It's illogical to compare the two and make judgments on based solely on the death rate. You don't need to kill people (all of them) to influence them.

So then perhaps the best way to protect a nation from terrorism is not to be influenced by it.

I completely agree with this statement.

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

#56

Post by jhamburger »

josefresco wrote: post #44
jerf wrote: post #43

So, the risk from a backscatter radiation machine is roughly equal to the risk from terrorism. The Federal Government, via the FDA, tells us that the risk of the backscatter machine is "minuscule". Therefore, in the Federal government's own risk terminology, the risk from terrorism is "miniscule". Why are we spending all this money on a "miniscule" threat? Why are sexually molesting the population over a "miniscule"…

Terrorism can in both small and very large ways effect entire nations. backscatter radiation? Not so much. It's illogical to compare the two and make judgments on based solely on the death rate. You don't need to kill people (all of them) to influence them.

Don't know why this was downvoted, other than people just not agreeing with him.

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

#58

Post by OneWhoFrogs »

drawkbox wrote: post #54
roc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 617,977,711 passengers on domestic flights in 2009 [1]. At the (incredibly optimistic) risk rate of 1 in 30 million, that's about 20 people given cancer, each year, if this policy goes forward and these devices become standard procedure. [1] http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1

The TSA kills 20 people per year. Keep the hysteria simple. Are you willing to kill 20 people per year to keep safe?

> Are you willing to kill 20 people per year to keep safe?

Unfortunately, the answer for most is yes. That's more or less the definition of war.

Edit: Yikes! I'm really getting downvoted here, but no one's saying why. I didn't say I agreed with it! I just said that most people would probably say yes.

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

#59

Post by eru »

Eliezer wrote: post #57
wnoise wrote: post #2

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

I don't even know the name of that fallacy, but it ought to have one. (Yes I know parent is sarcastic.)

Something like `false proportionality'?

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

#60

Post by ljf »

wvenable wrote: post #42
cedsav wrote: post #33

1 in 30M? so, with over 600M passengers per year, that's roughly 20 people a year who would get cancer (and die?) because of those machines. I'm not sure how credible are those stats, but I wouldn't want to be making decisions at the TSA right now...

Not everyone gets screened. So only a fraction of those 600M passengers are getting a dose.

at the moment... not long ago not everyone went through the metal detectors...
Post reply on HN