![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm really not thrilled with the new, intrusive TSA rules and procedures, but the danger of the backscatter X-ray scanners continues to be exaggerated, I think. The most recent warning to go viral is this blogpost from My Helical Tryst.
Caveat #1: There is no completely safe dose of radiation. You can't fire a bajillion high energy photons at millions of people and expect no damage to be done.
Caveat #2: I'm not a doctor, radiologist, or epidemiologist, but the relative risks (as far as I can tell) suggest to me that the probability of being significantly harmed by a TSA scan are somewhere between winning the lottery and being struck and killed by a meteorite.
Now to get to the blogpost in particular, it's based primarily on the letter of concern written by researchers at UCSF. Thus, it is relevant to link to the FDA's fairly authoritative response.
Experts can and should continue to discuss, explore, measure, and hammer out all of these issues, but I want to address a few particular points from the blogpost.
( Do you want to know more? )
With respect to the larger issues of safety vs. freedom, I think in the end we should be willing to live with a certain amount of risk. When you get on a plane, you know there's a non-zero chance that the engines will fall off or some other accident will occur that will kill you. (And, of course, every time you get in your car, you're accepting an even greater risk of death.) Terrorism is not so different a risk, and I think we should be willing to live with a certain amount of risk, even if that means that government officials don't get to grope 8-year-olds or probe your cavities. And if groping and/or cavity searches are the only way to really have an effective backscatter x-ray system in place, then we can do without having a backscatter x-ray system in place.
If the terrorists happen to succeed in dropping planes like flies, then maybe we would reconsider the proper balance between safety and freedom.
Caveat #1: There is no completely safe dose of radiation. You can't fire a bajillion high energy photons at millions of people and expect no damage to be done.
Caveat #2: I'm not a doctor, radiologist, or epidemiologist, but the relative risks (as far as I can tell) suggest to me that the probability of being significantly harmed by a TSA scan are somewhere between winning the lottery and being struck and killed by a meteorite.
Now to get to the blogpost in particular, it's based primarily on the letter of concern written by researchers at UCSF. Thus, it is relevant to link to the FDA's fairly authoritative response.
Experts can and should continue to discuss, explore, measure, and hammer out all of these issues, but I want to address a few particular points from the blogpost.
( Do you want to know more? )
With respect to the larger issues of safety vs. freedom, I think in the end we should be willing to live with a certain amount of risk. When you get on a plane, you know there's a non-zero chance that the engines will fall off or some other accident will occur that will kill you. (And, of course, every time you get in your car, you're accepting an even greater risk of death.) Terrorism is not so different a risk, and I think we should be willing to live with a certain amount of risk, even if that means that government officials don't get to grope 8-year-olds or probe your cavities. And if groping and/or cavity searches are the only way to really have an effective backscatter x-ray system in place, then we can do without having a backscatter x-ray system in place.
If the terrorists happen to succeed in dropping planes like flies, then maybe we would reconsider the proper balance between safety and freedom.
