[ RadSafe ] Correction - Airport Body Scanners

[blreider at aol.com]

Howard, the number 200 you quoted from the Taiwan article does strike one.  I shall look for the article.  But not having seen it, your post brings to mind quite a few questions that are needed by some of us technical folks to feel comfortable with the conclusion prior to using this as an argument.  I'm not an epidemiologist and perhaps someone who has more experience evaluating environmental data can add their 2 or more cents in.  Some of the questions I have are:


What is the size of the population studied?
What is the size of the unexposed background population used?
What are the differences in abodes?  
Are there other differences in race, age, lifestyles or class of the populations?
What types of deformaties are noted as radiation related?  
Are the same deformaties found in the aborted fetuses?
What are the standard deviations on the data and background data?
How do data trend from year to year?

I am sure I can think of more however I think this is a good start.  One of my faults is that I always question everything.  It is also one of my strengths.

Barbara Reider, CHP
  







-----Original Message-----
From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; Ed Hiserodt <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:16 am
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Correction - Airport Body Scanners



Correction: Extra dose in Taiwan apts averaged 0.4 Sv (not 4.0 cSv) 
associated with just 10% of the deformities in non-exposed equivalents. 

Howard Long  


UNDEREXPOSED  -  What if Radiation Is Actually GOOD for You", 
Ed Hiserodt's paperback, is on my waiting room table, and well-thumbed. 

The Prologue is riveting (in brief):   
             " Radiation can be dangerous. 
             So can ignorance.   
X-rays for wrist fracture scared a woman into having an abortion, 
to prevent the 'likelihood of a deformed child' [ignorant of 
200 FEWER deformities in Taiwan apts where 4cSv over 10years 
Chen, Luan, J Am Phys & Surg 13/1/Spring '08]. 
A health physicist estimated the increased radiation as less 
than from a coast to coast flight. - 
I wonder what my niece or nephew would have been like" 

Publicize your engineering analysis, Ed! 

Howard Long, family doctor  

----- Original Message ----- 
rom: "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net> 
o: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu 
ent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 8:36:26 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
ubject: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners 
I recently received this email from a friend who thinks that I know 
omething about radiation since I wrote a book on the beneficial effects of 
LR.  Hey, when did writing on a subject and having any knowledge of it 
ecome synonymous?   (Remember Al Gore?)  Anyway here is his question.  Any 
omments on it would be appreciated. 
  
"Regarding the virtual strip-search machines that will be appearing at 
irports across the country, how much radiation do they actually release and 
ow does this compare to the radiation we are normally exposed to anyway? 
ow dangerous are these machines, if at all, for someone who does a lot of 
lying?  I understand that there are two technologies the TSA uses to peer 
hrough clothing: 
  
"One uses millimeter waves - does this involve any radiation; is it 
ompletely safe? 
  
"The other is the backscatter X-ray." 
  
Ed Hiserodt 
Maumelle, AR 
501 258 2571  
   
  
_______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
adSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu