This: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf Plus this: "Having both technologies is important to create competition"

I know I'm opting out.

Potential silver lining: http://blog.sethroberts.net/2011/02/25/the-baltimore-shipyar...

Not the same type of radiation

At the Atlanta airport, they have a repeating video with a slide that says that insists these machines are "perfectly safe".

Out of hundred million people somewhere between 6 and 100 might develop cancer? I guess we worry about the risk for the same reason we keep buying lottery tickets (while eating french fries cooked in hydrogenated oils)

The claim made is that between 6 and 100 might develop cancer if the machines are working as designed. However, we have no reason to believe the machines are calibrated correctly or working correctly. The TSA workers aren't wearing radiation detectors nor are the people going through the machines nor is there any independent outside party systematically or randomly checking the machines. So if one machine malfunctioned such that it was generating too much radiation (which according to the article we have reason to believe happens sometimes) it might conceivably give cancer to thousands or tens of thousands of people before anybody noticed.

Hey, remember when the security folk used to tell you that x-ray screening didn't damage film? That was an outright lie, but they said it anyway because it was convenient. So I get that the manufacturer claims the number who'd get cancer today is from 6-100; what I don't get is why you'd choose to believe that claim.

Well, the more telling issue is that the TSA considers those 6-100 addition deaths to be worth the cost saving. The savings come from the apparent bargaining power of having two competing systems, x-ray and millimeter wave, even though millimeter wave systems are considered better.

Risk vs. reward, I think we all know what the reward is for security theater vs the reward I get when I eat a good poutine. Mmmmm poutine.