[ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning

Sat Nov 13 05:20:05 CST 2010

Mark,

It is precisely the numbers that we as professional RP specialists should be
talking about. 0.06 microSv is an incredibly small dose and certainly should
not be a determining factor in whether these scanners should be used. If
pilots do not want to be security screened then let's hear the reasons why
and we should challenge the health and safety arguments when they are wrong.

I had also hoped that the gross misue of collective dose was no longer being
done/encouraged. To talk about real cancer deaths from summing minute doses
is a misuse of the whole concept. Common but still a misuse.

I agree with you about air crew knowledge of doses and whilst some air crew
know the scanners use X-rays they are less aware that they get radiation
doses from flights and the fact the flight doses are 100s of times larger
than the scanner doses.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Ramsay" <mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning

>
> Agree...
>
> Without getting too hung up about exact figures.
>
> Typical back scatter scan - 0.06 micro Sv (effective dose)
>
> Typical dose rate at 37,000 above the UK - 5 micro Sv/h (high energy
> radiation / neutrons etc etc).
>
> (We could have a separate debate about low energy x-rays delivered at
> very high dose rate to the skin vs. High energy penetrating radiation -
> another day!).
>
> I think the health issue is a red herring, but might be used to enhance
> their cause (i.e. do not want to be scanned).
>
> That said, I have questioned various cabin crew / pilots when flying for
> work and in most cases they appear to pretty much unaware of the
> magnitude of the radiation dose received during their work. If this is
> so then it might well be that they are worried about the back scatter
> systems - in which case some education is needed at flying school!
>
> Rgs
>
> Mark
>
> www.ionactive.co.uk
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
> (DOH)
> Sent: 12 November 2010 17:07
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>
> If the unions were really interested in reducing the radiation dose to
> their members, they would push for some type of optimizing program that
> had pilots (and other crew) flying routes closer to home, and decreasing
> the amount of "deadhead" flying they do, just to get to where are they
> are working.  Exposure is the same if you are in the cockpit or in the
> main cabin, and both are vastly higher than from the scanner.
>
> On the other hand, I agree with the USAPA spokesman about how silly it
> is to apply the same security criteria to pilots as to passengers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Perle, Sandy
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:29 AM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List'
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>
> Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
> By Marnie Hunter, CNN
> November 11, 2010 11:17 a.m. EST
>
> Pilots unions are concerned about radiation emitted by backscatter
> scanning machines to create full-body images.
>
> STORY HIGHLIGHTS
>
> * Pilots urged to avoid body scans, opt for pat-downs when unavoidable
> * Union president calls pat-downs "a demeaning experience"
> * Unions support security checks for pilots that would allow them to
> bypass standard screening
>
> Pilots' unions for US Airways and American Airlines are urging their
> members to avoid full-body scanning at airport security checkpoints,
> citing health risks and concerns about intrusiveness and security
> officer behavior.
> "Pilots should NOT submit to AIT (Advanced Imaging Technology)
> screening," wrote Capt. Mike Cleary, president of the U.S. Airline
> Pilots Association, in a letter to members this week. USAPA represents
> more than 5,000 US Airways pilots.
>
> "Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has determined
> that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject
> pilots to significant health risks," Cleary wrote.
> American Airlines pilots have also received guidance from their union,
> the Allied Pilots Association, to decline full-body scanning. APA
> represents 11,000 pilots.
> "It's safe to say that most of the APA leadership shares my view that no
> pilot at American Airlines should subject themselves to the needless
> privacy invasion and potential health risks caused by the AIT body
> scanners," APA president David Bates said in a letter to members.
>
> Both unions are concerned about the effects of repeated exposure to
> small doses of radiation emitted by the backscatter technology used in
> some of the Transportation Security Administration's full-body scanners.
> In the course of their daily duties, pilots are routinely exposed to
> elevated levels of naturally occurring atmospheric radiation, which
> increases at higher altitudes.
> The unions urge members to choose security lines that use standard metal
> detectors whenever possible. When faced with AIT screening, pilots
> should opt for enhanced pat-downs, although this security procedure also
> concerns the unions.
> Unions are encouraging pilots to request private pat-downs. USAPA urges
> members to make sure a witness is present during the procedure.
>
> USAPA refers to incidents where Transportation Security Administration
> officers may have implemented the screening technique inappropriately.
> One pilot described his experience as "sexual molestation," according to
> Cleary's letter. Bates wrote, "There is absolutely no denying that the
> enhanced pat-down is a demeaning experience."
> Both unions are looking for long-term solutions to airline crew
> screening.
>
> "Pilots really should never have been subjected to this type of
> screening, ever. Because when we walk through these machines, within a
> few hundred yards we get into what potentially could be the biggest
> weapon on the airport, and that's the airplane," said James Ray, a
> USAirways captain and spokesman for USAPA.
>
> Pilots are well screened with security background checks and regular
> medical and mental health checks, he said. The union suggests
> implementing alternate identity verification technology that would allow
> pilots to bypass regular passenger screening.
>
> The TSA said it welcomes further discussion with pilots and emphasized
> the agency's role in addressing security threats.
> "We are frequently reminded that our enemy is creative and willing to go
> to great lengths to evade detection. TSA utilizes the latest
> intelligence to inform the deployment of new technology and procedures
> in order to stay ahead of evolving threats," the TSA said in a
> statement.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Sander C. Perle
> President
> Mirion Technologies
> Dosimetry Services Division
> 2652 McGaw Avenue
> Irvine, CA 92614
>
> +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
> +1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)
>
> Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/
>
>
>
>
> PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE:   This e-mail message and all
> attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the
> addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies
> and/or its affiliates.  If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
> dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is
> strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the
> original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any
> copies you may have made.  Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>