It's a tiny line between FUD and alertness. I prefer people bring this stuff up every now and then to remind all of us to never stop questioning things.
It's so easy to get caught up in the halo/horn effect and try to make every fact about backscatter machines bad. But the truth is complicated. It requires weighing all evidence, not just looking at evidence that agrees with your current views.
89,000 times lower than the annual limit.
I'm not a fan of the TSA or backscatter machines, but facts are not up for debate. If backscatter machines cause cancer, it would be very surprising and it would tell us something new about physics and/or biology.
Also, if you worried about every risk that was as low as backscatter machines, you simply wouldn't be able to function in society. 5 minutes in a car is a 1 in 5 million chance of death.
I think most would rather the use of these devices be banned on principles of their invasiveness rather than on safety concerns. Otherwise, you just get a "safer" version of the same thing in a few years.
That's a different discussion. I'm just talking about safety. The scientists in the letter are just talking about safety. The FDA is just talking about safety.
"Should we put these things in airports?" brings a lot more baggage with it than "Are these things safe?" I wish our opinions about backscatter devices could stay out of this discussion about their safety.
I'm going to mention my opinion anyway, because otherwise people will suspect me of being on The Other Side. I think these devices are a waste of money and I don't want to be subject to them. They raise a ton of privacy concerns and make me wonder, "What's next?" But they're almost certainly safe.
... are "likely" safe.
It's a tiny line between FUD and alertness. I prefer people bring this stuff up every now and then to remind all of us to never stop questioning things.