12 ms·

How much of a dose do you actually get from the scans? The best numbers I can find seem to point to something in the 0.015 μSv to 0.88 μSv range. At cruising a

How much of a dose do you actually get from the scans? The best numbers I can find seem to point to something in the 0.015 μSv to 0.88 μSv range. At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation. I don't think the radiation from these machines should be the biggest concern.

fluxquanta 11y ago
Most people hear radiation and automatically think "Chernobyl 2.0" without looking into the details. I love using the banana equivalent dose as a way to help people understand that not all radiation is created equal.
pmoriarty 11y ago
The radiation may not be that much, relatively speaking. But it's all focused on your skin. Plus, this kind of radiation exposure hasn't been tested on humans for long. I'd feel better about being scanned had these scanners been in use for 20 years without many adverse effects reported. As it stands, the jury's still out. And I'd personally rather wait a little longer in line and get a pat down than take a chance with my health.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Do you drive to the airport? EDIT: Driving to the airport will expose you to far more risk than walking through the machine, however you define that risk.
  - JshWright 11y ago
    A significant benefit is derived from driving. No such benefit exists from AIT scanning.
  - rbcgerard 11y ago
    What is you confidence level regarding the maintenance and calibration of these machines?
    - DanBC 11y ago
      I have no idea. I do know that driving is far more dangerous how ever you define danger.
- ggoss 11y ago
  It also depends on whether the machine in use (different airports use different machines) are millimeter wave or backscatter x-ray. Millimeter wave machines (the majority of installations), if I am not mistaken, do not emit ionizing radiation, whereas the backscatter machines do. You can tell which type of machines are in use at your airport by the informational posters displayed in the queue, the brand and physical appearance of the machines themselves, or by checking online. My policy has always been to ask for a pat-down when they use backscatter (to avoid the unnecessary radiation), and go through the machine if they use millimeter wave. The dose of radiation may be small (relative to normal amounts of cosmic radiation or black lightning or bananas or ...), but they don't really know if the machines are out-of-spec until, well, they do. I'd like to avoid becoming 'that person' who was severely over-radiated right before they decommissioned a malfunctioning machine.
glasz 11y ago
radiation is some sort of valid strawman argument. it's purpose is to get all the stupid sheep concerned who just blindly submit to anything some clown tells them to.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
> At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation. All the more reason to minimize it every chance you get, wouldn't you say?
late2part 11y ago
Are you safer with or without the radiation? Without, obviously, so why not ignore it? "Just a little higher chance of cancer" is not a comforting observation.

fluxquanta 11y ago

Most people hear radiation and automatically think "Chernobyl 2.0" without looking into the details. I love using the banana equivalent dose as a way to help people understand that not all radiation is created equal.

pmoriarty 11y ago

The radiation may not be that much, relatively speaking. But it's all focused on your skin. Plus, this kind of radiation exposure hasn't been tested on humans for long. I'd feel better about being scanned had these scanners been in use for 20 years without many adverse effects reported. As it stands, the jury's still out. And I'd personally rather wait a little longer in line and get a pat down than take a chance with my health.

DanBC 11y ago
Do you drive to the airport? EDIT: Driving to the airport will expose you to far more risk than walking through the machine, however you define that risk.
- JshWright 11y ago
  A significant benefit is derived from driving. No such benefit exists from AIT scanning.
- rbcgerard 11y ago
  What is you confidence level regarding the maintenance and calibration of these machines?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    I have no idea. I do know that driving is far more dangerous how ever you define danger.
ggoss 11y ago
It also depends on whether the machine in use (different airports use different machines) are millimeter wave or backscatter x-ray. Millimeter wave machines (the majority of installations), if I am not mistaken, do not emit ionizing radiation, whereas the backscatter machines do. You can tell which type of machines are in use at your airport by the informational posters displayed in the queue, the brand and physical appearance of the machines themselves, or by checking online. My policy has always been to ask for a pat-down when they use backscatter (to avoid the unnecessary radiation), and go through the machine if they use millimeter wave. The dose of radiation may be small (relative to normal amounts of cosmic radiation or black lightning or bananas or ...), but they don't really know if the machines are out-of-spec until, well, they do. I'd like to avoid becoming 'that person' who was severely over-radiated right before they decommissioned a malfunctioning machine.

glasz 11y ago

radiation is some sort of valid strawman argument. it's purpose is to get all the stupid sheep concerned who just blindly submit to anything some clown tells them to.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

> At cruising altitude, you get 0.04 μSv per minute from cosmic radiation. All the more reason to minimize it every chance you get, wouldn't you say?

late2part 11y ago

Are you safer with or without the radiation? Without, obviously, so why not ignore it? "Just a little higher chance of cancer" is not a comforting observation.