Techdirt. Stories filed under "radiation" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "radiation"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:00:00 PDT DailyDirt: Love Will Find A Way... Michael Ho http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/02161811270/dailydirt-love-will-find-way.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/02161811270/dailydirt-love-will-find-way.shtml
  • French researchers devised an experiment to determine what would happen if shrimp could time travel -- re-animating preserved brine shrimp eggs from 1985, 1996 and 2007 to mate with each other. Shrimp specimens that mated with shrimp from the past or future died more quickly than contemporary mating... so Sarah Connor should be a bit wary of the pickup line, "Come with me if you want to live." [url]
  • Little kids might ask where babies come from, but real scientists ask, "Where did plant sex come from?" Apparently, the answer is low oxygen levels in the atmosphere that trigger some plant cells to become sex cells. This discovery could lead to new ways to manage plant seeds -- as well as a patent for plant sex under varying oxygen concentrations. [url]
  • Plans for colonizing other planets could be derailed by the sterilizing effects of radiation from outer space. Cosmic rays are difficult to shield away from astronauts, so there need to be a few more studies to figure out how humans will reproduce without the Earth to protect us. [url]
    • If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     urls-we-dig-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101004/02161811270     Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:29:23 PDT New Documents Raise More Questions About Safety Of TSA Scanners Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110629/01110914897/new-documents-raise-more-questions-about-safety-tsa-scanners.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110629/01110914897/new-documents-raise-more-questions-about-safety-tsa-scanners.shtml misleading the public in stating that its new more intrusive scanners were safe. This didn't mean that the machines weren't safe -- but that the TSA was, at the very least, massively exaggerating the claims that they had scientific support to say that the machines definitely were safe. Earlier this year, there were further worries, when reports came out showing that some of the machines were giving off much more radiation than they were supposed to.

    Now, EPIC, which is in an ongoing lawsuit to try to get these scanners banned, is claiming that via a FOIA request, they have new evidence that the TSA has been misleading people about the risks of the scanners. The documents show that Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano blatantly misrepresented a NIST study in a USA Today OpEd, to claim that the scanners were safe. NIST, however, quickly contacted DHS, saying that it was "concerned" about the piece misrepresenting what it had said:
    • NIST does not do product testing
    • NIST did not test AIT machines for safety
    • NIST measured the dose of a single machine and compared it against the standard
    Apparently, NIST told DHS to stop misrepresenting its work, and suggested that if DHS agreed, then it wouldn't call for USA Today to run a correction on the piece.

    Separately, another document shows that TSA employees in Boston raised serious concerns to officials, claiming that there was evidence of a "cancer cluster" among TSA agents in Boston. The union asked the TSA to provide agents with dosimeters that could be clipped onto uniforms in order to measure the radiation to make sure the machines were safe. Agents in Atlanta apparently also expressed concerns and asked for dosimeters. The TSA refused, noting that it was already running some tests, and the tests showed no radiation problems.

    This document is receiving a lot of attention, but I don't find it quite as damning as most. People just claiming that they believe there's a heightened cancer risk is not really evidence or fact. It would be more interesting if there was actual data to support that, rather than just anecdotal evidence. Still, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the TSA, at the very least, exaggerated the claims of how much scientific support there is that these machines are safe. That's the part that bugs me. They could easily allow for much more testing of the machines, but don't seem that interested in it, preferring instead to mislead the public, a la Napolitano interview.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     of-course-they-do... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110629/01110914897     Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:00:00 PDT DailyDirt: Don't Just Give People Numbers... Draw Charts? Michael Ho http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/11534212964/dailydirt-dont-just-give-people-numbers-draw-charts.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/11534212964/dailydirt-dont-just-give-people-numbers-draw-charts.shtml
  • XKCD has a chart that illustrates radiation dosages to help folks understand what the sievert unit means. No stick figures were harmed in the production of this chart. (Also, feel free to copy and distribute it because it's public domain material.) [url]
  • A slightly more colorful chart of what a sievert unit means is available for purchase -- with all the money going to help with the disaster relief effort. The logarithmic scale on this one is kind of easy to miss on this chart, though... [url]
  • Here's a chart that's a bit more complicated to read, but it also incorporates exposure time. Unfortunately, Roy G Biv is apparently not helpful for determining the order of severity. [url]
  • The New York Times published a nice table explaining how far the effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster have spread. For the radiation detected near British Columbia, "a person would have to drink 3 million glasses of water at one time to reach a problematic dose in the thyroid." [url]
  • To find more stuff on research & research tools, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  
    • By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     urls-we-dig-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110204/11534212964     Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:01:01 PDT Maintenance Report Shows Radiation Levels On Some TSA Scanners 10 Times Higher Than Promised Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/01280213485/maintenance-report-shows-radiation-levels-some-tsa-scanners-10-times-higher-than-promised.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/01280213485/maintenance-report-shows-radiation-levels-some-tsa-scanners-10-times-higher-than-promised.shtml totally misleading in claiming that the new naked airport scanners had been shown to be totally safe when it came to radiation. While the studies the TSA used to make that claim only said that was the case if the machines were working properly, there was no evidence that the TSA was actually making sure the machines were working properly, or how easily they might not be working properly. Well, it appears that this may have been a much bigger issue than originally thought, as some maintenance on these machines has shown radiation levels 10 times the amount that they're supposed to be emitting. The TSA has now agreed to retest all of the machines -- though it still insists that these new reports were "mathematics mistakes." Uh. Yeah.

