The quantities of radiation quoted by the manufacturer are extremely low. The actual effective absorbed dose might be different from what they actually say, of course.

I am anticipating that someone will come forth to defend this illegal searching by claiming that the radiation dose is negligible or irrelevant. I want to counter this defense by posing the matter as philosophical rather than an empirical question of whether the irradiation is harmful or not.

EDIT: Ah, in the time that it took me to write this, I have been proven correct.

The quantities of radiation quoted by the manufacturer are extremely low.... when the machines are in proper working order, and maintained and operated as intended by the manufacturer.

My dentist had to take a course in health physics before being allowed to use an X-ray machine on humans. So did my doctor. What makes TSA agents and New York cops so special?

Again, i was simply quoting the manufacturer. Adding information to the conversation. You dont have to believe it or agree with it, but it's a side that should be heard rather than downvoted.

it's only objective in the context of people who understand the magnitude of the numbers being quoted. No data is provided as to alternate sources of radiation. An analogy is made by the manufacturer, but they have incentive to claim that level is as low as possible.

And, without any other information, the specific quotation being presented appears to imply you think it's no big deal (since you didn't offer any interpretation or make a statement relating to your opinion on the matter).

(though to note, I didn't downvote you, I'm just explaining how the information could be seen as "subjective" and not "objective").

I don't think you should be downvoted, but realize that people might be responding negatively because the citation you provided is exactly the citation that defenders of the vans and backscatter scanners at airports provide to dismiss safety concerns. So, without context around your citation, it might seem that you're trying to provide an opinionated defense of the safety of the vans.

As others have mentioned, there are also issues regarding whether those numbers can really be interpreted to mean that they are relatively safe. The manufacturers of backscatter tech claim that's true, but others suggest that because of the concentration in the skin, it's not a good estimate of safety. To interpret your cited numbers, the discussion also needs that side of the story, which other commenters have provided, but your original post did not.

> there are also issues regarding whether those numbers can really be interpreted to mean that they are relatively safe.

And contributing the manufacturer's stated specifications ADDS to that conversation, which meets the criteria for 'goodness'.

Not directing this at you, as you've already acknowledged that the OP should not have been downvoted, but additive facts should, probably as a rule, never be downvoted on account of knee-jerk reactions.

How's this for a compromise:

Philosophically, the government should not be irradiating people without their consent under any circumstance. Empirically, there is no* health risk from doing so with these vans.

* By any reasonable measure of increased incidence of cancer from small doses of radiation.

Except there's nothing to support the latter statements. The statement made by the manufacturer 1) could be totally false, 2) refers to a specific single-use of the technology.

They're claiming a specific output per-scan. What if the police are using this van with 10-second scan intervals, pointed at the same building, with people inside, for several hours? That's a fairly plausible scenario which could result in several ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more irradiation.

> That's a fairly plausible scenario which could result in several ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more irradiation.

"Orders of magnitude" is not a magic phrase you get to throw around to scare people.

Assuming 10 seconds intervals and instantaneous scans going on for 8-12 hours you've gone up just about 3 orders of magnitude. That is, from banana-equivalent dose to about the background radiation dose, per this handy radiation reference[0]. In other words, people in that building receive twice the amount of radiation that they would naturally do.

That is assuming a hell and a lot of scans while also ignoring the protection offered by distance and the building itself.

I refuse to be scared.

[0] - https://xkcd.com/radiation/

It wasn't thrown around to scare people, it was used because it's accurate. I fail to see how my statement is inaccurate considering by your own admission there are indeed several (3) orders of magnitude difference.

The point I was trying to make was saying that it's some negligible number is wrong. By your own handy reference, it's the equivalent of 2 Dentist x-rays.

The dentist at least has the decency to put a lead bib over you.

> I fail to see how my statement is inaccurate considering by your own admission there are indeed several (3) orders of magnitude difference.

