AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags

[Franz Schönhofer]

Stewart,

Thank you for this article forwarded. The reaction from two persons known
for notoriously downplaying and ridiculing radiation protection legislation
should not prevent you from further messages! They rather seem to confirm
that they have not read your message. 

The questions and the conclusions about radiation dose should be reverted:
Do you want to fly and accept the considerable dose during your flight? But
it should not be, whether somebody, who flies should accept another source
of dose, however small it might be. 

It seems that the basic principle "ALARA" - as low as reasonably achievable-
has been forgotten by many posters to RADSAFE. This is still the basic
principle for many legislations and especially the European one. Should I
draw from the two persons reaction that this principle is not valid in the
USA? Hopefully not. 

This topic is not only interesting from the radiation protection point of
view, but also from the fact, that it is terribly disgusting that passengers
would be exposed nude to some screening staff. Come on, do not point out
"technologies" to shield "private parts". It would and obviously is already
a shame that such investigations are considered and even conducted. 

As a European I simply wonder, how far the "paranoia" will go. I flew just a
few days after the 11 September (commonly called 9/11 in the USA) to
Brussels and a week later back to Vienna and we missed at the conference
(NORM III) several important contributors and I especially on, whom I had
wanted to meet since decades. About a month later I went with my younger son
to Honolulu to visit a conference there and of course we flew back again. So
please accept that a radiation protection professional like me believes in
the concept of "probability". Why do others not rely on it?

Food for thought and - hopefully - discussions without flaming.

Best regards,

Franz

 

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von stewart farber
Gesendet: Samstag, 24. Februar 2007 18:27
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags 

Interesting news article link below from today's NY Times about a low
energy, low dose x-ray screening system being tested at some US airports.
Dr. Brenner, a professor at Columbia University is quoted about the risk of
10 microRem received by a passenger in being scanned in this manner. The
article indicates that he said that even though the risk for any individual
was extremely low, he would still avoid it. 

"The question is [Dr. Brenner asks], Do you want to add to your already
existing risk?"

I wonder what the average risk of death in the here and now from sabotage to
passengers on a plane is vs. the theoretical distant cancer risk of screened
passengers receiving 10 microRem total dose. I wonder if Dr. Brenner takes
the train in his travels, rather than fly given the greatly elevated dose
rate at 30,000 feet vs. sea level.  Hmmmm.

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Consulting Scientist
Farber Technical Services
[203] 441-8433 [office]
email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
          

==============

New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags 
By PAUL GIBLIN and ERIC LIPTON
The device peeks underneath passengers' clothing to search for guns, bombs
or liquid explosives.

link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/us/24scan.html?th&emc=th



Excerpt: 

While security agency officials say the machines, known as SmartCheck, pose
no health hazards, some experts disagree. The machine, manufactured by
American Science and Engineering Inc. of Billerica, Mass., generates about
as much radiation as a passenger would get flying for about two minutes at
about 30,000 feet, or in technical terms, fewer than 10 microRem per scan,
according to security agency and company officials. The machine is already
being used in some prisons, by United States customs and at Heathrow Airport
in London.

Dr. Albert J. Fornace Jr., an expert in molecular oncology at Georgetown
University Medical Center, said such a low dose was inconsequential, even
for pregnant women.

"Obviously, no radiation is even better than even a very low level," Dr.
Fornace said. "But this is trivial."

But David J. Brenner, a professor of radiation oncology at Columbia
University, said that even though the risk for any individual was extremely
low, he would still avoid it.

"The question is, Do you want to add to your already existing risk?"
Professor Brenner said, recommending that pregnant women and young children,
in particular, avoid the device. "There are other technologies around that
can probably do the job just as well without the extra radiation."