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

[Cheng Kit-man]

Notwithstanding the radiological assessments that the dose and hence the associated potential health risks to the exposed individuals are de minimis and the social-political needs of law enforcement and prevention of terrorist acts, the human rights concerns are (a) whether the choice of subjects for body scanning will be based on a proper assessment of threats and (b) whether the selected subjects will be given the free choice of alternative options, such as body searching.

 

If the device is widely adopted, there is a potential risk that it will be used indiscriminately on a large proportion of passengers of all ages as a screening device like the portal RF detectors because scanning is quick and simple.  In that case the aggregate population dose and the cumulative individual dose for frequent travelers will no longer be insignificant.  Nonetheless if choice of subjects for scanning is well justified by proper security risk assessments, body scanning is probably the more preferred option than strip searching.

 

Clement Cheng

Radiation Health Unit

Department of Health

Hong Kong SAR, China

 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch霵hofer
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:15 AM
To: 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] New Airport X-Rays Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags 

 

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."

 

 

_______________________________________________

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/