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

141–150 of 193 posts

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

#141

Post by marchdown »

ck2 wrote: post #17
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.

To be fair, not just the President but also any Congressperson/Senator that is interviewed for the rest of the year on any program. Which one do you want your mother/children experiencing, naked picture radiation, deep groping, or would you instead choose the $10,000 fine for leaving (and possibly being put on the no-fly list forever)?

This is something I just don't get. Congressmen are some of the most frequent flyers, and if anybody outside TSA itself has any say in the matter, it is them. Why don't they push harder? Alternatively, why does the press behave as if congressmen are simply ignorant of the issue? Why don't they discuss it publicly?

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

#142

Post by yummyfajitas »

ohyes wrote: post #136
yummyfajitas wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 hard to think that a flashlight or cellphone would have a power supply strong enough to do that much damage. (Although actually, metal halide lamps can sometimes cause UV radiation burns if they are damaged... http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/158/4/372 ). As long as the backscatter machine doesn't run on Double A's, my fears are actually more reasonable than yours. The backscatter machine presumabl…

My desk lamp also uses an electrical plug to connect to power. It isn't inconceivable that it could receive more power than intended and blind me! By the way, an order of magnitude or two more radiation than intended would be equivalent to a dental xray.

Look, I'm not saying your fear is physically impossible. I'm just saying I can't think of a very many machines (radiation sources or otherwise) for which anything similar is a plausible fear. Most machines simply stop working when used outside their operating parameters.

Also, do you really think that if the backscattering machine emitted the wrong type of radiation (x-rays of a different frequency), the TSA agent operating the scanner wouldn't notice when his screen went blank (unless the detectors simultaneously malfunctioned to pick up the incorrect frequency)?

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

#143

Post by huhtenberg »

Blunt wrote: post #101
bambax wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nor do any private plane terminals for that matter, international and domestic. You own or charter a plane - you are TSA-free.

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

#144

Post by jbjohns »

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)…

>I'm no expert

Well they are, so perhaps we should give their word a bit more credibility than yours?

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

#145

Post by mrkurt »

burgerbrain wrote: post #129
mrkurt wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That picture is the millimeter wave scanner, which doesn't use radiation. The backscatter scanners are the xray type and are the majority of the scanners in airports.

You didn't pay very close attention in physics class did you? Millimeter wavelength electromagnetic waves are still radiation as much as any other wavelength.

Erm, I shoulda said "xray". My mistake. :)

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

#146

Post by [deleted] »

Xurinos wrote: post #125
Semiapies wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Slightly off-topic, but this reminds me of the recent studies that revealed that nicotine in the air is actually spread nicely throughout a restaurant that has good air flow. Thus, even waiters and waitresses who opt to work in "nonsmoking" sections are still getting a decent dose of nicotine, moreso than in restaurants with bad air flow. What do people in the restaurant industry do to reduce the risks associated wit…

[deleted]

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

#147

Post by ck2 »

Steuard wrote: post #91
ck2 wrote: post #5

How dumb are people to not realize it's radiation one way or another? Do they think it's "magic" they can see through your clothes? How can there be a class action lawsuit against printer ink, but not against radiating you for no reason with devices that have no track record? Where are these devices for entering Congress or the Whitehouse if they are so safe? So would the President choose the radiation naked picture…

The fact that you can see the next person in line proves that this picture is a blatant fake. (Note how the apparent sizes of the two people are identical to the actual photo: I guarantee that the x-ray camera isn't sitting at the same position that the photo was taken from! This picture and the others like it are a bad Photoshop job, nothing more.) I loathe the body scanner/groping policies as much as the next guy.…

They are not fake.

http://gizmodo.com/5690820/body-scanner-pic-gallery/

There are 100 of them, those are just a sampling.

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

#148

Post by epoxyhockey »

watchandwait wrote: post #99
Semiapies wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

TSA will not allow staff to wear film badge dosimeters, like those regularly worn by health care workers with potential radiation exposure, Everyone is also assuming that the TSA is properly configuring and maintaining this equipment, and that it is not malfunctioning and giving overdoses.

Has anyone worn a film badge dosimeter while getting scanned (or just put on in their pocket)? That would be a way to independently test the radiation dose.

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

#149

Post by yummyfajitas »

jbjohns wrote: post #144
yummyfajitas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

>I'm no expert Well they are, so perhaps we should give their word a bit more credibility than yours?

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. My reasoning is laid out and explicit. If I made a flaw, point it out.

But I guess it's much easier to criticize me for being a mathematical physicist rather than a medical doctor. After all, finding flaws in an argument takes work!

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

#150

Post by jessriedel »

something wrote: post #109
jessriedel wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you demand that human trials be done for every possible permutation of conceivable risk---throwing out as incomparable all data that is taken in even remotely different circumstances--then you can claim health risks about every single thing. And it's pretty much impossible to satisfy you because of the cost of human trials.

The concerns raised in the UCSF letter are strained beyond belief. Further, a number of points (like the breast-cancer bullet point) are clearly there to influence emotions rather than critical reasoning.

I'll just explain this one. As the UCSF letter states, the radiation is being deposited on a volume smaller than usual by a factor possibly as large as "one to two orders of magnitude". That means that at absolute worst this is like radiation dose of 1 mrem (still less than the flight tiny compared to your yearly dose), and that's assuming that all of the risk of cosmic radiation comes from skin cancer (which is wildly wrong).

Post reply on HN