Comment X-rays are not trivial (Score 1) 1
Ask and ye shall receive, as I am an X-ray scientist with a physics background and I've written comments on this before. I work with material analyzers, primarily ultra-portable XRF and XRD devices used for a variety of applications. All our devices have warning labels and prompts for a reason. X-rays should not be taken as lightly as they are. Previous independent studies and tests used techniques used primarily of direct source X-rays. Those same studies themselves admitted that no acceptable method for quantifying backscatter X-ray absorption exits at present, and there are very valid fears that the tests that were use do not quantify skin absorption very well. So more investigation is certainly merited and some new science could come out of this.
Also, while yes the senator did create the "plan" for this, she is essentially doing what politicians always do in these situations: take the credit for something they authorize funding for. Make no mistake, its the actual labs themselves which will devise the test protocols (as should always be the case).
I'll finish this with something I wrote before:
"Research indicates that enough data of exposed population exists to show that there is no safe dose, no safe-dose rate, nor a safe dose threshold..." - Wolfgang Koehnlein, Direktor of the Institue for Radiation Biology, University of Munster, Germany
In other words, every single high-energy photon that hits you has a chance to cause damage to cell structure or DNA that leads to cancer. These devices WILL increase cancer risk., without question. Yes, it is a small amount, but it is an amount. Safety limits exist to account for REASONABLE exposure, due to necessity (medical reasons primarily) or unavoidable exposure due to voluntary actions (job hazzard, etc.). The TSA and DHS may argue that the risk is low, but it is still a risk, and an unnecessary one at that.
Submission + - Senator Wants TSA To Conduct 'Independent' Scanner (propublica.org) 1
Submission + - US Supreme Court upholds removal of works from Pub (wsj.com) 2
Comment SOPA will not die even if defeated in congress (Score 5, Insightful) 273
Comment Unnecessary Risk (Score 2) 295
X-Ray Scientist here. I work with both XRF and XRD instruments for commercial and academic use. The simple fact is this:
"Research indicates that enough data of exposed population exists to show that there is no safe dose, no safe-dose rate, nor a safe dose threshold..." - Wolfgang Koehnlein, Direktor of the Institue for Radiation Biology, University of Munster, Germany
In other words, every single high-energy photon that hits you has a chance to cause damage to cell structure or DNA, leading to cancer. These devices WILL increase cancer risk., without question. Safety limits exist to account for REASONABLE exposure, due to necessity or unavoidable exposure due to voluntary actions (job hazzard, etc.). The DHS may argue that the risk is low, but it is still a risk, and an unnecessary one at that.
Submission + - Smithsonian To Feature Video Game History (ibtimes.com) 1
The Smithsonian American Art Museum said that an exhibit called the "The Art of Video Games," will open to the public in Washington, D.C. on March 16, 2012. The exhibit will explore the 40-year evolution of video games as an artistic medium, with a focus on striking visual effects and the creative use of new technologies.
Comment Quid est hoc? (Score 1) 810
With all the things that have been happening with regards to this story, I imagine you will start to see a new paradigm regarding Government and the Internet. Law regarding the internet, especially international, is largely non-existent, and even more so regarding the resources to enforce such laws. The laws that do exist are reactionary, and usually are extremely specific. The web has become more complex in terms of its capabilities that current law seems like me at my senior prom: awkward and inadequate.
Look at it this way: With probably just a USB stick, worth the price of a big mac, and a gmail account, someone just shook the entire world of international politics (An exaggeration, but you get the point). How do governments, who have largely treated the Internet with a laissez faire attitude, possibly police it, short of taking control and monitoring the entire web? That option, while not impossible, seems extremely unlikely.
If nothing else, this event is an awakening call to those in power: The internet can give-ith, and can take-ith away.
Submission + - President Obama to appear on Mythbusters (discovery.com) 2
Submission + - Happy 25th Birthday, Nintendo Entertainment System (technologizer.com)
WikiLeaks 'a Clear and Present Danger,' Says WaPo 837
Submission + - Wikileaks "a clear and present danger"
"With appropriate diplomatic pressure, these governments may cooperate in bringing Assange to justice. But if they refuse, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval. In 1989, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum entitled "Authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Override International Law in Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities."
This memorandum declares that "the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI's actions contravene customary international law" and that an "arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment." In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world.
Arresting Assange would be a major blow to his organization. But taking him off the streets is not enough; we must also recover the documents he unlawfully possesses and disable the system he has built to illegally disseminate classified information.
This should be done, ideally, through international law enforcement cooperation. But if such cooperation is not forthcoming, the United States can and should act alone. Assange recently boasted that he has created "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking." I am sure this elicited guffaws at the National Security Agency. The United States has the capability and the authority to monitor his communications and disrupt his operations.""
Does Net Neutrality Violate the Fifth Amendment? 341
Submission + - Defeating Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (arstechnica.com)