But as I was saying... progressive DNA strand nicking does in fact cause cancer.
They said the scanners could cause cancer which is a true statement in the same sense that cigarettes could cause lung cancer. You can't pinpoint the direct causality just as you can't with cigarettes, but epidemiological data on repeated ionizing radiation exposure is quite clear. What is uncertain is at what tipping point the moment of no return is.
It is not merely speculation. The reason they don't scan pregnant women and young children is precisely because the risk is actual and not speculative. There are no lies or half truths which I can discern in this particular article.
Perhaps DM has it's issues... I don't know since I am not a reader, but I found nothing in the article which is out of place other than the perhaps unclearness of the attribution of the quote in the title. Still the quote is not misleading even if the person who stated it is a bit less clear. I assumed it was Brenner since the article seemed to be reflecting his concerns and such a quote would not be out of alignment with his concerns.
But "could give you cancer" is an accurate portrayal of DNA strand nicking. I assume by the quotation marks whatever expert they were quoting would have made such a statement because it is in fact what could happen in this instance. It is not a hyperbolic statement. It is an accurate statement even coming from DM.
They didn't exactly lie, cheat or anything in this instance since cancer is what does happen with accumulated, unrepaired DNA strand nicking due to ionizing radiation which about 1/2 of the scanners use. The Xray scanners add to the accumulation a person gets over their lives. Do they cause cancer? Maybe they could in some instances or at least maybe they could play a role.
I consider myself warned away from DM.
I only used it as a link because it seemed a succinct presentation of information which counters the previous posters comment: "I don't see radiation as being a point of controversy."
Radiation is one of 2 major points of controversy... the other being privacy. The article was just a quick way to post a tiny refutation of the gross generalization of the previous poster. Not intended to be a thesis on the subject.
Apparently, now they have to be worried about getting sued out of business by a big multinational corporation
if they intentionally select for the transgene and grow those seeds throughout their field
or if those transgenes end up in their crops by way of contamination accidentally and they still get sued because those transgenes are found there by the Monsanto PD. Then they could potentially get sued and can't afford to spend thousands or tens of thousands to defend themselves so they go out of business.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you.
Most of the organic farmers where I live are small time operations. They don't and wouldn't have the funds necessary if a lawsuit came their way to defend themselves. It would just put them out of business.
How is that different form any other crop with different traits?
Well for one, I think people are worried about genetics being introduced into plants which were never there. Artificial DNA modification is not the same as breeding for traits. You can breed for traits all you want but you will never get any plant which does what the GMO's do simply because they put in place some genetic material which is foreign to that plant strain.
One can argue whether this is good or bad and that is exactly what the discussion is about. In the end though, after all the arguments, we can only know what will happen years after it has happened. It is this unknown and irreversibility which people find concerning. Especially my local organic method farmers.
I am not a farmer myself. But I do think that folks are more worried about the things they are growing getting cross pollenated with crops which are not naturally occuring. For example, if a company genetically artificially inserts on a bit of DNA which genetically produces chemicals to deter pests that could be concerning. When a company artificially inserts factors into plants that make them more resistant to pesticides or any other sorts of chemicals that is an artificial mechanism introduced into the DNA of a species which makes it concerning for those who hope to breed their plants by selection. How will this affect what you sell? What will these chemical factors and changes do to people that eat them since they are not naturally occuring?
If all of the sudden your plants start showing up differently than you wanted cause some big agro business decided to go with seeds with re-engineered DNA that might futz up your efforts to breed your own plants quite a bit and might overwhelm your crops.
From my discussions with Organic farmers at local CSA's. The last thing they want to do is get GMO's for their crops. So your apparent implication of the guiltiness of organic farmers intentionally selecting for Monsanto artificial genes seems a bit alien to me. It doens't jive at least with how the farming in my local area is being done and is philosophically a nauseating thought to the farmers I know personally. Those farmers who use organic methods in your area may be different.... we live in strange times.
I think people being concerned more with GMO's than GE's is reasonable. But I am not certain that there is no concern for GE's as you assert. You seem to feel that opposition to GMO's is based on fear, ignorance, and misinformation which are all pretty heady indictments of those who don't want GMO's contaminating their crops.
