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

Sat Nov 13 16:13:22 CST 2010

Make that "Apparently we did NOT heed his views very well.......damn
keyboard......."

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Doug Boling <euim817boling at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>