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

91–100 of 193 posts

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

#91

Post by Steuard »

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. But it doesn't help our case if the arguments against them turn out to be falsified.

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

#92

Post by malyk »

j79 wrote: post #77

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…

Two things that strike me.

First, what is the back of the hand thing all about? Is it less sensitive? Is it somehow less demeaning? It doesn't make sense to me.

Second, if he "made contact" and then immediately retreated...what did he make contact with? Was it clearly your junk? Or could it have been anything? How is it at all effective to do the pat down if all they do is retreat when they feel a little resistance. That could be anything.

And one more thing for good measure...

It's not the pleasantness or not of the pat down that is central to this issue. It's the effectiveness of it, the invasiveness of it, etc. Sure, your guy was nice...that doesn't have any impact on the policy being good or bad at all (not to say that is what you implied).

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

#93

Post by jarin »

Tomek_ wrote: post #87

Sorry for being cynical, but for me this story reads more or less like: there's a guy who didn't have enough balls to opt out only by himself and thus decided to find others to join him (he even brought some papers to show), and the others were some family where a woman, "fortunately"(?) had a cancer before - it's rather sad.

I think you are completely off base. In my opinion, it seems the guy was planning to opt out anyway and wanted to do his small part in spreading awareness of the problems associated with the scanners. I would even go so far as to say the radiation literature is a strawman for the bigger problem (people have shown that they are willing to give up their personal liberties, but EVERYONE responds to physical danger).

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

#94

Post by jessriedel »

ohyes wrote: post #75
yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants c…

edit: s/mwbs/bs/g; per comment below Well, X-rays cause cancer. BS uses X-rays So it is a cancer risk. And it is a little more founded than someone randomly saying' this causes cancer'. In terms of risk... This says dental x-rays are about 2-3 mrem: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/dental.htm This says BS is about .006-.009 mrem: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm Keep in mind that under cer…

Here's the key idea: your cross-country flight exposes you to 2-5 mrem. MWBS is about 0.01 mrem. It's trivial.

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

#95

Post by seanc »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #82
Dylan16807 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smaller doses over time are safer than a large dose. Time to fix things up. Concentrating the radiation has a negative effect. Edit: Maybe this is incorrect when it comes to cancer risk, but I had the impression it still mattered, with multiple impacts in the same area of DNA causing things to be more likely to permanently break. Unless that is extremely unlikely to happen at all at this level of dose. Still, these m…

When radiation causes a significant amount of cell death, yes. I.e., if you are going to have 2-3% of your cells killed (by heat, radiation, alchohol, whatever), it's better if it happens slowly over time than all at once. Backscattered X-rays are not remotely near that point. edit: Just want to respond to this: I had the impression it still mattered, with multiple impacts in the same area of DNA causing things to be…

No, it's all about bit errors and error correction. Highly concentrated radiation is more likely to cause multiple errors to a particular DNA strand, which can defeat the error correction and cause a mutation.

The same radiation distributed through the body will cause fewer errors per strand and be corrected.

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

#96

Post by itg »

lylejohnson wrote: post #14
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…

> 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.

No matter what he says, he can't win. Some will blame him for keeping the scanners in place and the others will play the political game blame him for being weak on security (even if they know the scanners are useless)

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

#97

Post by jessriedel »

ars wrote: post #63
jcl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an NPR blog entry: By the way, you might be wondering: Can the average traveler standing in a security line tell the difference? Yes, a TSA spokesman says. The X-ray type is blue and has two walls. The millimeter-wave machine is grayish-white and is more cylindrical. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest...

Thanks. Just how shielded are those X-ray scanners? They look like just walking near them will expose you.

You could stand next to them all day and it would still be less than 1% of your daily radiation dose from cosmic rays. More importantly, for argument's sake, it would be much less than the amount of additional radiation you pick up on a standard flight.

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

#98

Post by eru »

sliverstorm wrote: post #79
danilocampos wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually more horrified by my tax dollars paying for the TSA to sit in Herman Miller chairs, but damn. Beggars belief.

There are possibly some good reasons for that. If your employee sits most of the day, and you are covering his medical expenses, perhaps it is a good idea to get him a chair that doesn't screw up his body.

You should get your employee a standing desk instead.

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

#99

Post by watchandwait »

Semiapies wrote: post #84
j79 wrote: post #77

I opted out during my last flight. After everything I had read, I decided I needed to experience it first hand. I was expecting a huge scene, with the TSA agent screaming, "OPT OUT! We've got an opt out here!", and then being manhandled, groped, and basically demeaned in front of other passengers. After removing my shoes (the one part of airport security theatre I absolutely hate) and placing my belongings in those g…

"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.

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

#100

Post by Steuard »

ohyes wrote: post #75
yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

Just curious, does anyone have some hard evidence that the MWBS is a cancer risk? I ask this simply because anti-X activists have pushed junk science claims of the form "X causes CANCER" many times [1], so I'm a little dubious. I don't think fighting civil liberties violations with junk science is a useful tactic, if that is indeed what is happening here. [1] For example, feminists pushed the "silicone gel implants c…

edit: s/mwbs/bs/g; per comment below Well, X-rays cause cancer. BS uses X-rays So it is a cancer risk. And it is a little more founded than someone randomly saying' this causes cancer'. In terms of risk... This says dental x-rays are about 2-3 mrem: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/dental.htm This says BS is about .006-.009 mrem: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm Keep in mind that under cer…

Backscatter X-ray scanners use X-ray photons. Millimeter-wave scanners use far-infrared/microwave photons. To the best of my knowledge, nobody's every shown that microwaves or infrared light cause cancer: the photons just don't have enough energy to cause that kind of cell damage.

(Yes, this is quibbling about what was probably just an error in definition; I think your comments are right as applied to backscatter X-ray scanners. But if we keep our language straight, our arguments against these blasted things will be that much harder to dismiss.)

Post reply on HN