[CydeWeys]

No, the concern in this thread is based entirely on the notion that innocent people are potentially being exposed to X-rays, without their knowledge or consent.

You're arguing against a strawman. HN commenters aren't idiots. The technology in question is using ionizing X-rays, which can have harmful health effects.

[TeMPOraL]

I never assume HN commenters are idiots. That's the very reason I hang out here - I learn a lot from what people say in this place.

Having said that, this thread is dominated by commenters who refuse to do the math. X-rays sound scary but they aren't death rays; if you add up the numbers you'll see that it's not even worth to talk about them here. There's higher probability they'll harm someone by introducing more cars onto streets.

EDIT: oh, I forgot. The Chart: https://xkcd.com/radiation/.

[learc83]

What if there is a machine malfunction? Lack of proper maintenance? Operator error? Sure there should be fail-safes, but accidents happen.

Bouncing around in the back of a van, something goes wrong. Instead of a rapidly moving beam of x-rays that doesn't stay in one location long enough to cause problems, you get a focused beam.

[TeMPOraL]

Those are fair concerns. I haven't seen the estimate for maximum amount of radiation the X-ray machine could generate when malfunctioning. We need those to see whether or not there is something to worry about.

[learc83]

If it works anything like the backscatter machines the TSA was using (rapidly moving beam), a failure mode like what I mentioned is definitely enough to be dangerous. There was a physics professor from Arizona state who said that the TSA machines could even cause radiation burns if the fail-safes failed and the beam kept going while stuck in one position.

It many not work that way though. Who knows? That's the problem with being secretive about the whole thing. They don't publicly release data on potential malfunctions.

One of my biggest concerns is the amount of training the operators receive on recognizing and reporting potential malfunctions. I suspect it's not sufficient, but again who knows? They won't talk about it because terrorists.

[TeMPOraL]

I agree, those are causes for concern. It doesn't matter if they're using radiation - whether they'd be using chemicals, biological agents or voodoo, as the issues of proper training and secrecy around a device that fails dangerously is a serious matter. They should be opposed as everything from waste of tax money to being a public safety issue, just not because of the radiation per se.

[CydeWeys]

I disagree. I think it is worth it to talk about them, for three main reasons:

1. Even if this machine only gives off radiation equivalent to, say, a dental X-ray, I still did not give my consent for it, whereas I did give my consent for the dental X-ray. Consent is important. There are a lot of things that are OK with someone's consent, but not OK otherwise, and we don't have the right to make these decisions for someone. 2. Medical X-rays have positive expected trade-offs for receiving the dose of radiation. Compare this to an X-ray police van than I happen to walk past; there's not really any argument that can be made for why my exposure to this X-ray radiation is worth it for me. 3. The machine can malfunction, or be used improperly, and give off substantially more X-ray radiation than expected or designed. Safeguards are in place for other uses of X-ray to protect against this, e.g. you wear a lead apron to protect the rest of your body during a dental X-ray, and the assistant taking the X-ray leaves the room entirely. Safeguards of these sort aren't possible with the presence of an unknowing public.

There's also of course the entire privacy aspect that we haven't even delved into yet, but the health issues alone are concerning.