JoandJon Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Oh god please dont dven suggest a radiologist knpws that much. I wouldnt let them do even a system reboot. Thankfully i dont work with them - but i do get to yell at them on occasion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jje Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I'll take it that was a dig at me then JoandJon, and I think you're making some incorrect assumptions about me. My apologies for mentioning "gamma" in my other post, I meant to write X-rays. There are a few different technologies for body scanners, X-rays being one or the backscatter type which is close to the terahertz range. Long term studies on health effects have not been carried out on either. There is also some controversy over exactly how much of a radiation dose the body receives, because the radiation is only absorbed into the skin, not the whole body and the calculations are based on the latter. This means a smaller volume of flesh receives a more concentrated dose. Some scientists dispute this and say it is absorbed body-wide, however. Whom to believe? Also, the exemptions apply to pregnant women, babies and children. Again, if this is safe, why? In any case, my original frustration was that the story talked about the strength of the radiation being comparable to a mobile phone. This is a completely misleading statement (I'd go as far to say deliberately misleading) as the two types of radiation are not comparable, one being ionizing, the other not. - jje Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Take it however you like JJE - I'm afraid your interpretation of the information may be erroneous and be contributing to your level of concern. Maybe I wasn't clear enough: The radiation used in the devices being installed at Melbourne Airport is not ionising, it is non-ionising, therefore it is (relatively) accurate to compare it to that from mobile phones. In other words, the devices do not produce X-rays of any energy or quantity. Can you also please provide a reference for the controversy in regard to radiation dose you refer to? It's a curious interpretation of a field I am (very) familiar with. Cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 BTW - if it's the skin you're worried about the annual dose limit (for the public) is 50mSv per 1cmSq (averaged) of IONISING radiation, this limit is not applicable in this situation (IMPO). 1. It's not Ionising radiation 2. It's not a localised exposure p.s. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebloggs Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Oh god please dont dven suggest a radiologist knpws that much. I wouldnt let them do even a system reboot. Thankfully i dont work with them - but i do get to yell at them on occasion Service Engineer will always be GOD Edited October 16, 2012 by Joebloggs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Oh god please dont dven suggest a radiologist knpws that much. I wouldnt let them do even a system reboot. Thankfully i dont work with them - but i do get to yell at them on occasion bit harsh IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 bit harsh IMO True - I shouldn't have allowed myself to generalise. Radiologists are very very good at what they do - and although I still wouldn't want them attempting to repair/modify an X-ray generator, tbh I doubt very much they'd want to either! Recognising the limitations of their own expertise is part of what makes them an expert in the first place (Thanks Harpo, and apologies to any radiologists I've offended without meaning to.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebloggs Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'll take it that was a dig at me then JoandJon, and I think you're making some incorrect assumptions about me. My apologies for mentioning "gamma" in my other post, I meant to write X-rays. There are a few different technologies for body scanners, X-rays being one or the backscatter type which is close to the terahertz range. Long term studies on health effects have not been carried out on either. There is also some controversy over exactly how much of a radiation dose the body receives, because the radiation is only absorbed into the skin, not the whole body and the calculations are based on the latter. This means a smaller volume of flesh receives a more concentrated dose. Some scientists dispute this and say it is absorbed body-wide, however. Whom to believe? Also, the exemptions apply to pregnant women, babies and children. Again, if this is safe, why? In any case, my original frustration was that the story talked about the strength of the radiation being comparable to a mobile phone. This is a completely misleading statement (I'd go as far to say deliberately misleading) as the two types of radiation are not comparable, one being ionizing, the other not. - jje You are joking right? Yes there are 2 types of modern Body scanners Backscatter which is (X-Ray)and Millimeter Wave (Active or Passive) which is EHF (Sub-TeraHertz) I think you been watching Total Recall again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebloggs Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Take it however you like JJE - I'm afraid your interpretation of the information may be erroneous and be contributing to your level of concern.Maybe I wasn't clear enough: The radiation used in the devices being installed at Melbourne Airport is not ionising, it is non-ionising, therefore it is (relatively) accurate to compare it to that from mobile phones. In other words, the devices do not produce X-rays of any energy or quantity. That's right Wikipedia sort of skims over it, but you are correct. Did I also forget to mention that I have a IA10 Radiation Licence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freckleface Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 As far as I am concerned they can subject me to as many scans etc as they want to - they have to be safer than being blown up mid flight by some nutter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Definitely Freckleface Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jje Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Take it however you like JJE - I'm afraid your interpretation of the information may be erroneous and be contributing to your level of concern.Maybe I wasn't clear enough: The radiation used in the devices being installed at Melbourne Airport is not ionising, it is non-ionising, therefore it is (relatively) accurate to compare it to that from mobile phones. In other words, the devices do not produce X-rays of any energy or quantity. I realise that millimeter wave technology is non-ionising but the original article did not mention which type was in use. I can see now that the Aussies are installing the millimeter wave ones, which I've got zero health issues with. So, please accept my apologies, I was too hasty in my criticism in this case. However, I firmly stand by my criticism of the backscatter scanners. Can you also please provide a reference for the controversy in regard to radiation dose you refer to? It's a curious interpretation of a field I am (very) familiar with. Cheers, Sure thing. http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/appendix/appendixf.html http://www.gadling.com/2010/05/18/scientists-question-safety-of-airport-full-body-scanners/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-concerning-health-risks-of-full-body-scanner-TSA-screenings-4-6-2010 http://www.naturalnews.com/030079_airport_body_scanners_cancer.html http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-increase-cancer-risk/story-e6frfq80-1225868706270 Also there's some controversy over exactly how much radiation they are really emitting: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_17614205 http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/japan_radiation_tsa_scanners_l.php Finally, there seems