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

81–90 of 137 posts

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

#81

Post by msquared »

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?

Uhh, wouldn't these things not have even caught the underwear bomber? Soo.. would you kill 20 people a year for the false sense of security and safety? If so.. well.. you're a douche nozzle, no offense.

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

#82

Post by andrewcooke »

kwantam wrote: post #72
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.

VVVVVV Ahh, ayup, you're correct. Brainfart.

Sorry for being pedantic, but no - these are probabilities not random variates. If the probability of either alone is p then the probability of one or the other or both is:

1 - (1-p)(1-p) = 1 - (1-2p+p^2) = 2p - p^2 ~ 2p

(where the last step is because p^2 << p because p << 1; the basic idea is that it's "certainty minus the probability that neither occur")

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

#83

Post by joe_the_user »

jhamburger wrote: post #56
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.

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

I just voted it down to zero but it might up again soon...

The main thing that justifies the downvotes is that the argument is both wrong and mostly rhetoric rather than argument. As other have said, the installation of vast control mechanism by no means is something with an insignificant effect on the country.

If he had actually made the argument that someone else credits him with, that terrorism's effect is disproportionate to the deaths, then he'd have argument (not sufficient but a real argument). But he didn't make that argument - instead rhetorically (and ultimately dishonestly) dismissed concerns about reaction to terrorists. Down voting seems justified in this case.

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

#84

Post by kenjackson »

KiwiNige wrote: post #70
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 suppose it depends on how many attacks are intercepted by the scanners.

Which also depends on how many attampted attacks there are.

If terrorists never attempt another plane attack they can count every cancer death that results from the scanners as part of their death toll. And they never have to even waste a resource or another moment of planning.

In fact if I were a terrorist I'd be looking at not only the effect of the attack itself, but the downstream residuals. For example, attacking the water supply would have large casualties, but little downstream residual except tightening security around water supplies.

But attacking elementary schools would result in less upfront damage, but if you could force elementary school kids to walk through these types of scanners everyday of their elementary school lives -- well chalk up more deaths for the terrorists.

I really really hope the government knows something we don't, otherwise that tired old saying "then the terrorists have won" is really beginning to apply.

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

#85

Post by dkarl »

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.

Overreaction to terrorism is part of what makes a terrorist attack a special threat. Ironically, the wasteful measures we take to prevent damage from possible future attacks are social and economic damage caused by terrorism. Getting rid of these stupid machines and reclaiming some of our civil liberties would reduce the real damage caused by 9/11 -- a real, historical, non-hypothetical terrorist attack.

It would also set a precedent for dealing sanely with terrorism in the future. The more a terrorist attack disrupts our society and undermines our values, the more money and freedom we will part with in response to one, and therefore the more it will disrupt our society and undermine our values. That's a vicious cycle we can avoid by accepting risk and not treating terrorism as a special, incomparable threat.

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

#86

Post by davidj »

If the argument that the risk of backscatter radiation damage is acceptable, and it is the same risk as the chance of terrorism, then by extension the risk of terrorism is acceptable as well. So basically this isn't about terrorism, it is about taking away our liberty.

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

#87

Post by grellas »

I don't think I know anyone who isn't spitting mad about this TSA thing.

Quite an accomplishment, really, for the feds to manage to unite the entire country - left, right, center, and from every strata of society - on a given issue. I didn't think such a thing was possible.

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

#88

Post by rue »

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.

> Terrorism can in both small and very large ways effect entire nations. backscatter radiation? Not so much.

Currently terrorism is effecting an entire nation with backscatter radiation.

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

#90

Post by joe_the_user »

kwantam wrote: post #72
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.

VVVVVV Ahh, ayup, you're correct. Brainfart.

Not close to true for two small, independent events.

We can safely assume that the chance of their occurrence together is going to be very small and so the chance of one or the other is approximately the sum of their individual probability.

P(X ∪ Y) = P(X) + P(Y) - P(X ∩ Y) ~ P(X) + P(Y)

Post reply on HN