"Three orders of magnitude" is a meaningless thing without context, and I just pointed out that in this context it still doesn't change the conclusion that the exposure is neglible and not worth considering.

> The dentist at least has the decency to put a lead bib over you.

That's because people are irrational and you need to dance around them for their own sake.

My context:

Person A says 1 does of product A is Amount X.

What I'm saying is: That's not entirely relevant if we don't know how many doses people actually get.

I agree about irrational, among other things.

> What I'm saying is: That's not entirely relevant if we don't know how many doses people actually get.

True. But then if we count up the reasonable upper bound of possible doses you could get, like "several thousands times a day times amount X", and it still adds up to "not harmful", should we keep being distressed about it?

See, I'm totally okay with that explanation then. If the upper bound is insignificant, then I see no reason to worry about the health aspects.

Get your calculation right:

Assuming 100nSv per scan (first comment in this post). 10s per scan. ~4000 scans in 12h.

-> 400uSv = 0.4mSv.

Background where I live: 2mSv per year. So this is a fifth of the yearly background dose at my place. But in a single day.

For example, scan the entrance/exit of a parking garage (such as one under supervision) regularly, and you have a realistic chance of severely harming the guy at the ticket booth.

Ok. You're right. I fucked up big.

I skipped an order of magnitude here. Your calculation seems correct, so we're up to about a mamogram / day (still ignoring the distance and shielding effects of the building, but we're computing the reasonable upper bound on exposure).

Over the year this 0.4 mSv adds up to about 146 mSv. Per the Handy Chart, it's between EPA dose limits for emergency workers protecting valuable property and for those in lifesaving operations. It's about 1.5 times the "lowest dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk".

So in the worst reasonable case, this seems to be indeed causing an unnecessary increase of cancer risk. Personally I think the conditions for that upper bound are very extreme so the real dose in actual use would not be nowhere near the amount calculated above, but at this point I have to agree there's a reason to be concerned and demand more information about the deployment and capabilities (especially radiation output in failure modes) of those machines.

In short: most likely still not in any way dangerous, but the revised margins are much slimmer, therefore there is a reason for concern.

I apologize for misleading anyone by accidentally skipping a zero.

> Philosophically, the government should not be irradiating people without their consent under any circumstance.

So you are against public broadcasting systems? You also don't think that a government should have a moral duty to operate an emergency broadcast system for helping people deal with natural disasters? X-rays and radio waves are both EM radiation.

To be even more pedantic, this stance also means that a government building would not be able to have any lights or heaters (amongst other things). Or a cop searching for a suspect at night wouldn't be able to use a torch.

I think it's a bad, absolutist philosophical point to make.

I think the poster was referring only to ionizing radiation (the kind proven to increase cancer risk). Light fixtures and heaters (infrared) don't fall into that category.

You are correct - I was mostly speaking for effect. But the absolutism is still a problem. For example, if you get into a car accident and are taken to an emergency department in a state where your life is in jeopardy but you are unable to provide consent - should the medical staff have the moral right to do x-rays, which greatly aid their diagnoses?

The medical staff had to take health physics courses and receive state certification before being allowed to use x-ray machines on humans.

The cop took physics in high school and got a 'B'. Oh, wait, no, that wasn't physics, that was physical ed.

Also, the medical staff are irradiating you for the direct purpose of aiding you specifically. The police are irradiating you because they've decided you are by default a suspect worthy of search simply by virtue of passing by - the benefit you receive in return for any health risk is debatable at best.

Was it supposed to imply anything? Or it was just an information dump for information's sake, leaving it to the readers to make their own conclusions?

Because regardless of what your post's purpose was, people are obviously gonna read that extract as "hey, it's inside safety limits, so it's ok".

When we post something without further comment it's quite safe to assume that people will think we agree with it, and we're using it to pass a message (especially the most obvious reading it has). The only other interpretation that's (a little less) common, is for people to think we've quoted it sarcastically.