Since there have been no longitudinal studies of GMO's, I feel that local farmers concerns are reasonable. There is experience in our species with people doing things which were thought to be entirely benign and turned out to be entirely not benign. Cigarettes as a health enhancer, XRaying your feet to size your shoes, DDT to keep vermin out of your house and off of your property, and using curare on kids for surgery because it was considered safe for kids (little did anyone know that it doesn't do anything for pain, but leaves kids to
That is why people are concerned with the unilateral roll-out of GMO's. It affects their crops whether they want to buy the seeds or not.
Apparently, now they have to be worried about getting sued out of business by a big multinational corporation because the corporation's crops are contaminating theirs.
Except most Organic Farmers I know view GMO seed from Monsanto to be like Kryptonite. Monsanto=Evil incarnate. Not something you would even serve to your dog or any living creature for that matter.
If you are talking about any old farmer, perhaps you could be right in some way, but most people who get into Organic farming are philosophically opposed to businesses like Monsanto. In my experience anyhow. I live in an area where Monsanto and GMO's are kind of worrisome because of the fear of cross-pollination.
Not sure what you are talking about when you say "conventional scientific wisdom". I don't think there is consensus on the use of scanners since there are no longitudinal studies. There are divergent opinions based on the current "scientific wisdom". There are lots of folks with an interest in deploying and in selling scanners that say there is no problem. But the actual knowledge about the risks are all speculative... even by the industry and by the governments.
I don't think that there is a lack of understanding that ionizing radiation is a problem to the DNA structure of the human body. If there were no risk then there would be no provision for caution with pregnant women and small children to be opted out. But there is a consensus that pregnant women and small children should not be scanned because of the risks of ionizing radiation.
The type of radiation we are talking about is small doses of ionizing radiation (not thermal) capable of changing electrons which can lead to DNA strand nicking. For most people there is no problem since their DNA repair mechanisms will clean up the DNA strand nicking. For people without such robust repair mechanisms this can become a problem which cumulatively will lead to cancer.
Is Wifi radiation ionizing? I thought it was Non-ionizing.
"but that doesnt mean we need to complain about TSA procedures because they involve fluorescent lightbulbs." "....if you have a space heater, it is probably giving off loads of infrared radiation...."
Not sure what your meaning is here. The complaint isn't about the use of fluorescent lightbulbs or space heaters, but about scanners using ionizing radiation.
To me it matters that some folks in the alleged name of public safety and those vying for big government contracts are willing to make everyone a guinea pig for expedience. Actual data will eventually come out to decide the matter one way or another, but in the meantime it is perfectly reasonable to raise concerns based upon what we know about the actual science we have and it is also reasonable to raise questions about safety based upon the limitations of our technology.
Back last May or sometime it was found that a number the body scanners were actually exposing people to 10 times the amount of radiation they were supposed to. Malfunctions in x-ray equipment has lead to injury and deaths before.
We are not talking about non-avoidable radiation exposure. Body scanner radiation is optional. So why expose people on mass to ionizing radiation who don't need to be exposed? Expedience? A veneer of safety? For me this is not enough.
By using the scanners, how many people have been caught with bombs strapped to them? How many people have been caught carrying guns, knives or anything else? Terrorists will always find a way around whatever the security facade is. In the meantime thousands of people will be exposed to extra radiation for no good reason. This doesn't seem a reasonable trade-off to me.
So people who have concerns about the safety of the body scanners and extra radiation exposure are alarmist or sensationalist?
We know enough about radiation exposure to proceed with caution. I understand that there is a large economic push by the lobbyists selling these machines and that such people have managed to push these things onto the population using fear of terrorism as their proxy. But that doesn't mean that everyone should just go along with it.
Accumulative radiation exposure manifests decades down the road and I am not surprised that there are no studies on the effects of body scanners yet. Such studies are underway as we speak. The results of such studies will come at a much later date. People with experience in the field bring up their concerns is not really "sensationalist nonsense".
As far as his speculation....we already understand the cumulative effects of radiation inducing strand nicking in DNA. The question is not whether this happens, but what the repercussions could be. We also understand there are those with familial flaws in DNA repair mechanisms. In such people inducing another flaw in their DNA repair mechanisms will lead to cancer. Exposing such people indiscriminately is concerning and not alarmist. There are a certain number of folks who have defective repair mechanisms and we know that more people over the course of their lives develop such defects. So speculating is based on the underlying epidemiological information we already have is merely bringing up more questions to think about. So the concerns in the article are reasonable.
