>> ^Ryjkyj:

Guys, guys, guys. You're missing the point.
The radiation IS a non-issue. Just like terrorists blowing up your plane is a non-issue. Yes, the idea of a bomb on your plane is scary, but the odds of that happening to you are about the same as you getting cancer from a TSA screening. Which is to say: effectively zero.
PS: Low energy or not, the rays that backscatter machines use are still x-rays. The energy is quantifiable, low or not. So to say that there are no studies on varying amounts of exposure to x-rays is, well...


The problem isn't that TSA screenings all alone are going to cause cancer, but adding this to the cumulative risk factors that people experience throughout their lives simply because some company invented the technology and wanted to sell it is fucked up. A frequent flier who already has multiple risk factors doesn't really need the added exposure. And shouldn't have to be subjected to a thorough groping for not wanting to accumulate additional free radicals twice a week

(i picked twice a week because my mom is a business traveler and she averages about 2 flights a week, 50 weeks a year ...plus with her two weeks off she usually goes on a exotic vacations and flies in and out of various airports world wide, in a given year my mom probably goes through airport security 100-110 times a year, now she's already getting radiation on her flight, what if she had cancer that was in remission or had multiple risk factors of a different nature? since shes in her 60's and has no more risk factor than the average person, I'm not worried about it. But what if she worked the job she does and was in her early 20's? had a strong family history of breast cancer? had already had a few bits of melanoma removed? and like most of the population, was poorly informed about the effects of radiation and unable to make an educated decision about whether or not she wanted to opt out and face the groping? without knowing the math, i'd say her chance of developing cancer in her lifetime had indeed risen and probably exponentially)

of course there are studies about the effects of radiation, but there are not studies about the effects of exposing millions of frequent fliers of various cohorts to a light grazing of xrays all over their bodies a few times a week throughout their careers, and what their chances of cancer look like at the end of their working lives.


i'd say the chances that this is dangerous to someone are far greater than the chance that a terrorist will hijack your flight.

also, it's times like this i wish i knew statistics and wasn't horrible at math.

yes, potentially harmful.

but not my number 1 issue at the moment. i'm waffling around with which issue is number 1.

oops sorry, didnt mean to to make this a profile reply.
In reply to this comment by nock:
So we're saying the same thing...? That these are potentially harmful?

>> ^peggedbea:

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

>> ^nock:
These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

So we're saying the same thing...? That these are potentially harmful?

>> ^peggedbea:

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

>> ^nock:
These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

even still, i'm not too terribly worried about the radiation issue for most of the general population. you will be exposed to far more radiation during your flight.

but on top of this being a 4th amendment issue, i don't think needlessly exposing the entire flying population of the US to some extra radiation is an effective way to fight terrorism.


>> ^nock:

These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

Im no doctor but aren't xrays harmful for the snatch area? What with the eggstocks n everythin'

Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an authority on the topic, I just thought I'd share my musings for any who may be interested

I'm extremely surprised that none of the physicist could give a remotely satisfactory answer to the beam-hand interaction question. I realise that the energies involved are extreme so weird things may happen and they obviously specialise in more fundamental aspects of the physics but I would have expected all of them to know at least a little bit about the physics of interactions between charged particle radiation beams with solid objects or water.

I only learnt a bit about proton beam therapy used in radiation oncology during my Masters in Medical Physics, and I'll admit I've forgotten a lot of it and can't remember all the calculations or parameters involved, but it seems to me like this would be a similar although perhaps more extreme case. Ultimately you would be receiving some dose of ionising radiation, the amount would depend on various things.

As solid as our hand appears to be it is still mostly empty space on an atomic scale, and there is a very high likelihood that protons in the beam will not collide with anything as they pass through. This is particularly true at very high energies, I forget exactly why... either due to momentum or the time spent in close enough proximity with atomic nuclei or something, but protons interact relatively weakly until they lose enough energy through the few interactions that do occur, at which point the likelihood of further interactions rises exponentially dumping all the remaining energy very rapidly. It is interesting to note here that at medically relevant energies 100-200Mev (17-35 thousand times lower than the LHC) this energy dump requires between 5 and 20cm tissue for the initial slow down to take place before the beams slow enough to dump the bulk of their energy. Your hand is at most a few centimetres thick and barely sufficient enough to do this at 100MeV let alone 3.5TeV. Graph which illustrates this.

Anyway, energy from the beam would be deposited due to some deflections and collisions and result in ionisation of some atoms either directly by collisions or indirectly by xray/gamma rays produced in the interactions. The few direct collisions between protons in the beam and atomic nuclei would also likely result in exotic particles and radiation further contributing to the dose you receive.

Other things to consider are whether the protons that shoot through your hand are still following sensible enough trajectories for the LHC to bend them around for another pass. At near light speeds they would be shooting around the LHC many thousands of times per second so even if the chances of interactions occuring in your hand are slim, each proton that manages to make another pass rather than shoot off on a random path that takes it out of the LHC, will have many opportunities to interact and deposit energy.

So depending on just how many protons are in the beam, and how much energy they dump into your hand, the effect could be anywhere from increased chance of cancer to a radiation burn of some sort if not a hole in your hand (although I suspect that most extreme scenario is unlikely).

All of this assumes my understanding isn't completely void at the energies involved which, if it is, may explain why the physicists didn't mention any of this.

Do they really plan to just drive around and shoot xrays at everything? I hope they issue all the young mammals lead jockstraps. What a bunch of fuckers, they know this is a really bad idea.