to be some evidence that they are actually ineffective at detecting prohibited items anyway. Scan missed bomb parts hidden on a body: http://www.abc4.com/content/news/state/story/Body-scanners-show-high-radiation-levels/FrvExvO8Z0yts2GAoV6Abw.cspx Undercover agent gets through with a handgun: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/TSA-Agent-Slips-Through-DFW-Body-Scanner-With-a-Gun-116497568.html Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jje Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 You are joking right? Yes there are 2 types of modern Body scanners Backscatter which is (X-Ray)and Millimeter Wave (Active or Passive) which is EHF (Sub-TeraHertz) I think you been watching Total Recall again. Thanks for the ad-hominem, but I am fully aware of the differences as per my previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebloggs Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Thanks for the ad-hominem, but I am fully aware of the differences as per my previous post. Well I am sure your are now an armchair expert after googling it. But I will quote you My apologies for mentioning "gamma" in my other post, I meant to write X-rays. There are a few different technologies for body scanners, X-rays being one or the backscatter type which is close to the terahertz range. Long term studies on health effects have not been carried out on either. In this post you claim that there are two technologies X-rays being one or the Backscatter Type In fact backscatter is X-Ray (and let's not mention the remark on Gamma again) Also the whole thing on Skin & tissue, you failed to mention Effective Dosage Rates and Tissue weighting values. The argument amongst scientists is really an argument amongst vested parties in the technology, it a bit like iOS and Android argument (ours is better than theirs) I think you are well out of your depth on this hobby subject, the likes of JoandJon & myself this stuff is our bread & butter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 in flight radiation? we should ask Sir Les, he's been known to fly a bit. see if he's got webbed toes and a third nostril? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Now, now - don't go blaming radiation for Sir Les's webbed feet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 And here I was hoping for some peer-reviewed journal articles Not just the first page of results from a google search. ** sigh ** sorry guys, as much as it may seem harsh - my verdict remains tin-foil hat and underpants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pintpot Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I don't understand why these things have caused such consternation - in the UK and America there has been tons of coverage, which seems bizarre given the dozens of other devices with the potential to cause exposure to radiation that people just seem happy to accept I can only believe it (the consternation) was originally driven by privacy concerns, which I don't really get; invasion of privacy into one's thoughts or conversations seems a much bigger deal to me than worrying about being looked at, but there you go; and the radiation thing has just been chucked about like a bit of a red herring to bolster the argument. As I said to one of my US friends who kept banging on about them, you always have a choice: Don't like 'em, don't fly What you should really be happy about is that you live in a country where arguing about such things is actually allowed, which is a far more important freedom than being free from some customs bloke getting his jollies from "naked" scans of you. Try flying to Russia for example. You'll get in the country without being scanned, no worries; on departure everyone is through the scanner, no argument and no warning. You could try arguing that with the authorities at Domodedovo I guess, best of luck with that The Russians are only too aware of terrorist activities around airports of course, having suffered a lot more than most......so I expect you'd get pretty short shrift if you did argue, even setting aside that country's attitude to open debate at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleabo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 My only question would be - why at international only? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockDr Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 And here I was hoping for some peer-reviewed journal articles Not just the first page of results from a google search. ** sigh ** sorry guys, as much as it may seem harsh - my verdict remains tin-foil hat and underpants I can reference wikipedia if you like... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Ahhhh, wikipedia - it's got some really good information, the unfortunate thing is that you can't rely on it being accurate so need to double check everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Another vote for scanners (at domestic too): http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/security-scare-prohibited-item-found-on-domestic-flight-20120210-1skbj.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest littlesarah Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 And here I was hoping for some peer-reviewed journal articles Not just the first page of results from a google search. ** sigh ** sorry guys, as much as it may seem harsh - my verdict remains tin-foil hat and underpants You mean, 'natural news' isn't good enough evidence for you?! Surely all those 'peers' are all corrupt - y'know, like every single person involved in any medical research has to be, in order to promote things that are really bad for us all, just to make that great big pile of money they get by scraping around filling in tedious grant applications?! :wink: :wacko: BTW, I never meant to imply that health professionals are experts in how imaging devices work, I meant that I was unable to recall the agreed max doses (which my radiography colleagues do know about). We rely very heavily on the skills of technical personnel to make sure we can use any equipment safely and effectively (and we need such people to help fix our toys when we've broken them, sorry, forgot it's never our fault - always blame the technology!) I perhaps shouldn't have included radiologists, because they are mostly involved in interpreting the images and spotting possible/actual pathology. (In case you hadn't guessed, I'm one of those dreadful people who likes working in a team...) But, it's nice to hear the argument from a scientific perspective, so I thank you for that :yes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoandJon Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Hi Littlesarah, Your reply was spot on, sorry if I implied otherwise when I was responding to posts from others - you presented really good info I had a bit of a shudder remembering a radiologist (very good at being such) breaking a very expensive bit of kit and the engineer throwing an absolute tantrum (totally justified) at him for doing something stupid. And actually to give the rad credit, he promptly brought in a lovely bottle of red for the engineer and loads of cakes for all the staff Anyway It's always technology's fault - part of the genius of working with high tech stuff that nobody else understands, you can always blame the toys In regards to natural news, you're not changing my mind on that one I'm afraid! I can find no evidence of them being a peer reviewed publication (please don't confuse it with nature, which is). Long live scientific debate I say And now back to work, so many people doing stupid things, so little time to yell at them ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest31881 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 My main concern about full body scanner at the airport is that, The operator starts to laugh as they check my image out ....:jiggy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.