Get cancer or get blown up. The odds are the same.

Chance of Dying From Airport Backscatter Radiation About the Same as Chance of Getting Killed by Terrorists
[Via Daring Fireball]

MSNBC:

Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, did his own calculations and found the exposure to be about one-fiftieth to one-hundredth the amount of a standard chest X-ray. He calculated the risk of getting cancer from a single scan at about 1 in 30 million, “which puts it somewhat less than being killed by being struck by lightning in any one year,” he told me.

While the risk of getting a fatal cancer from the screening is minuscule, it’s about equal to the probability that an airplane will get blown up by a terrorist, he added. “So my view is there is not a case to be made for deploying them to prevent such a low probability event.”

(Via Randal Schwartz.)

[More]

There is no benefit to the individual in this case. In fact, they are probably orders of magnitude more likely to die driving to the airport.

But these numbers are really interesting. About 2 million people fly a day in the US. So, by a rough rule of thumb from my statistic days, this would mean that there would be a greater than 95% chance that at least once malignancy would be caused by these machines every 45 days or about 8 a year.

But we don’t see 8 people a year die from terrorist attacks on planes in the US, do we? seems like the current efforts have been quite successful.

We have had zero people killed in the US on planes in the last year due to terrorists.Thus if the machines had been around a year ago, they would have caused 8 cancers but would really not have done any good at all.

So I would say these numbers indicate that not only is there no benefit to the individual but there is also no benefit to society. These machines could cause 8 cancers a year but have not demonstrated any ability to stop terrorist bombings.

I don’t think I will fly for a while.

I was full of Rage for John Carmack last night

from id Software.

Mike Schramm Interviews John Carmack
[Via Daring Fireball]

Nice interview at TUAW regarding Id’s amazing new Rage game and iOS gaming in general.

[More]

It seemed to take forever to download the game. But while playing, it became obvious why: it is gorgeous. The scary thing from the interview is that they have enough content to fill out three Rage games for iOS. Good bye free time.

I spent several hours last night playing Rage on my iPad. I was very sore and facing an existential dilemma : continue to play or uncramp my body. Being an adult, I chose the latter but very unwillingly.

I can control the action either by a tilt interface to aim or by a touch one. I liked the touch one because I could at least finish the levels. But the tilt is really cool so I’m going to practice getting better.

And that is what is magic about this game. Replay value is tremendous. In a game on rails, you actually can not really control the character’s movement between set pieces – thus the rails. So many of these games quickly become somewhat boring.

Not Rage. There are so many details in every spot that I can only appreciate them all while playing the game again and again. Not just for the high resolution and realistic imagery but just for normal gameplay.

For example, ammo, health and cash are available but only if you grab them during the split second they are available. No going back to recharge. If you miss them, you have to quickly change a strategy because ammo loading and health are at a premium.

But there are also added reasons to try again. There are 50 bullseye targets in each level to try and shoot out. There is cash to pick up. There are head shots to accomplish.

And the action is so fast. But it is one where you have to really learn the entire level to accomplish it well. It will not be something that you can accomplish the first time. But each time you play the level, it comes easier. So the frustration level is really low and the advantage gained by learning is obvious.

It is the best game for replay action I have even had. I just want to beat my previous score, get more money and shoot more targets all while grabbing that ammo that seems to always be just out of my reach. It” get worse when they integrate it with Game Central.

I’ve been playing computer games since Adventure and Star Trek. I am just in shock to look at where gaming has gotten. From printing out text on teletypes to twisting a handheld mobile device around, from cryptic representations of spaceships to beautiful renderings, from game action that took minutes to complete to realistic twitch play.

Incredible. And I will get to have a really big edition for my desktop. But without the tilt or touch interface, it will not be quite as immersive, I thin.

I’d be asking TSA screeners these questions

Are TSA Airport Screeners Allowed to Wear Radiation Badges?
[Via Daring Fireball]

Ira Flatow, a month ago:

This weekend, when traveling through the airport at Buffalo, NY I happened upon one of those new whole body x-ray scanners. Refusing to be screened that way, I chose for a full body pat-down. Upon gathering up my stuff, I asked one of the screeners if she knew how much radiation she was exposed to each day. She said she did not know and wanted to wear one of the badges that her friend wears at a local hospital, but was told “no,” that would not be permitted. She was upset with that decision.

Why do dentists, doctors, med techs, etc. who work in other x-ray environments gladly wear these exposure detectors on their clothing but TSA employees do not or cannot?

This is just hearsay, of course, but it’s a good question for TSA. Maybe someone should ask Blogger Bob: Are TSA screeners permitted to wear radiation exposure badges?

[More]

The levels of exposure to the X-rays are very small, so getting a couple is no problem. And the machines are supposed to be properly controlled so that spurious radiation does not leak out.

But, as I mentioned the other day, improperly calibrated machines can spew out radiation all over the place.

