Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Denies Reports That Airport Scanners Ruin Kindle's e-Ink
judgecorp writes "Amazon has poured cold water on the story, but reports insist that Kindles are sometimes rendered useless by airport baggage handling and security checks. Many people report no problems at all but if something is going wrong, the culprit may not be the X-ray scanner, but a static shock."
If this were a problem, wouldn't it also affect nooks and other readers that use e-Ink? The displays are all made by the same company, after all.
My kindle has been on many flights.
If only the flight attendants would let me read the stupid thing during take-off and landing.
We're getting close to the power levels where they'll let you.
If a small battery can run the thing for a month, even if it channeled all that power into an intentionally interfering signal, it still wouldn't be a problem.
The biggest problem, aside from tradition, is convincing passengers that a milliwatt class Kindle is "low enough" yet the 100 watt gamer laptop is "too high". I could see all the airlines and manufacturers conspiring into releasing devices with green cases, or maybe pink with glitter, if they're "aircraft rated" as being safe. Then they just have to tell stewardesses to look out for gamer laptops with obvious done-at-home spray paint jobs.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
so they taught/calibrated a security device with a sample of unknown and questionable origin.. yeap.. sounds like security theater to me.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
The power levels have nothing to do with the safety risk of being smacked in the face by some wayward gadget during a rough landing.
I'd rather be hit by a 5oz Kindle than a 4lbs hardcover.
Normally what the Myth Busters do is at best anecdotal evidence. They certainly can't do enough testing to be statistically significant in this thing. So no. They have not definitively proven anything about electrical interference. Not even close. As they say, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's likely they are correct that very little interference would happen, but no one is willing to risk certifying that this is so. Nor should you or any other passenger.
There are not zero recorded incidents. In July a report was issued documenting 75 instances. The congressional study was in 2000 - the number and varieties of devices has shot up since then.
The problem with relying on anecdotal evidence, which you are doing, is this. Right now, the rule is 'turn off all devices'. Most people do this. A few people will forget, and a few more think they're special and don't do it. On a flight with 200 people, maybe 5-10 devices are left on when they shouldn't be. Now, imagine the rule did not exist. On a flight with 200 people there could easily be 300 devices, between phones, tablets, laptops, games, music players, etc. Do you think your anecdotal evidence of 5-10 devices only causing 75 incidents will still hold true when there are 30 times as many devices active?
The point about GoGo being active is immaterial. The plane was tested and certified with that device active. That is not the same as saying the plane was tested and certified with all devices active.