I'm sorry, but if someone were being forced to eat thousands of bananas a day, people would be pretty outraged.
I'm all for keeping this about privacy, but don't dismiss the health stuff. Dentists still give you a lead bib to protect against x-rays (2doses worth according to XKCD), so yeah, don't dismiss it.
> I'm sorry, but if someone were being forced to eat thousands of bananas a day, people would be pretty outraged.
Yes, but not because radiation. There's a difference between scanning someone and force-feeding them.
X-rays are emitted by many processes, including playing with an office tape. If, say, relays in traffic lights emitted equivalent amounts of X-rays in the course of their normal operation (don't they? did anyone check?), nobody would be talking about it. The reason we're talking about vans is because police is taking nudes without consent; radiation is only used as an additional, powerful argument, because it sounds scary.
> I'm all for keeping this about privacy, but don't dismiss the health stuff. Dentists still give you a lead bib to protect against x-rays (2doses worth according to XKCD), so yeah, don't dismiss it.
I think those are 2 doses afer taking into account the shielding you get. I wouldn't expect it to be much higher without shielding though, but medical profession is both extremely sensitive about legal issues and not beyond doing weird things to cater for irrational fears of people. For instance, the reason you get "a MRI" and not NMR - for Nucler Magnetic Resonance, as it is called everywhere else in science - is because patients were afraid of the word "nuclear".
I think the reason we're talking about the vans (at least the reason I am) is because it's directed radiation, not just an electric field that extends symmetrically in all directions.
The dentist I went to (who was really great) explained that there was actually a pretty big difference in the radiation levels between hardware from 10 years ago and today. IDK when the reference date for that xkcd chart is. f
But either way, why should we let someone subject us to even slightly just a tad potentially harmful in a directed manner? I'm not cool with that.
> IDK when the reference date for that xkcd chart is.
From what I can tell it was last updated in 2011[0].
> But either way, why should we let someone subject us to even slightly just a tad potentially harmful in a directed manner? I'm not cool with that.
We're talking about so very slightly very much just a tad harmfulness that if we were to be consistent about it we'd have to take issue with every single thing in our lives. This is beyond "I'll stay at home, external world is dangerous" levels of harm. So why are we suddenly singling out radiation, and not say risk of getting driven over by scan-vans? Or risk of accidentally angering a cop and getting shot to death, as it happens in the US from time to time? In my opinion, we're privileging the radiation issue way, way too much.
I'm all for keeping this about privacy, but don't dismiss the health stuff. Dentists still give you a lead bib to protect against x-rays (2doses worth according to XKCD), so yeah, don't dismiss it.