22-08-2016, 11:18 AM
A lot of numbers and unfamiliar units in that post, sorry....I should add some context.
Perhaps most importantly, it is generally acknowledeged that any radiation risk (flying or scanning, even millileter scanning) will be higher for children, maybe five to ten times higher. Radiation risk is thought to be cumulative so their estimated lifetime risk would, additionally, need be almost doubled compared to a medium-aged adult. Crucially, children can not be considered to have consented to any risk from chess-related scanners. I hope they would be excluded from these scans (if there are any children at the Olympiad) – though I wouldn’t bet on it.
Radiation dose estimation is fiendishly complex and even well-researched estimates are necessarily rough.
I’ve only referred to the standard picture, there is a significant body of thought that claims the standard model significantly underestimates effects at the low end of the exposure scale. If you look up people like Brenner (and especially Chris Busby) you’ll soon find the evidence base for this thinking.
The hand-waving away of questions of radiation exposures is as old as ...questions about radiation exposures themselves. (Likening to something else that may not have been acknowledged either is another).
Also a common technique by those who would like risks to appear smaller is, dilution of the dose by widening the area scrutinized (or something else that may not be relevant). The exposure level cited by the industry for backscatter scanners are based on whole body exposures, and is an average for the whole body. This ignores the fact that the dose is concentrated on the skin (the main feature of backscatters that they do not penetrate beneath the skin much). The dose should probably be re-calculated for the skin, in which case it would be say twenty times higher according to Brenner. Medical scans on the other hand (although the exposures are higher) are at least carefully based on specific calculations based on the effect of the particular radiation type on whatever organs are exposed.
As an analogy, consider a small hot coal – with enough energy to spread a nice warm glow. If you swallowed it or just put it in your mouth, it would do extensive damage to whatever it touched. Distance from the radiation source can be as important as the strength.
Cheers
Perhaps most importantly, it is generally acknowledeged that any radiation risk (flying or scanning, even millileter scanning) will be higher for children, maybe five to ten times higher. Radiation risk is thought to be cumulative so their estimated lifetime risk would, additionally, need be almost doubled compared to a medium-aged adult. Crucially, children can not be considered to have consented to any risk from chess-related scanners. I hope they would be excluded from these scans (if there are any children at the Olympiad) – though I wouldn’t bet on it.
Radiation dose estimation is fiendishly complex and even well-researched estimates are necessarily rough.
I’ve only referred to the standard picture, there is a significant body of thought that claims the standard model significantly underestimates effects at the low end of the exposure scale. If you look up people like Brenner (and especially Chris Busby) you’ll soon find the evidence base for this thinking.
The hand-waving away of questions of radiation exposures is as old as ...questions about radiation exposures themselves. (Likening to something else that may not have been acknowledged either is another).
Also a common technique by those who would like risks to appear smaller is, dilution of the dose by widening the area scrutinized (or something else that may not be relevant). The exposure level cited by the industry for backscatter scanners are based on whole body exposures, and is an average for the whole body. This ignores the fact that the dose is concentrated on the skin (the main feature of backscatters that they do not penetrate beneath the skin much). The dose should probably be re-calculated for the skin, in which case it would be say twenty times higher according to Brenner. Medical scans on the other hand (although the exposures are higher) are at least carefully based on specific calculations based on the effect of the particular radiation type on whatever organs are exposed.
As an analogy, consider a small hot coal – with enough energy to spread a nice warm glow. If you swallowed it or just put it in your mouth, it would do extensive damage to whatever it touched. Distance from the radiation source can be as important as the strength.
Cheers