I don't see a network TCP/IP level killing you personally. Your analogy is not really comparable. However, if you had put a body scanner in your building and started seeing problems with your network, you might want to investigate it. You might even give and interview and have that put out on the AP wire.
Linking to the Daily Mail is only not credible if what The Daily Mail is reporting is not credible. I this case the report is credible and accurate. You can dispute what opinion of the Columbia professor cited in the article, but the Daily Mail is representing his stance accurately. Or did you think the article didn't accurately reflect his stance?
The Wiki has the same info: "Opponents of backscatter x-ray scanners, including the head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[67][68][69] Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[70][71][72] The majority of [the scanners'] energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X- rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."...... etc.
Sorry don't have a facebook account. I'm sure the list is long. I think linking to facebook is perhaps fraught with its own credibility issues. Peoples personal laundry lists are often fraught with bias.
In the end, it would seem prudent to not voluntarily radiate oneself on a regular basis or semi-regular basis with additional radiation more than one would get in the course of ones daily activities. Radiation exposure from my understanding is a bit of a cumulative problem.
Or you might not know what you are talking about. Body scanners may provide a person with a skin direct concentrated dose of radiation that is 20 times greater than previously thought. This is particularly dangerous to kids.
What about the babies. They were always taking my babies away from me screaming. So they could check their poop or something. Everyone knows how deadly that is.
If you just check men, then people will start stuffing their infants with bombs.
Yep.... I am in Michigan. My T-mobile reception was always better than my wife's Verizon where ever we went. Now that we moved up north we have AT&T since t-mobile isn't around here. AT&T is only ok.... lots of drops and phone outages, but it sometimes works.
I was an enthusiastic T-mobile customer for 12 years. Their customer service was extremely good. They even had a nice group of people to help iPhone users on their network when they didn't officially have it. Very friendly, always helpful, knew what they were talking about when I called. I wish I could still be using them.
Of the contiguous US: 2,959,064.44 square miles (7,663,941.7 km2) is land.
He probably covers Alaska, Texas, Montana, and Wyoming... that about covers it...hehehehhee. Oh and if you flattened out Idaho it would about equal the size of Alaska since it is so mountainous. There are a lot of mountains in the western states, so there is a lot more surface area out west.
The future may be that everyone just carries their own tech to work. Wireless syncs with the work servers automatically and links up with local printers, keyboards, mice and screens. Almost nobody will require a dedicated box for the bulk of work everyone normally does. Small devices are getting really powerful.
Yep and doctors and businesses have specialized things they use. The medical field and education field are two big areas where tablets are useful. I don't understand when people say they are glorified, expensive toys. They obviously are not hitched to reality. I'm not saying computers are bad, I have been using them since my original Atari in 1981. But saying tablets are useless or toys or whatever just shows ones own limited experiences. Tablets are here to stay. Everyone should have seen this from watching Star Trek the next generation. What lies beyond the tablet I don't know, but tablets of all kinds will be with us for a while. They are just too useful and consumers are finding them so enough to pay for them.
10 hours is useful. How is 10 hours not useful? Sure 24 hours of constant on would be better, but you can't seriously say 10 hours is not enough to make a useful tool. It is useful if it does what you need while you have it on and it stays on for as long as you need it to be on. You are just talking smack my friend.
Stellarium helps one identify the stars. It is nice to be able to go out an about and have a tool which has so much information on it for us to learn about our universe on. Simply can't do that in a city. It is harder to even see a star with the city lights. iPad is a great tool and once again you just don't know what you are talking about. Insisting that you can determine whether it is toy or a tool for my family just shows you have some sort of logical mind block that you just can't seem to overcome. Ignorance is even more ignorant if one continues to press a flawed argument.
Hmmmm... What exactly is your point? That the iPad should have less battery power? Or that it isn't a useful tool?
For me it is a useful tool and does what I wanted it to do. It is a fantastic tool for my kids education, helps with all kinds of things around the house, replaces 300 pounds of reference books, controls all of my media center better than a 600 buck dedicated remote specifically for my high end media center, plays movies on trips, plays music on trips. We are just beginning to find all of the uses for this handy gadget.
