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

131–137 of 137 posts

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

#131

Post by aphyr »

uvdiv wrote: post #109
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…

> What they can't deal with as well is a sudden burst of many errors. Actually that is false, as far as low doses: > When you are asked whether there is a critical time period over which 1 rem of dose may have a greater biological impact than it might otherwise have, the answer is "No." One rem of dose is sufficiently low that whether it was delivered within one second or spread over a year or more, we would not expe…

Good point uvdiv: if the ionization events are sufficiently rare in both cases we ought to be able to treat them as cumulatively equivalent. I guess it would depend on the error correction time and the size of the affected nucleotide sequence, especially in a double-break error. The dose delivered by these scanners is probably well-below that threshold.

My remaining concern would be that the biological effects of this particular energy regime are as-of-yet uncharacterized.

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

#132

Post by uvdiv »

nubian wrote: post #130
uvdiv wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What they can't deal with as well is a sudden burst of many errors. Actually that is false, as far as low doses: > When you are asked whether there is a critical time period over which 1 rem of dose may have a greater biological impact than it might otherwise have, the answer is "No." One rem of dose is sufficiently low that whether it was delivered within one second or spread over a year or more, we would not expe…

Let me quote from your own source: "There have been numerous biological experiments conducted, with nonhuman organisms, that demonstrate that the rate at which radiation dose is delivered can affect the extent of biological response. Thus a sufficiently high dose delivered over a period of a few minutes may be expected to have a greater biological impact than the same dose spread over a year." The only question is wh…

>THEIR OWN POSITION PAPER on backscatter scanners recommends per-screening and per-year (time limit!) maximums FAR below the threshold that they claimed wasn't a problem in the first place -- see 8).

>...How they can go from saying in the first paper, "However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent" to supporting a maximum of 0.025 rem per year is entirely unclear.

Where they support that 0.025 rem/year recommendation, they explain that the point is to keep "individual doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) while achieving the desired objective." (Same source, PS017-1).

And you mischarcterize their claims. HPS does not claim either too small to be observed or nonexistent". (It does not follow that a health effect too small to be epidemologically noticable is "not a problem"). "Too small to be observed" is NOT a quantifier of significance; it is an explanation for the lack of empirical observations. That position statement (PS010-2) is a recommendation against quantiative estimation of the effects of >It appears to be "Radiation Risk in Perspective", PS010-2 (which I assume is the updated version of PS010-1). It has nothing to say about doses over short time periods.

It does not appear to have been referenced for that purpose.

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

#133

Post by muldrake »

America is a nation of goose-stepping cowards willing to give up their most fundamental freedoms based on an incredibly unlikely event. They'll shove cheeseburgers down their gaping maws and virtually guarantee they get diabetes and heart disease, which is vastly more likely to kill them, while cowering and whimpering about terrorism.

I live in Newark. I'd be about 100 times more likely to get killed walking to the bus to get to the airport than I would be in the plane, even if we had no security at all.

Anyone willing to tolerate this shit is a drooling fascist who also doesn't understand security if they think this bullshit will stop even one determined and competent terrorist.

We should do security like El-Al, modifying it of course for the practical differences between the threats we face, and for our own constitutional protections. People say that would be "expensive" but then, these are the same morons who think we should piss away fundamental rights millions of Americans have fought and died for for hundreds of years. And these morons want to talk of "expensive?" Please.

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

#134

Post by nubian »

uvdiv wrote: post #132
nubian wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me quote from your own source: "There have been numerous biological experiments conducted, with nonhuman organisms, that demonstrate that the rate at which radiation dose is delivered can affect the extent of biological response. Thus a sufficiently high dose delivered over a period of a few minutes may be expected to have a greater biological impact than the same dose spread over a year." The only question is wh…

> THEIR OWN POSITION PAPER on backscatter scanners recommends per-screening and per-year (time limit!) maximums FAR below the threshold that they claimed wasn't a problem in the first place -- see 8). > ...How they can go from saying in the first paper, "However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent" to…

> It does not appear to have been referenced for that purpose.

Your comment referenced it for that purpose.

Your comment about dose per unit time not mattering referenced an article which referenced their position paper which didn't support what the article said. Hence the article was simply the opinion of the author.

> (And you mischarcterize their claims. HPS does not claim

"Nonexistent" sounds like "not a problem" to me.

"Too small to be observed" is the same. How is a problem that causes no observable effects a problem? That's the practical definition of "not a problem".

And if dose per unit time doesn't matter, then their per-screening and annual limits for these small doses wouldn't matter. They are contradicting themselves.

Further, as mentioned, they are not an independent safety group. They are an industry group for the pro-nuclear lobby. This is like relying on the Business Software Alliance (BSA, a front group for Microsoft and other large software corporations) for opinions on the harmful nature of DRM, copyright laws, etc.

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

#135

Post by billybob »

I'm just thankful that the TSA makes people mail home their keychain Swiss Army knives with 1-inch, non-locking blades. Goodness knows what sort of carnage someone could inflict with that. Almost as much as with a ballpoint pen, which I notice they are still allowing. For shame.

I will not feel truly safe until each of us is forced to change into a hospital gown, be cavity-searched, and be duct-taped inside of a cargo container for the duration of the flight.

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

#136

Post by billybob »

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"…

If the risks are indeed roughly equal, I would like to point out that only one of these two risks costs us money.

Also, being blown up doesn't hurt nearly as much as cancer does.

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

#137

Post by ljf »

kscaldef wrote: post #93
borism wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seriously? when was that? was it not so long ago we had armed plane hijackings almost every month?

well, since you asked: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/airplane_terro...

thanks for that, excellent read. many forget that guns were allowed on flights until relatively recently, not everyone was xrayed and hijacking was common.

also like the point raised in the comments that the main thing that killed off the IRA as a major terrorist movement in Europe, was when their American supporters finally remembered what terrorism was in 2001.

Post reply on HN