Reply With Quote
I usually only talk basketball. I've dropped in on this political forum a few times lately. This place is a ing zoo. Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh, or board up all my windows and doors.
rack!and of course, instead of addressing my post, you make lame joke.
you complaining about people refusing to have an intelligent discussion, even though you keep proving that you are incapable of having one.
I usually only talk basketball. I've dropped in on this political forum a few times lately. This place is a ing zoo. Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh, or board up all my windows and doors.
A Zoo is a place to take your family.
Funny, I usually find the Spurs forum to be more of a zoo. The NBA forum is a jungle.
You should laugh *while* boarding up the windows and doors.
All we need now is the "chemtrails" thread.
It occasionally gets civil and interesting.
^ Post of the month!
Yes my explanation purposefully assumed risk to whole body for all of those metrics to avoid further confusion (I figured you and a handful of others would understand why I did this). I'd estimate that the skin does get about 9 uGy from these scanners. Still much lower than the annual limits, even for many scans. I'd also hasten to say that while dmax is at the skin surface for a backscatter scanner, the depth dose profile still shows 60% at a depth of 2cm (this for a 50kvp beam, closed field). In fact, a significant proportion of dose is still present (10%) at 4cm. Dose is not as highly localized as some advertise (but also not whole body as you aptly point out). The truth is somewhere in the middle. Here is a good article for folks to read:
http://www.telmarc.com/White%20Paper...ackscatter.pdf
This explains the physics, radio-biology and molecular bio behind the scanner concerns. Not exactly impartial, but the science is valid.
The real unfortunate thing about these scanners is that the FDA will not release their test results. If they did this, it would go a long way to assuaging fears over the technology (or confirming them......). I'd really like to see some numbers from them.
As for millimetere wave tech, if shown to be as effective in detecting foreign substances, then by all means that should be the first line scan. I believe I've state this in some prior threads.
What does that have to do with anything?
Mouse thinks he can beat the statistics, but the statistics did a funny thing by having a few encounters on the outside of the bell curve.
I was drinking and posted in the wrong thread.
You would think all you "Science" salad tossers in here would know this, it's not rocket....
God dammit mouse is reaching lakaluva trolling status
What thread were you trying to post that in?
What do you really have against a radioactive free planet?
I would rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than listen to that.
Radioactivity is contantly present on our planet in a variety of forms.
I would however, like a "free planet". PM me for a location to send it.
good question.....
maybe this one..
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...1#post14592471
Psssssst! that was already covered on page one of any radiation topic.
My question was personal.
I want to know why this taint sniffer is so Pro-Radiation.
why would I lower the bar do to that?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