Hardly a toy, the ipad is a sophisticated device which has lots of functionality for the lifestyle of my family. I am really glad I don't have to recharge it every time I turn around. Sometimes you just don't have a place to plug it in. Great to use stellarium on a family hiking trip to the back woods for example so the kids can see the stars and id all of the constellations and stars which are viewable.
Perhaps your needs are less diverse than our families. I don't think you really understand how useful one of these devices is.
Strange, my kids have one and I get to use it at night. I don't think my enthusiasm has faded because there is so much to do on it and I keep discovering more things to do. Oddly it is more functional than lugging our netbook around. The netbook has more flexibility, but is a hassle to use by comparison. Computers have their place. Tablets have their place.
BTW these are great educational tools for kids. I suppose if you are a programmer or developer of some sort it might not fill your needs, but then one wouldn't buy it for some of these production tasks. This is more of a consumer appliance. Enthusiasm is continuing to grow.
It is really nice to have devices that work well and like you said...there are lots of niches to fill because people use devices differently. A 7" tablet would make a much much better media control center than either an iPad (a tad big) or iPhone (a tad small).
My kids ipad2 is quite snappy. I wish I had one.... just playing around with it gives me lots of ideas of what to do with one. As far as I can tell the iPad 2 is really really well built and the 10+ hour battery life allows for a couple days use away from home without lugging that bulky wall wart.
I don't think I would want to pay a couple hundred bucks for something that is sluggish. In fact I don't want to pay $30 bucks for something that is sluggish. Sluggishness is a pet peeve of mine though. Perhaps you are right and you or other people would rather pay very little for something which starts out sluggish.
Can't wait until they pass it down to me. It may be sluggish after a couple years by the time I get it.
My wife's company has replaced all desktops with servers and terminals, it seems to make more sense in some ways. Lighter energy footprint and tighter control of the environment. Why have a cludgy PC under every desktop. That just isn't needed for much of the work done in business.
There are reasons for individual powerful machines for some folks, but not for most folks.
Slashdot Mirror
But as I was saying... progressive DNA strand nicking does in fact cause cancer.
They said the scanners could cause cancer which is a true statement in the same sense that cigarettes could cause lung cancer. You can't pinpoint the direct causality just as you can't with cigarettes, but epidemiological data on repeated ionizing radiation exposure is quite clear. What is uncertain is at what tipping point the moment of no return is.
It is not merely speculation. The reason they don't scan pregnant women and young children is precisely because the risk is actual and not speculative. There are no lies or half truths which I can discern in this particular article.
Perhaps DM has it's issues... I don't know since I am not a reader, but I found nothing in the article which is out of place other than the perhaps unclearness of the attribution of the quote in the title. Still the quote is not misleading even if the person who stated it is a bit less clear. I assumed it was Brenner since the article seemed to be reflecting his concerns and such a quote would not be out of alignment with his concerns.
But "could give you cancer" is an accurate portrayal of DNA strand nicking. I assume by the quotation marks whatever expert they were quoting would have made such a statement because it is in fact what could happen in this instance. It is not a hyperbolic statement. It is an accurate statement even coming from DM.
They didn't exactly lie, cheat or anything in this instance since cancer is what does happen with accumulated, unrepaired DNA strand nicking due to ionizing radiation which about 1/2 of the scanners use. The Xray scanners add to the accumulation a person gets over their lives. Do they cause cancer? Maybe they could in some instances or at least maybe they could play a role.
I consider myself warned away from DM.
I only used it as a link because it seemed a succinct presentation of information which counters the previous posters comment:
"I don't see radiation as being a point of controversy."
Radiation is one of 2 major points of controversy... the other being privacy. The article was just a quick way to post a tiny refutation of the gross generalization of the previous poster. Not intended to be a thesis on the subject.
Apparently, now they have to be worried about getting sued out of business by a big multinational corporation
if they intentionally select for the transgene and grow those seeds throughout their field
or if those transgenes end up in their crops by way of contamination accidentally and they still get sued because those transgenes are found there by the Monsanto PD. Then they could potentially get sued and can't afford to spend thousands or tens of thousands to defend themselves so they go out of business.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that fix for you.
Most of the organic farmers where I live are small time operations. They don't and wouldn't have the funds necessary if a lawsuit came their way to defend themselves. It would just put them out of business.
How is that different form any other crop with different traits?
