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

Sun Feb 25 09:53:53 CST 2007

Here are two Standards:

N43.5-2005

Radiological <http://hps.org/hpssc/N43_5_2005.html>  Safety Standard for the
Design of Radiographic and Radioscopic Non-Medical X-Ray Equipment Below 1
Mev

Sep 05

N43.17-2002

Radiation <http://hps.org/hpssc/N43_17_2002.html>  Safety For Personnel
Security Screening Systems Using X-rays

4/3/02

--------------------------------------------------------------- 
Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614 

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
Tel: (949) 419-1000 Extension 2306 
Fax:(949) 296-1144 

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Irwin, William [mailto:WIrwin at vdh.state.vt.us] 
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:02 AM
To: osuleiman at comcast.net; Franz Schönhofer; sandyfl at cox.net; stewart
farber; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just
Bags

Hello,

Here in the US, in all of the states within which these airport X-ray units,
both old and new, are operated by a Federal agency, who regulates them, and
to what standards?

William E. Irwin, Sc.D., CHP

Radiological Health Chief

Vermont Department of Health

108 Cherry Street

Burlington, VT 05402

802-863-7238 (desk)

802-316-0119 (mobile)

802-865-7455 (fax)

wirwin at vdh.state.vt.us

  _____  

From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of osuleiman at comcast.net
Sent: Sun 2/25/2007 9:08 AM
To: Franz Schönhofer; sandyfl at cox.net; 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just
Bags

Airport x-rays are controversial, but safe. There are 4 factors, radiation
risk, reduction of terrorism risk,  privacy concern, and psychological
stress . The first 2 can be quantitatively estimated, though I won't try.
The 3rd is an issue of societal rights for privacy, the 4th relates to
individual anxiety which is related to the first 3, somehow.

Radiation risks are very low.

>From the techology itself- The backscatter technology exposes an individual
to an amount that is equivalent to minutes or a fraction of an hour of
background radiation, though transmission technology may give higher doses
(analogous to medical x-ray images), these are closer to a days worth of
radiation, give or take the usual uncertainty associated with x-ray
technique and subject size.   Still, clearly within the normal variability
of background levels.

And relative to other sources- If the passenger is flying he/she will be
receiving slightly elevated background levels during the flight that will be
much more than the radiation they may be exposed to from the backscatter
technology.

Risk is in the eyes of the perceiver.  Perception, unfortunately is reality
to many. Still, determining radiation risk is actually the easiest part of
this exercise.

Security risks

I can't really discuss objectively, but screening is now a part of flying.
A societal risk for a societal benefit. The additional "radiation risk" , no
matter how small, versus the reduction in terrorist acts.

Privacy

This issue has been argued on both sides.  Some believe it is an invasion of
privacy.  Others would prefer the imaging to a physical, pat-down search,
where the screener touches or strips the passenger.  So privacy advocates
can embrace or oppose the technology.

Last I knew, the US Customs, as a matter of policy, obtains informed consent
for such screening, and is given as an option to a physical pat-down. 

US Customs can also send someone to a hospital, and have the individual
undergo a CT or fluoroscopy exam to detect ingested contraband usually
encased in rubber or latex. Obviously the x-ray dose could be much larger
here, by hundreds or even thousands of times the daily dose of background
radiation.

Psychological

If you feel secure, that's a plus, if you fear you've been harmed due to
your exposure to the radiation, that's a minus.

Let the facts speak for themselves, but you cannot completely ignore stress
due to psychological perception- because stress does impact on health.
Unfortunately not in an easily quantifiable way. 

Orhan H Suleiman
Laurel, Maryland

The opinion expressed above is my own, and not reflective of my employer.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>

> This is sent from my personal computer (make unknown) via my Chello-UPS
> account - could you please refrain from sending the "Blackberry - Cingular
> Wireless" progaganda.
>
> ALARA does not know any "almost non-radiation dose". Forget it. You still
> use the unit microrem, though you know, hopefully by my previous postings,
> that this is used only by about a few percent of the world population. You
> again forget that this is an international discussion forum.
>
> As I wanted to demonstrate by my mentioning of my flight itineraries,
there
> is no risk to be mitigated, when people like me and the rest of those
flying
> on the fully booked plane do not perceive it. And if there is no risk I do
> not want to be exposed naked to whome so ever and I do not expect that
> anybody, who is not affected by some US propaganda would like so. There
are
> other more decent methods to prevent smuggling of weapons etc. on
> airplaines. If US citizens accept this privacy deprevation it is their
> problem, but then the USA should not be concerned that tourism from
foreign
> countries has declined dramatically. Again I want to remind you, that this
> list is an international one and not a US one.
>
> Your comments are ridiculous, they only try to ridicule persons who are
> concerned about the ongoing attempts to undermine human rights.
>
> Everybody at RADSAFe should be aware that your company will and would
profit
> from tightened regulations.
>
> Franz
>
>
> Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
> MinRat i.R.
> Habicherg. 31/7
> A-1160 Wien/Vienna
> AUSTRIA
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Sandy Perle [mailto:sandyfl at cox.net]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 24. Februar 2007 22:29
> An: Franz Schönhofer; 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags
>
> ALARA is alive and well in USA, to an extreme extent.
>
> In this case, the extra dose, estimated to be 10 microrem is almost
> non-radiation dose. The privacy aspects is an issue and has to be
evaluated
> against the risks trying to be mitigated. The article and Stu,s 0comments
> are about the dose received, the doctor's comments, and had nothing to do
> about the image resolution considerations.
>
> I would be surprised that anyone considers this 10 microrem dose to be an
> issue.
>
> Sandy Perle
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

  _____  

This email message may contain privileged and/or confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
notify the sender and delete this email message from your computer.

CAUTION: The Agency of Human Services / Vermont Department of Health cannot
ensure the confidentiality or security of email transmissions.