Generally speaking the world knows Israel stomps on the human rights and lives of the Palestinians to a sickening degree. It's the standard operating procedure to pump out PR that detracts from that... like this stuff. It's great a handful of Haitians are getting an xray from the PR stunt but it's not because Isreal has superior benevolence.

Also, the reason other hospitals aren't set up well is because the ports/airport/infrastructure are wrecked and it's a huge bottleneck to get anything where it needs to go. I'd be curious if they set this thing up where it was needed or just the first place they could get to that wasn't very effective.

I hope I'm wrong and Israel is now all sunshine and lollipops.

>> ^blankfist:
You have to consider, major news outlets may find the bluish, more life-like xray images to be too graphic for their site/channels, so it wouldn't outside the realm of possibility for them to darken, desaturate and alter the images a bit.
Less ubiquitous non-news outlets seem to use the higher resolution blue images that seem like they'd make a nude image if you made a negative adjustment the image.
http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20071015/body-scanning-machine-being
-tested/


Nope... I did the negative on that, and it just looks like a dark shadow on white rather than the other way around. People are far too willing to believe anything that people post and say is true.

You have to consider, major news outlets may find the bluish, more life-like xray images to be too graphic for their site/channels, so it wouldn't outside the realm of possibility for them to darken, desaturate and alter the images a bit.

Less ubiquitous non-news outlets seem to use the higher resolution blue images that seem like they'd make a nude image if you made a negative adjustment the image.
http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20071015/body-scanning-machine-being-tested/

i'll start.

10 years ago i was turning 17, drunk at inflatablevagina's house party off of hot damn and jager, i attempted to go on a cow hunt in the pasture behind her house with all my drunk boyfriends, we got scared, did a group piss around a tree, didnt find any cows. insulted her frankenstein-like boyfriend. got in a fist fight with a marine.

a few months later we (inflatablevagina and i) got kicked out of our first apartment for hosting a brothel, i ran away to denver with another friend, lived in a car for a while, spent a year drunk and stoned on a mountain top and traveling around the west having an existential crisis. somehow woke up one morning and realized i had somehow become the host house for interstate traveling ravers seeking parties in the rockies, hazy memories of debauchery flooded back into my brain, promptly moved back to texas, met a beautiful crazy man, had his baby, married him. had another one of his babies, he quit taking his meds and went really really really fucking crazy, left him for good, bought a house, took 8 years worth of xrays. had some personal trauma. had some personal triumph. embraced a broken heart, lived in poverty, got disowned at least 5 times, read alot of books. battled alcoholism internally and externally, philosophized with friends, experienced loss. experienced joy, became subject to gravity, reveled in inertia, lost momentum, was ruled entirely by emotion and impulse, embraced metaphor, was misunderstood, reunited, gave back, took, volunteered my time, attempted to mentally, physically, spiritually and emotionally available, acted irrationally, behaved selfishly, felt whole sometimes, self-taught, fell in love, stepped in infatuation, gave birth. was a mommy. was a wife. was a tattoo supply delivery girl, was a barista. was a pizza maker. was an xray tech. was a massage therapist. was an insomniac. took in my crazy teenage cousin, dated an old friend, reconciled some family shit. lost my mind, traveled alot, lived simply and briefly caught a hold on inner peace, lost it, went crazy, quit taking xrays, went back to school, embraced the amazingness of unemployment. learned to bake, invented some recipes, had some ideas. ate some cookies. raised some amazing babies. raised some cool ass quirky talented kids, paid alot of bills. abandoned all laws of grammar. flirted with internet addiction, smoked 99999999 packs of cigarettes. and several hundreds bowls, made a sift talk post.

Everything needs to be imagined before it can become reality, and these ideas are actually way beyond science fiction even now because they are being pursued actively with existing technology and sound scientific principles.

Surely it will be very difficult, but before dismissing these ideas, consider how much has changed in the last 100 years. Someone born in 1898 who lived 100 years would have gone from a pre-lightbulb world to seeing it in widespread use, survived two world wars, seen the development of air travel, radar, the harnessing of nuclear power, landing on the MOON (!!), regular travel to outer space via the space shuttle, the building of several space stations, the development of every modern cancer therapy, cloning, sequencing of the human genome, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Xray tomography, computers going from nothing to ubiquitous use, the explosion of the internet, cell phones, and a kajillion other major advances I don't have time to list right now.

If nothing else, this series of videos serves to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers, but all indications are that the RATE of change is INCREASING. Why? Because better technology helps us do more, FASTER. Not to mention there are MORE humans able to do MORE, FASTER, thanks to new technology.

I could easily see this technology in use in 40 years, and while I wouldn't invest as a venture capitalist at this point, research funding agencies are wise to fund this research as it will spur advancements in material science, electronics, computers & AI, and engineering even if we don't have a 3D Sex Bot by 2050.

HAHAHA!!! NO I DONT WANNA GO STERILE DUE TO THE XRAYS!!!!

In reply to this comment by Don_Juan:
Cod Pieces? Ha! Ashamed of your Cod?? Ha!!

Someone will find a way to subvert this mechanism, and then the security designers will find a way to patch it. So on and so forth. Its not so much a slippery slope argument as a futile effort to avert crisis. Which only adds to the stupidity of it all.

Now we get lead lined cod pieces.

I was thinking the same thing. Instead of 'unobtrusively' looking at a hot brunette xray I got to see old balls.

also:


In reply to this comment by Drax:
Why couldn't they have her demo it..?!