Well for one, I think people are worried about genetics being introduced into plants which were never there. Artificial DNA modification is not the same as breeding for traits. You can breed for traits all you want but you will never get any plant which does what the GMO's do simply because they put in place some genetic material which is foreign to that plant strain.
One can argue whether this is good or bad and that is exactly what the discussion is about. In the end though, after all the arguments, we can only know what will happen years after it has happened. It is this unknown and irreversibility which people find concerning. Especially my local organic method farmers.
I am not a farmer myself. But I do think that folks are more worried about the things they are growing getting cross pollenated with crops which are not naturally occuring. For example, if a company genetically artificially inserts on a bit of DNA which genetically produces chemicals to deter pests that could be concerning. When a company artificially inserts factors into plants that make them more resistant to pesticides or any other sorts of chemicals that is an artificial mechanism introduced into the DNA of a species which makes it concerning for those who hope to breed their plants by selection. How will this affect what you sell? What will these chemical factors and changes do to people that eat them since they are not naturally occuring?
If all of the sudden your plants start showing up differently than you wanted cause some big agro business decided to go with seeds with re-engineered DNA that might futz up your efforts to breed your own plants quite a bit and might overwhelm your crops.
From my discussions with Organic farmers at local CSA's. The last thing they want to do is get GMO's for their crops. So your apparent implication of the guiltiness of organic farmers intentionally selecting for Monsanto artificial genes seems a bit alien to me. It doens't jive at least with how the farming in my local area is being done and is philosophically a nauseating thought to the farmers I know personally. Those farmers who use organic methods in your area may be different.... we live in strange times.
I think people being concerned more with GMO's than GE's is reasonable. But I am not certain that there is no concern for GE's as you assert. You seem to feel that opposition to GMO's is based on fear, ignorance, and misinformation which are all pretty heady indictments of those who don't want GMO's contaminating their crops.
Since there have been no longitudinal studies of GMO's, I feel that local farmers concerns are reasonable. There is experience in our species with people doing things which were thought to be entirely benign and turned out to be entirely not benign. Cigarettes as a health enhancer, XRaying your feet to size your shoes, DDT to keep vermin out of your house and off of your property, and using curare on kids for surgery because it was considered safe for kids (little did anyone know that it doesn't do anything for pain, but leaves kids to
Wow... someone modified my above comment as trollish? Amazing.
That is why people are concerned with the unilateral roll-out of GMO's. It affects their crops whether they want to buy the seeds or not.
Apparently, now they have to be worried about getting sued out of business by a big multinational corporation because the corporation's crops are contaminating theirs.
Except most Organic Farmers I know view GMO seed from Monsanto to be like Kryptonite. Monsanto=Evil incarnate. Not something you would even serve to your dog or any living creature for that matter.
If you are talking about any old farmer, perhaps you could be right in some way, but most people who get into Organic farming are philosophically opposed to businesses like Monsanto. In my experience anyhow. I live in an area where Monsanto and GMO's are kind of worrisome because of the fear of cross-pollination.
Not sure what you are talking about when you say "conventional scientific wisdom". I don't think there is consensus on the use of scanners since there are no longitudinal studies. There are divergent opinions based on the current "scientific wisdom". There are lots of folks with an interest in deploying and in selling scanners that say there is no problem. But the actual knowledge about the risks are all speculative... even by the industry and by the governments.
I don't think that there is a lack of understanding that ionizing radiation is a problem to the DNA structure of the human body.
If there were no risk then there would be no provision for caution with pregnant women and small children to be opted out. But there is a consensus that pregnant women and small children should not be scanned because of the risks of ionizing radiation.
The type of radiation we are talking about is small doses of ionizing radiation (not thermal) capable of changing electrons which can lead to DNA strand nicking. For most people there is no problem since their DNA repair mechanisms will clean up the DNA strand nicking. For people without such robust repair mechanisms this can become a problem which cumulatively will lead to cancer.
Is Wifi radiation ionizing? I thought it was Non-ionizing.
"but that doesnt mean we need to complain about TSA procedures because they involve fluorescent lightbulbs."
"....if you have a space heater, it is probably giving off loads of infrared radiation...."
Not sure what your meaning is here. The complaint isn't about the use of fluorescent lightbulbs or space heaters, but about scanners using ionizing radiation.
