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

91–100 of 137 posts

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

#91

Post by kenjackson »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #80
butterfi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-init…

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.

There are a lot of people that would disagree with this statement as it applies to the human body. I think its fair to say that there is no such thing as ab-initio studies when it comes to human reaction to radiation (at least none that are worth a lick).

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

#92

Post by jamesaguilar »

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"…

Hrm . . . I could turn that logic on its side too: if you say people should not be that worried about terrorism, then why are people so worried about the health effects of backscatter radiation. IMO, a logical person cannot have it both ways.

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

#93

Post by kscaldef »

borism wrote: post #73
ljf wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

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

#94

Post by davidj »

tibbon wrote: post #24
goldenthunder wrote: post #17

Maybe I suck at basic prob/stats but if you remove the scanners, I bet the chance of a plane getting blown up by a terrorist is significantly increased. ;)

Two things have made the US safer 1- Pilots with guns & keeping the doors closed for the full flight 2- Passengers not willing to allow others on the plane do harm to the plane. If passengers see things happen now, they will stand up and makes attempts to stop them. We won't have a 9/11 style hijacking. Even if someone gets a box cutter in, people will take them down before they'll let them take the plane. I can't im…

won't work. Flight 93 was taken back by the passengers and Bush ordered it to be shot down anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V9MD15qs5s http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread624915/pg1

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

#96

Post by stcredzero »

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,…

George Bush International doesn't have this yet. I'm going to opt out of scanning for my flight back from Pittsburgh, however.

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

#97

Post by gills »

Sigh.

While interesting, arguing about the methods used to violate your basic civil rights only distracts from the real discussion about YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THE VERY GOVERNMENT FORMED TO PROTECT THEM.

Keep your eye on the ball people.

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

#98

Post by butterfi »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #80
butterfi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-init…

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

Thats a very blithe statement to make about a group of professionals.

Here's the thing -- I know several people who have been treated for cancer at UCSF, and my understanding is that you couldn't ask for a better group of doctors/scientists. Their expertise is very well-regarded. So if taking the advice of a doctor who has made this his/her life's work is appealing to authority, then guilty as charged. If I'm going to try and make the best decision I can without understanding the topic as well as you seem to, I'm certainly not going to chose the people who generally work in the field over the the people with real medical experience. My plumber is a very smart guy who knows a lot about electrical, but I'm not going to hire him to re-wire my house. The devils is in the details, and I'm going with the guy who has a very good grip on the details.

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

#100

Post by VladRussian »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #80
butterfi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-init…

can somebody please down vote him? (i'll pay back with interest when i get my downvoting ability :)
Post reply on HN