[ RadSafe ] " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger: scientists "

Sat Nov 13 16:11:47 CST 2010

Stewart,

I don't know if this is the article you are referring to, but I stumbled
across it doing some google searches.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/energy/pdf/se197400351.pdf

I remember those years well having entered college pursuing a Nuclear Power
major the year before.  Sure is a shame that nuclear energy is not more
engrained in our economy than it is.  Apparently we did heed is views very
well.

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Stewart Farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>
> I recall having had the pleasure of meeting Dr. David J. Rose (1922-1985)
> before his death at a dinner meeting of the New England Chapter of the HPS.
> I fondly remember the conversation we had over dinner at that meeting.  Dr.
> Rose was a renowned professor of nuclear engineering
> at MIT. He was hugely respected for his work in fusion
>  technology, energy, nuclear waste disposal, and his concern with
> ethical problems arising from advances in science and technology. H
> He wrote a wonderful short article in MIT's Technology Review magazine in
> the 1970's  I recall titled something like: "Is Nuclear Energy Dangerous --
> COMPARED TO WHAT?" [emphasis added] which comes to mind regarding the
> "debate" over airport scanners currently in the news. The preceding  article
> by Dr. Rose discussed people's fears of nuclear energy due to radiation
> exposre, and pointed out that the issue that needs prime consideration in
> any discussion of some technology being used is the question he poses in the
> title of his paper: "Unsafe, compared to what?"
>
> The focus on  theoretical cancer risk from the scanners is without doubt
> dwarfed by the risk of the loss of many hundreds of lives that would be lost
> in the here-and-now if but one jet load of passengers was lost to a
> terrorist bomb.
>
> There is no doubt that terrorists are trying to blow up commercial jets.
> There is however a substantial doubt if
>  low-energy, very low dose x-ray exposure cause skin cancer  --except by
> liberal use of the LNT hypothesis.
>
> What can you say? It's been better stated before concerning the way various
> interests are exploiting
>  the scanner issue for one purpose or another:
>
> No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.Lily Tomlin
> US actress & comedienne  (1939 -  )====================================
> Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
> sure about the former.Albert Einstein
> US (German-born) physicist  (1879 -
> 1955)===================================How do you avoid becoming terminally
> cynical?
>
> More importantly, does anyone have a copy of Dr. David Rose's 1970's
> article [think it was around 1974]  from MIT's Technology Review titled
> something like: "Is Nuclear Energy Dangerous? -- Compared to What?". I would
> greatly appreciate getting a copy of this short paper for my current files
> and it would be worth posting a link, if available, for people's use.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stewart Farber
>
> Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
>
> [203] 441-8433
>
> website: http://www.farber-medical.com
>
> =============================
>
> --- On Sat, 11/13/10, Jaro Franta <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> From: Jaro Franta <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger: scientists "
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Date: Saturday, November 13, 2010, 8:00 AM
>
> Apologies if someone as already posted this....
>
>
> http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Naked+scanners+pose+danger+scienti
> sts/3823426/story.html<http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Naked+scanners+pose+danger+scienti%0Asts/3823426/story.html>
> 'Naked' scanners may pose danger: scientists
>   AFP November 13, 2010 6:18 AM   U.S. scientists warned yesterday
>  that
> full-body,
>  graphic-image X-ray
>  scanners
>  that are being
>  used to screen
> passengers
>  and airline crews at airports around the United States may be
> unsafe.
>
> "They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get
> skin cancer from these X-rays," said Dr. Michael Love, who runs an X-ray
> laboratory at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at
> Johns Hopkins University School of medicine.
>
> "No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are
> hazardous
> but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly
> that they will risk their lives in this manner," he said.
>
> The possible health dangers posed by the scanners add to passengers' and
> airline crews' concerns about the devices, which have been dubbed "naked"
> scanners because of the graphic image they give of a person's body,
> genitalia and all.
>
> A regional airline pilot last month refused to go through one of the
> scanners, calling it an "assault on my person" and a
>  violation of his right
> to privacy.
>
> The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began rolling out
> full-body
> scanners at U.S. airports in 2007, but stepped up deployment of the devices
> this year when stimulus funding made it possible to buy another 450 of the
> advanced imaging technology scanners.
>
> A group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
> raised concerns about the "potential serious health risks" from the
> scanners
> in a letter sent to the White House Office of Science and Technology in
> April.
>
> Biochemist John Sedat and his colleagues said in the letter that most of
> the
> energy from the scanners is delivered to the skin and underlying tissue.
>
> "While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume
> of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high," they
> wrote.
>
> The Office of Science and Technology responded this week to
>  the scientists'
> letter, saying the scanners have been "tested extensively" by U.S.
> government agencies and were found to meet safety standards.
>
> But Sedat told reporters yesterday that the official response was "deeply
> flawed."
>
> "We still don't know the beam intensity or other details of their
> classified
> system," he said, adding that UCSF scientists were preparing a rebuttal to
> the White House statement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>