    But, really, the issue goes beyond that. If it's so easy to make "math mistakes," how do we know that the original "lower" reports from these machines was accurate? Assuming these readings were accurate, how long were these machines operating at 10x the radiation levels? How easy was it for the radiation levels to get so high? How will the TSA prevent it from happening again? Honestly, though, the people who should be most upset are the TSA workers who run these machines. It makes you wonder how much radiation they're being exposed to on a daily basis.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     uh,-whoops http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110314/01280213485     Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:34:19 PST Molecular Biologist Highlights Serious Safety Concerns Over TSA Scanners Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101129/01274612033/molecular-biologist-highlights-serious-safety-concerns-over-tsa-scanners.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101129/01274612033/molecular-biologist-highlights-serious-safety-concerns-over-tsa-scanners.shtml Keith Dawson points us to a blog post by Molecular Biologist Jason Bell, reviewing the literature on these devices and comparing it to questions sent by a group of scientists at UCSF, and suggesting (at best) that the government is being misleading in its claims about the safety of the devices. Here's just a snippet:
    With respect to errors in the safety reports and/or misleading information about them, the statement that one scan is equivalent to 2-3 minutes of your flight is VERY misleading. Most cosmic radiation is composed of high energy particles that passes right through our body and the plane itself without being absorbed. The spectrum that is dangerous is known as ionizing radiation and most of that is absorbed by the hull of the airplane. So relating non-absorbing cosmic radiation to tissue absorbing man-made radiation is simply misleading and wrong. Of course these are related and there is over-lap, but we have to compare apples to apples.

    Furthermore, when making this comparison, the TSA and FDA are calculating that the dose is absorbed throughout the body. According the simulations performed by NIST, the relative absorption of the radiation is ~20-35-fold higher in the skin, breast, testes and thymus than the brain, or 7-12-fold higher than bone marrow. So a total body dose is misleading, because there is differential absorption in some tissues. Of particular concern is radiation exposure to the testes, which could result in infertility or birth defects, and breasts for women who might carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.
    The report also notes that while the UCSF team was made up of well-known and well-respected scientists, the TSA's response included no author credits, and there's no indication that it was written by any actual doctors or scientists. I'm still not convinced the medical concerns are that big of a deal (well, perhaps for TSA agents stationed near the devices...), but it is a bit troubling that the TSA isn't being particularly forthcoming on this stuff.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     more-data-needed http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101129/01274612033     Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:58:27 PST Maine Wants Mobile Phones To Carry A Cancer Warning... Despite Lack Of Evidence; [Updated: SF Too] Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091222/0229487460.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091222/0229487460.shtml extremely unlikely to have any meaningful impact on causing cancer. Yet, that doesn't stop the worries that have long been associated with (almost always unscientific folks) when it comes to wireless signals. The latest such situation involves a politician in Maine pushing for a law that would put cancer warning labels on mobile phones.

    But here's the thing: even if these warnings were put on phones, what would it do? Would people really stop using their mobile phones or make any behavioral adjustment just because of these labels? There might be a few people, but I'd imagine that those who already are sure that mobile phones cause cancer have already acted accordingly. Update: And... just like that, comes the news that San Francisco is considering the same thing.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     yeah-that'll-help http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091222/0229487460     Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:58:16 PDT WiFi Worries Still Going Strong In The UK Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1034471811.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/1034471811.shtml horrendously bad science, that actual scientific tests have shown the fears to be totally overblown (the amount of radiation is minimal, and double blind tests find that people cannot tell when WiFi is on, despite claims to the contrary) and that even the BBC later admitted that the show was poorly done and presented only one side of the story (the fear mongering one) while blatantly making the one reasonable person on the show look bad. It also left out some of the conflicts of interests concerning one of the scientific "experts" on the show (the guy who sold anti-radiation products and has a clear reason to build up fear mongering around WiFi radiation).

    But, no matter, anti-WiFi hysteria has been in full bloom since that program aired. Despite all the studies showing little to no impact from WiFi radiation, the UK's Daily Mail is running yet another fear mongering piece about how WiFi in schools is harming children and wants a moratorium on WiFi in schools. Apparently the fact that a year's worth of WiFi radiation is the equivalent of 20 minutes on a mobile phone hasn't been explained to these people.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     gotta-freak-out-about-something http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080728/1034471811     Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:58:00 PDT Cell Towers Making People Sick Is All In The Mind Carlo Longino http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070725/095038.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070725/095038.shtml shoddy reporting and bad science. The reports, as a rule, feature a person who claims to have "electrosensitivity," and that radiation from WiFi or mobile phone networks makes them sick. Despite the claims, these people generally fail double-blind tests to see if they really can feel the presence of WiFi or other wireless networks, and another study has now once again confirmed this. Researchers said that people claiming to have electrosensitivity weren't faking it, and really were displaying the symptoms they claimed -- but that they were brought about by the people's belief that they were being harmed by radiation, and not the radiation itself. Just two of 44 people claiming to be "electrosensitive" correctly determined when the wireless signals were being emitted in six out of six tests; this compares pretty evenly to the 5 out of 114 control participants. Somehow, though, it's hard to imagine this study will end debate on the matter. After all, claiming that electronic smog is hurting children is far too juicy a story to pass up -- even if it isn't true.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     psychosomatic http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070725/095038