To me it matters that some folks in the alleged name of public safety and those vying for big government contracts are willing to make everyone a guinea pig for expedience. Actual data will eventually come out to decide the matter one way or another, but in the meantime it is perfectly reasonable to raise concerns based upon what we know about the actual science we have and it is also reasonable to raise questions about safety based upon the limitations of our technology.
Back last May or sometime it was found that a number the body scanners were actually exposing people to 10 times the amount of radiation they were supposed to. Malfunctions in x-ray equipment has lead to injury and deaths before.
We are not talking about non-avoidable radiation exposure. Body scanner radiation is optional. So why expose people on mass to ionizing radiation who don't need to be exposed? Expedience? A veneer of safety? For me this is not enough.
By using the scanners, how many people have been caught with bombs strapped to them? How many people have been caught carrying guns, knives or anything else? Terrorists will always find a way around whatever the security facade is. In the meantime thousands of people will be exposed to extra radiation for no good reason. This doesn't seem a reasonable trade-off to me.
So people who have concerns about the safety of the body scanners and extra radiation exposure are alarmist or sensationalist?
We know enough about radiation exposure to proceed with caution. I understand that there is a large economic push by the lobbyists selling these machines and that such people have managed to push these things onto the population using fear of terrorism as their proxy. But that doesn't mean that everyone should just go along with it.
Accumulative radiation exposure manifests decades down the road and I am not surprised that there are no studies on the effects of body scanners yet. Such studies are underway as we speak.
The results of such studies will come at a much later date.
People with experience in the field bring up their concerns is not really "sensationalist nonsense".
As far as his speculation....we already understand the cumulative effects of radiation inducing strand nicking in DNA. The question is not whether this happens, but what the repercussions could be. We also understand there are those with familial flaws in DNA repair mechanisms. In such people inducing another flaw in their DNA repair mechanisms will lead to cancer. Exposing such people indiscriminately is concerning and not alarmist. There are a certain number of folks who have defective repair mechanisms and we know that more people over the course of their lives develop such defects. So speculating is based on the underlying epidemiological information we already have is merely bringing up more questions to think about. So the concerns in the article are reasonable.
I don't see a network TCP/IP level killing you personally. Your analogy is not really comparable.
However, if you had put a body scanner in your building and started seeing problems with your network, you might want to investigate it. You might even give and interview and have that put out on the AP wire.
hahahahaha.
Linking to the Daily Mail is only not credible if what The Daily Mail is reporting is not credible.
I this case the report is credible and accurate. You can dispute what opinion of the Columbia professor cited in the article, but the Daily Mail is representing his stance accurately. Or did you think the article didn't accurately reflect his stance?
The Wiki has the same info:
"Opponents of backscatter x-ray scanners, including the head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[67][68][69] Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[70][71][72]
The majority of [the scanners'] energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X- rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."...... etc.
Sorry don't have a facebook account.
I'm sure the list is long.
I think linking to facebook is perhaps fraught with its own credibility issues. Peoples personal laundry lists are often fraught with bias.
In the end, it would seem prudent to not voluntarily radiate oneself on a regular basis or semi-regular basis with additional radiation more than one would get in the course of ones daily activities. Radiation exposure from my understanding is a bit of a cumulative problem.
Or you might not know what you are talking about.
Body scanners may provide a person with a skin direct concentrated dose of radiation that is 20 times greater than previously thought.
This is particularly dangerous to kids.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html
What about the babies. They were always taking my babies away from me screaming. So they could check their poop or something. Everyone knows how deadly that is.
If you just check men, then people will start stuffing their infants with bombs.
Plus you don't have to get a dose of radiation to go each time.
Scanners just need to go.
But not the votes. Votes sometimes do matter oddly enough.
Yep.... well said. I loved my t-Mobile service when I had it. Now I am in AT&T country and not as happy about it. Calls drop all the time here.
Yep....
I am in Michigan.
My T-mobile reception was always better than my wife's Verizon where ever we went. Now that we moved up north we have AT&T since t-mobile isn't around here. AT&T is only ok.... lots of drops and phone outages, but it sometimes works.
I was an enthusiastic T-mobile customer for 12 years. Their customer service was extremely good. They even had a nice group of people to help iPhone users on their network when they didn't officially have it.
Very friendly, always helpful, knew what they were talking about when I called. I wish I could still be using them.
Of the contiguous US:
2,959,064.44 square miles (7,663,941.7 km2) is land.