Are there monitors around to make sure that the TSA screeners are not being exposed to radiation? Sure, the machines may be great in a lab setting but what about real world? Are there measures in place to make sure that nothing odd happens and the TSA screeners get exposed?

And, what happens if they decide to wear a radiation badge on their own volition? Will they be fired or what? Turns out that in the comments at ScienceFirday, a screener says they can not wear ones on the outside because it is not part of their uniform but they could pay for one on their own and wear it under the uniform.

I think someone could make a killing right now selling radiation badges to passengers for plane flights. Frequent fliers could use them, send them in once a month for analysis, etc. A quick check reveals that you can get dosimeter badges or rings for about $70 for a years subscription, although it drops to about $50 in bulk. They can measure the exposure at deep, shallow and lens of the eye levels. The latter is the one best done for the backscatter.

The scariest thing about the TSA body scanners

by Wildernice

They apparently run off of an embedded version of Microsoft Windows XP! Prone to security vulnerabilities is right.

Every scanner is required to posses Ethernet connection, USB connections and able to have TCP/IP networking. They have everything they need to be networked. If they are, how hard would it be for internal pervs to send out pictures or external hackers to break in and control the data?

I mean could hackers send in any one of the known openings in XP to reboot the system and take it over? I’d sure like to put my security in the hands of XP.

Followup to climate change communication effort

More Thoughts on Why Climate Change Communication Often Backfires
[Via Age of Engagement | Big Think]

Over at the NY Times’ Dot Earth, Andrew Revkin has a post titled “An Inconvenient Mind” gathering thoughts from social scientists Dan Kahan and Robert Bruille on the UC Berkeley study that I discussed earlier this week. Here’s what Kahan and Bruille had to say, quoted from an email discussion …

[More]

Study Finds That Fear Won’t Don’t Do It: Why Most Efforts at Climate Change Communication Might Actually Backfire
[Via Age of Engagement | Big Think]

Over the past few years, a growing body of research from the social sciences has pointed to one of the major challenges in communicating about climate change. This research suggests that many political leaders, environmentalists, and scientists–by focusing narrowly on the risks of climate change …

[More]

I guess sometimes I should just read all of a site’s posts before commenting. But then that would take all the fun out of blogging.

The Age of Engagement has several earlier posts – see above – dealing with communication problems and some of the studies discussing the difficulties, particularly some of the social and psychological ones.

Fear does not work for most people because for one, people do not generally think rationally when afraid. In addition, fear of something they feel they have little control over often results in their inability to examine the problem at all. AFter a while they get desensitized to the fear and then it no longer gas any ability to change their behavior. Quite the opposite.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the heuristics people use to deal with a complex world can often get in the way of facts and learning. As the research shows, belief in a just world can hamper understanding of Climate Change. These people believe in an ordered world where hard work pays off, laziness is punished and there is a certain order to things. “Future rewards await those who strive for them, and punishment awaits those who don’t work hard or break rules.”

When worldly events that are essentially random, that can fall on the just and unjust alike – such as climate change – are presented to those who score high on the just world heuristic, they become skeptical. If doomsday scenarios are shown, they simply ignore them.

Only when positive methods are shown, do they become connected to the message.

This makes sense. Their heuristic is that they have some control in the world. As long as they work hard, they will be successful. Showing them something that indicates they can not do anything will not resonate. Show them what can be done to be successful and they will be more accepting.

So, a firm understanding of the underlying rules of thumb people use to live their lives will be required. Not every message will resonate with everyone, but specific messages can be targeted to resonate with specific world views.

The problem is not strictly an incomplete presentation of the facts. It comes down to the manner those facts are presented to them.

[Updated] Confronting a communication problem head on

[See my followup post for an updated discussion]

by cdsessums

Letter at Science: Time to Take Action on Climate Change Communication
[Via Age of Engagement | Big Think]

In a letter at the journal Science this week, my colleagues Ed Maibach and Tony Leiserowitz join with Tom Bowman, climate scientists, and other social scientists to issue a call-to-action among expert organizations to systematically invest in new approaches to climate change communication. I …

[More]

I applaud the effort even as I expect it to have a tough time. In some cases, the problem can be overcome by education of important facts. But in many cases, there are strong psychological pressures that prevent people from changing their views.

There are a number of studies which demonstrate that when people are given facts that resonate with their preconceived view of the world, that is what they remember, even when those facts are wrong. Even when they are told those facts are wrong.

The internal heuristics we all develop to deal with a complex world are very potent and it requires a tremendous amount of work to alter those rules of thumb. Simply presenting facts will not accomplish that. People rationalize what things to remember and believe, finding ways to ignore or deprecate data that contradicts what they ‘know’, what their gut tells them.

Pulling people out of these Cargo Cult Worlds they have gotten themselves into will not be an easy task.