re Stop the panic on air security - err, no, irradiate it

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma () u washington edu>
> Date: January 12, 2010 1:22:00 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Stop the panic on air security - err, no,  
> irradiate it
> Reply-To: eackerma () u washington edu

> Greetings Dave,
> Since the Schneier editorial brings up the subject of thinking
> rationally about small risks...
>
> IPers following the debate around TSA's whole body scanning might have
> noticed that not too much ink has been spilled over the fact that
> these imagers are a source of x-rays - ionizing radiation.  Ionizing
> radiation (at the right dose and probability) can cause or increase
> the likelihood of cancer and other ailments.
>
> But one reason there's not been a _big_ hullabaloo is because the
> risks from these machines are rather small, though not zero.  How
> small a risk?  About as (un)likely as a terrorist attack, it turns
> out.
>
> The risk of being on a plane subject to a terrorist attack is ~1 in 10
> million. [1]
>
> Similarly, a single backscatter scan corresponds to a 5% increased
> risk of fatal cancer in ~1 in 10 million cases.    ( While reliable
> studies suggest that a scan-level dose would result in a statistically
> verifiable increase in fatal cancer risk in about 1 scan in 100,000,
> the "5% increased risk at 1 in 10 million" conclusion is supported
> with more studies than the former, and more statistically sound.)  [2]
>
>
> So how many additional cases of fatal cancer (or just debilitating
> cancer, or just cataracts) is it worth for us as a society to cause an
> innocent traveler in order to possibly detect a drug smuggler or
> would-be-bomber?
> In how many people are we ok with just increasing the likelihood of
> cancer for this kind of security?
>
> Can you give a number?  The TSA and FDA already have.
>
>
>
> [1]  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html
> [2] http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC/03/briefing/3987b1_pres-report.pdf
> -The dose-adjusted nominal risk estimate of fatal cancer associated
> with exposure from a single backscatter x-ray scan is 0.0000005% for a
> member of the general public, at a 5% increased risk of fatal cancer
> per Sievert dosed and a single scan dose of 0.1 microSieverts.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden () gmail com>
> > Date: January 11, 2010 5:01:57 PM EST
> > To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden () gmail com>
> > Subject: [Stop the panic on air security - CNN.com]
> >
> > For IP, if you wish.
> > Bruce Schneier on CNN"
> >    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/07/schneier.security/index.html
> > Very good common sense.
> > Bob
> >
> > Archives



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com