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

Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#21

Post by tomjen3 »

mortenjorck wrote: post #15
AngryParsley wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so easy to get caught up in the halo/horn effect and try to make every fact about backscatter machines bad. But the truth is complicated. It requires weighing all evidence, not just looking at evidence that agrees with your current views. 89,000 times lower than the annual limit. I'm not a fan of the TSA or backscatter machines, but facts are not up for debate. If backscatter machines cause cancer, it would be v…

I think most would rather the use of these devices be banned on principles of their invasiveness rather than on safety concerns. Otherwise, you just get a "safer" version of the same thing in a few years.

Sure, but I would take getting them banned on any ground.

In a few years, we will call them cancer machines again and see if we can win then.

If you have a way to win on privacy issues the more power to you, but I doubt it can be done.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#22

Post by AngryParsley »

mortenjorck wrote: post #15
AngryParsley wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so easy to get caught up in the halo/horn effect and try to make every fact about backscatter machines bad. But the truth is complicated. It requires weighing all evidence, not just looking at evidence that agrees with your current views. 89,000 times lower than the annual limit. I'm not a fan of the TSA or backscatter machines, but facts are not up for debate. If backscatter machines cause cancer, it would be v…

I think most would rather the use of these devices be banned on principles of their invasiveness rather than on safety concerns. Otherwise, you just get a "safer" version of the same thing in a few years.

That's a different discussion. I'm just talking about safety. The scientists in the letter are just talking about safety. The FDA is just talking about safety.

"Should we put these things in airports?" brings a lot more baggage with it than "Are these things safe?" I wish our opinions about backscatter devices could stay out of this discussion about their safety.

I'm going to mention my opinion anyway, because otherwise people will suspect me of being on The Other Side. I think these devices are a waste of money and I don't want to be subject to them. They raise a ton of privacy concerns and make me wonder, "What's next?" But they're almost certainly safe.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#23

Post by AngryParsley »

tomjen3 wrote: post #18
chroma wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're willing to say anything to make the other side look bad, why should anyone give you credence?

There is a big difference between a little fud and being willing to say anything. These machines have been called, by a reputable scientist, as potentially very dangerous. I see no problem making sure everybody knows that they are dangerous, nor do I particular care to present both sides of the argument.

These machines have been called, by a reputable scientist, as potentially very dangerous.

And 1 out of 5 dentists recommend sugar gum. There are enough scientists in the world that you can always find one who shares your belief. Scientific consensus is a much more reliable indicator of correct beliefs.

...nor do I particular care to present both sides of the argument.

I can think of half a dozen pieces of evidence that would change my belief about whether or not backscatter devices are safe. What evidence would you need to convince you that they are safe?

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#24

Post by tomjen3 »

AngryParsley wrote: post #23
tomjen3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between a little fud and being willing to say anything. These machines have been called, by a reputable scientist, as potentially very dangerous. I see no problem making sure everybody knows that they are dangerous, nor do I particular care to present both sides of the argument.

These machines have been called, by a reputable scientist, as potentially very dangerous. And 1 out of 5 dentists recommend sugar gum. There are enough scientists in the world that you can always find one who shares your belief. Scientific consensus is a much more reliable indicator of correct beliefs. ...nor do I particular care to present both sides of the argument. I can think of half a dozen pieces of evidence th…

This isn't about whether they are safe or not (a subject I don't give much of anything about), but about getting them banned. If we can't get them banned for privacy issues (as they should be) but we can get them banned for something else, then I will take that.

And it was a leading scientist.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#25

Post by Retric »

AngryParsley wrote: post #4

That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least…

There is some evidence that extremely low radiation do not increase your cancer risk. However, if you realize that a pilot already receives increased radiation by flying several hours a day and could average 2+ of these scanning’s a day for 30+ years you are probably adding a significant risk (compared to getting a pat down).

As to passenger safety the annual dosage delivered in a short period of time is not safe. So take someone with say, a bad sun burn or a recent CAT scan and walking though those things is probably a bad idea.

Also due to poor training / incompetence some people are going to be sent through these things several times and or be required to stand there while someone get's distracted.

PS: The corresponding annual effective dose... and 500 mrem for the more exposed routes. (Bottollier-Depois JF et al. Assessing exposure to cosmic radiation during long-haul flights. Radiat Res 153(5 Pt. 1):526-32; 2000.)

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#28

Post by Yzupnick »

tomjen3 wrote: post #8
AngryParsley wrote: post #4

That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least…

It does not matter if they are safe (which they aren't), it matters that they be removed. A little fud now and then is a good thing.

> A little fud now and then is a good thing

This, my friend, is the problem with politics and science today.(And probably all of human history, but I was going for affect.)

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#29

Post by DanielBMarkham »

I believe what's happening is the use of the radiation concerns is a proxy for the underlying problem: regularly taking naked pictures of the population in the name of security.

I don't think anybody can effectively argue that the whole enterprise is in dire need of grownups -- too easy to get screwed the next time there is an attack. But you could argue that radiation is a key factor, or just wave your arms around and yell a lot. With enough arm-waving, smoke, and mirrors you can make the case that the population is deeply concerned about radiation effects -- regardless of the science -- so "something must be done". "Something must be done" is what got us here in the first place, perhaps "something must be done" is what can get us out.

Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought

#30

Post by roadnottaken »

tomjen3 wrote: post #21
mortenjorck wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most would rather the use of these devices be banned on principles of their invasiveness rather than on safety concerns. Otherwise, you just get a "safer" version of the same thing in a few years.

Sure, but I would take getting them banned on any ground. In a few years, we will call them cancer machines again and see if we can win then. If you have a way to win on privacy issues the more power to you, but I doubt it can be done.

That's called dishonesty.
Post reply on HN