He probably covers Alaska, Texas, Montana, and Wyoming... that about covers it...hehehehhee.
Oh and if you flattened out Idaho it would about equal the size of Alaska since it is so mountainous. There are a lot of mountains in the western states, so there is a lot more surface area out west.
The future may be that everyone just carries their own tech to work. Wireless syncs with the work servers automatically and links up with local printers, keyboards, mice and screens.
Almost nobody will require a dedicated box for the bulk of work everyone normally does. Small devices are getting really powerful.
Yep and doctors and businesses have specialized things they use. The medical field and education field are two big areas where tablets are useful. I don't understand when people say they are glorified, expensive toys. They obviously are not hitched to reality.
I'm not saying computers are bad, I have been using them since my original Atari in 1981. But saying tablets are useless or toys or whatever just shows ones own limited experiences.
Tablets are here to stay. Everyone should have seen this from watching Star Trek the next generation.
What lies beyond the tablet I don't know, but tablets of all kinds will be with us for a while.
They are just too useful and consumers are finding them so enough to pay for them.
10 hours is useful. How is 10 hours not useful?
Sure 24 hours of constant on would be better, but you can't seriously say 10 hours is not enough to make a useful tool.
It is useful if it does what you need while you have it on and it stays on for as long as you need it to be on.
You are just talking smack my friend.
Stellarium helps one identify the stars. It is nice to be able to go out an about and have a tool which has so much information on it for us to learn about our universe on.
Simply can't do that in a city. It is harder to even see a star with the city lights.
iPad is a great tool and once again you just don't know what you are talking about.
Insisting that you can determine whether it is toy or a tool for my family just shows you have some sort of logical mind block that you just can't seem to overcome.
Ignorance is even more ignorant if one continues to press a flawed argument.
Hmmmm...
What exactly is your point?
That the iPad should have less battery power?
Or that it isn't a useful tool?
For me it is a useful tool and does what I wanted it to do.
It is a fantastic tool for my kids education, helps with all kinds of things around the house, replaces 300 pounds of reference books, controls all of my media center better than a 600 buck dedicated remote specifically for my high end media center, plays movies on trips, plays music on trips. We are just beginning to find all of the uses for this handy gadget.
Hardly a toy, the ipad is a sophisticated device which has lots of functionality for the lifestyle of my family. I am really glad I don't have to recharge it every time I turn around. Sometimes you just don't have a place to plug it in. Great to use stellarium on a family hiking trip to the back woods for example so the kids can see the stars and id all of the constellations and stars which are viewable.
Perhaps your needs are less diverse than our families.
I don't think you really understand how useful one of these devices is.
Strange, my kids have one and I get to use it at night. I don't think my enthusiasm has faded because there is so much to do on it and I keep discovering more things to do.
Oddly it is more functional than lugging our netbook around.
The netbook has more flexibility, but is a hassle to use by comparison. Computers have their place. Tablets have their place.
BTW these are great educational tools for kids. I suppose if you are a programmer or developer of some sort it might not fill your needs, but then one wouldn't buy it for some of these production tasks. This is more of a consumer appliance.
Enthusiasm is continuing to grow.
It is really nice to have devices that work well and like you said...there are lots of niches to fill because people use devices differently.
A 7" tablet would make a much much better media control center than either an iPad (a tad big) or iPhone (a tad small).
My kids ipad2 is quite snappy. I wish I had one.... just playing around with it gives me lots of ideas of what to do with one. As far as I can tell the iPad 2 is really really well built and the 10+ hour battery life allows for a couple days use away from home without lugging that bulky wall wart.
I don't think I would want to pay a couple hundred bucks for something that is sluggish. In fact I don't want to pay $30 bucks for something that is sluggish.
Sluggishness is a pet peeve of mine though. Perhaps you are right and you or other people would rather pay very little for something which starts out sluggish.
Can't wait until they pass it down to me. It may be sluggish after a couple years by the time I get it.
My wife's company has replaced all desktops with servers and terminals, it seems to make more sense in some ways. Lighter energy footprint and tighter control of the environment. Why have a cludgy PC under every desktop. That just isn't needed for much of the work done in business.
There are reasons for individual powerful machines for some folks, but not for most folks.
Better yet.... dump directly from an eye-fi card onto the iPad to preview as you go. No wires!!!