Not necessarily true. Some of these machines use x-rays, which are far more dangerous than WiFi(ISM Band 2.4GHz) and GSM(<2GHz).
we are adding to the damage unnecessarily
And you're just spewing out the FDA report, which has already been debunked for making false comparisons (e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines).
>without having actually looked at the numbers
It doesn't sound like you're very well versed on this stuff either, yet you have no trouble running around defending what is likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in so far.
>If these machines aren't necessary
It's been stated by several security experts (including airport security personnel) that existing techniques can detect more threats then these silly backscatter machines. These machines are only in airports because a form TSA head works for the company that produces them now.
yet you have no trouble running around defending what is
likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in
And you're just spewing out the FDA report
(e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while
flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines)
It's absolutely not counterproductive. At the end of the day, people don't give a shit about their rights being violated. Look at what american citizens have already given up. Sure, they'll bitch about it around the watercooler, might even make a facebook group but that's as far as it will ever go. I bet you could go as far as doing full on rectal examinations and so long as accepting that was faster than not people would still do it without protest because convenience trumps almost all.
Almost. If the people think there is a chance that these things cause cancer then it becomes a life and death situation that they will do something about. A poster elsewhere has had some success with this issue with TSA workers.
I'm certainly not going to advocate making things up to get our way but real experts have come out on this requesting a more thorough study. TSA wont release various figures about the radiation. X-ray damage is cumulative. Taken all these things together I really believe there is a chance these things aren't safe and if there's even a chance of it that should be enough to block their usage. The burden of proof lies with the people who want to bring these things in, not with people who need to fly but don't want the added cancer risk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=1&...
Until they can prove that there is no danger with these machines
The fact is that experts in the field have said,
unambiguously that more research needs to be done on these
things
Most of the "answer" has come from the group selling
and/or using the machine
It's a wonder we are still allowed to use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging, renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging to get rid of the scary 'nuclear'. Now any notion of 'radiation' is again being ostracized. Everyone just repeats some thing they think they understood, without actually knowing anything of what is actually involved. If you feel X-rays are that scary, stop flying.
You've ignored every counter that was already provided to your "facts". That doesn't strike me as arguing in good faith.
>Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place.
Nonsense. If you care about people's rights, why would you want to bring the discussion to a place of utter irrelevance? The american people accepted The PATRIOT act for God's sake. Do you think they're going to give a shit about being scanned naked, so long as it's fast?
>Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter.
The damage is cumulative. How can it possibly not matter. Damage done by the X-ray doesn't "go away" right? So every little extra dosage you get is just making things worse for you. You can say it's less than taking a cross Atlantic flight but I have to take the flight. Trust me, if there were another way I wouldn't go near a plane.
I still fly. I get X-rays when I think I've broken something. I love bananas. These are all sources of radiation that I'm going to be exposed to for some benefit to me (sometimes the risk of not doing it is worse than the radiation risk) and am willing to take the risks. These scanners don't help me in any way. This is radiation I'm enduring for no benefit to me what so ever. Even if I did buy the party line about terrorists, dying in a car accident would be vastly more likely than being killed by a terrorist so I'd rather take my chances with them than with this machine.
Now of course, people will respond to me citing authorities or papers claiming otherwise. However, that doesn't mean a thing. There is no issue in the world on which you can't cite someone or something seemingly relevant to support some point. However, if that point is a minority opinion, we usually trust the majority. We accept the majority opinion of doctors, engineers and other professionals in science-backed professions all the time. Straying from that principle in this specific case, because you want to believe that this case is different, is being inconsistent. Inconsistency breeds distrust, which is a reason not to behave inconsistently if you can help it. Therefore, don't just start believing stuff and spreading FUD about it because it suits you. There's nothing to complain about the radiation of these scanners, if you accept there is nothing sufficiently unsafe about microwaves, WiFi, GSM and regular flying.