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

71–80 of 137 posts

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

#71

Post by dkarl »

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"…

Yes, but we'd much rather kill ourselves than give someone else the satisfaction of killing us. My diet and inactivity is likely to take five good years off my lifespan? Meh. There's a tiny chance I might end up in a violent struggle for survival someday and somebody might get the better of me? Jesus, what an awful thought! Pass me the nachos and a Coke while I sit on the couch watching this video on handgun tactics.

As a thought experiment, can you imagine if diabetes was an unstoppable dude who came to your house and beat your ass in front of your wife and kids? I can think of people I know who would suddenly be a lot more afraid of diabetes than they are now.

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

#72

Post by kwantam »

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.

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

#73

Post by borism »

ljf wrote: post #60
wvenable wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

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

#75

Post by fluidcruft »

_delirium wrote: post #69
fluidcruft wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of the 100,000,000,000 or so US domestic air travelers of the past ten years, zero have smuggled a bomb on board, and zero have attempted to. At least two have succeeded in smuggling a bomb on board, but failed to detonate them. Look up the "Christmas bomber" and the "shoe bomber".

Neither of those were "US domestic air travelers"; both boarded U.S.-bound international flights in Europe.

You're right they're not domestic. I've lived in and have family in Europe so I have tendency to not view Canada and Europe as completely foreign. So, anyway, Lockerbie, shoe bomber, Xmas bomber all actually not US departures. Sorry.

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

#76

Post by jdp23 »

aphyr wrote: post #18

Actual web page: http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html Actual article: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.public.asu.edu... The first thing you'll learn in radiation safety is that the nature of the dose matters a lot. Sometimes you're A-OK if you can survive the initial dose. Other doses are accumulative. It depends on the energy of the radiation, the tissue's scattering cross-section, the time,…

And according to David Brenner of Columbia University:

Recent research ... indicates that about 5 percent of the population — one person in 20 — is especially sensitive to radiation. These people have gene mutations that make them less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. Two examples are the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations associated with breast and ovarian cancer, but scientists believe many more such defects are unknown.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1268330...

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

#77

Post by joe_the_user »

aphyr wrote: post #18

Actual web page: http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html Actual article: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.public.asu.edu... The first thing you'll learn in radiation safety is that the nature of the dose matters a lot. Sometimes you're A-OK if you can survive the initial dose. Other doses are accumulative. It depends on the energy of the radiation, the tissue's scattering cross-section, the time,…

Fabulous post.

Even if the thing is absolutely, perfectly safe as designed, if you keep in mind human error, mechanical failure, individual physiology, and variations in flying frequency, it's not to see this as actually significantly more likely to cause death than terrorism.

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

#78

Post by andrewcooke »

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 can't speak for everyone, but one reason is that there is also a cumulative effect from these "small things". A progressive eroding of civil rights also affects a nation in "big ways".

Isolating one effect of one loss, and comparing that to the complex effects of terrorism is not a fair comparison.

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

#79

Post by kenjackson »

dkarl wrote: post #71
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"…

Yes, but we'd much rather kill ourselves than give someone else the satisfaction of killing us. My diet and inactivity is likely to take five good years off my lifespan? Meh. There's a tiny chance I might end up in a violent struggle for survival someday and somebody might get the better of me? Jesus, what an awful thought! Pass me the nachos and a Coke while I sit on the couch watching this video on handgun tactics.…

Yes, but we'd much rather kill ourselves than give someone else the satisfaction of killing us.

Who is the "we" and who is the "someone else"? "We" is a bunch of random people I don't know. And "someone else" is a bunch of random people I don't know.

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

#80

Post by yummyfajitas »

butterfi wrote: post #62
yummyfajitas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll go with the physics prof. He did some calculations, admittedly imperfect, based on generally known principles of dosimetry, and got what seems like a reasonable order of magnitude result. All the MD's at UCSF said was "oh noes, the possibility of radiation danger isn't ruled out precisely by a previously done study, it might be dangerous." I'd be very curious to know whether they would use this same logic on a l…

Reasonable doesn't necessarily mean correct. In the face of specific questions raised by doctors with expertise in this specific field, is reasonable is good enough? From the NPR article: "The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the…

In the face of specific questions raised by doctors with expertise in this specific field, is reasonable is good enough?

You are trying to appeal to authority. That's a logical fallacy.

Radiation transport, ionization mechanisms, and dosimetry are all fairly well understood topics. Not perfectly, but well enough that one can make reasonably good ab-initio predictions. The physicist is doing exactly that.

Now, ab-initio dosimetry calculations are sometimes off by largish factors, (e.g., 500%) due to reactions of certain tissues. But they are rarely off by orders of magnitude, which they would need to be in this case for us to actually care.

The doctors at UCSF are just scaremongering, regardless of their credentials.

Post reply on HN