[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 463, Issue 1
John_Takala at cameco.com
John_Takala at cameco.com
Sun Nov 14 12:55:51 CST 2010
E
This email and any files transmitted with it are personal and confidential, and are solely for the use of the individual or entity addressed. Therefore, if you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and any files transmitted with it (without making any copies) and advise the author immediately.
----- Original Message -----
From: radsafe-request
Sent: 11/14/2010 12:00 PM CST
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 463, Issue 1
Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RadSafe digest..."
Important!
To keep threads/discussions more easily readable PLEASE observe the following guideline when replying to a message or digest:
1. When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ..."
2. Do NOT include the entire digest in your reply. Include ONLY the germane sentences to which you're responding.
Thanks!_______________________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. Re: " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger: scientists "
(Stewart Farber)
2. Port Hope showing hormetic effect ? (Jaro Franta)
3. Re: " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger: scientists " (Doug Boling)
4. Re: " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger: scientists " (Doug Boling)
5. Re: Pilots urged to avoid body scanning (George Sallit)
6. Re: risk and safety" (Jerry Cohen)
7. Re: Pilots urged to avoid body scanning (Mark Ramsay)
8. Re: Pilots urged to avoid body scanning (Mark Ramsay)
9. Re: Pilots urged to avoid body scanning (John R Johnson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:54:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger:
scientists "
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <721695.72220.qm at web82506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
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
'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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:10:15 -0500
From: Jaro Franta <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Port Hope showing hormetic effect ?
To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP98F56D786B4EB8B7C2BB04F3350 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/11/12/lawrence-solomon-port-hope-%e2%8
0%94-a-hot-spot-that-may-be-cool/
Port Hope - a hot spot that may be cool
National Post
Lawrence Solomon November 12, 2010
Nuclear workers in Port Hope contract fewer cancers
Thirty-five years ago, Canada's first radioactive cleanup of a contaminated
town was ordered for Port Hope, Ont., after my organization, Energy Probe,
proved and publicized gross violations of radiation safety standards. Today,
35 years and many protests with many high-profile environmentalists later,
the issue of contamination has not gone away. The earth-moving equipment is
back for yet another cleanup and local environmental groups are bringing in
yet another high-profile anti-nuclear activist - Dr. Helen Caldicott, head
of Physicians for Nuclear Responsibility, who is calling for the town's
16,500 residents to be relocated before its "carcinogenic time bomb"
explodes.
One thing has changed, though. My organization is no longer confident that
low levels of radiation, such as those that now remain in Port Hope, pose a
danger. To the contrary, a growing body of evidence indicates that low
levels of radiation could actually confer a health benefit. Rather than
continuing the 10-year $260-million-plus cleanup that has just begun, or
contemplating the more extreme measure of closing down the town, the safest
course to take may well be to move out the bulldozers instead of the
townsfolk.
Port Hope, a pretty town on the shores of Lake Ontario 100 kilometres east
of Toronto and home to the country's largest rehabilitation involving
low-level radioactive waste, may be the most researched, rehabilitated,
remediated and monitored community in the world. Port Hope became a major
uranium refining town during the Second World War as part of the Manhattan
Project, under the auspices of a federal Crown corporation, Eldorado Mining
and Refining Ltd. Since the first cleanup began in the mid-1970s, various
government agencies have moved some 100,000 tonnes of contaminated soils to
other locations, have managed another two million tonnes and, after the next
move of contaminated soils is completed in 2020, have plans to supervise the
new repository for the next 500 years. Meanwhile, other government agencies
have overseen 30-odd environmental studies and 13 epidemiological studies of
the health of residents who may have been contaminated over the decades.
The many studies generally show that the town's level of radioactivity, and
the health of its residents, is no different from that found in other
communities. That doesn't allay the fears of many, who fear radioactive hot
spots, who rightly point out that no full-scale independent public
environmental assessment has ever been carried out and who note that
official bodies - those in Canada included - state there is no safe level of
radiation.
Yet the view that radiation is dangerous in small doses is no less
contestable than the conclusions of the many studies done to date. All of
the official bodies that state that low levels of radiation are dangerous
freely admit that they have no proof for their belief. In the absence of
information, they say, the only prudent course is to assume that radiation
poses danger in small doses as well as large.
Yet the information is now coming in, say many scientists who study the
effects of low levels of radiation on human health. And it shows that low
levels of radiation tend to be healthful, or hormetic, to use the medical
term.
The planet has many regions that are naturally high in radiation because of
the minerals in the ground or because of elevation - the higher up you live,
the higher the dose of radiation you receive. Some parts of North America
are 10 times more radioactive than others. Those who live in high-radiation
regions tend to contract fewer cancers. One study found a 25% higher cancer
mortality rate in the lowland states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama,
than in the Rocky Mountain states of Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico, where
residents receive five times as much radiation. Colorado does especially
well, with a cancer mortality rate 30% below the national average for males
and 25% for females.
Our government assumes that radiation plays no role in protecting the
townsfolk of Port Hope, but that assumption, too, has no basis. The studies
of nuclear workers in Port Hope show them to contract fewer cancers, and to
live longer, than the general population of Port Hope, and also those who
live in Port Hope contract fewer leukemias than those who live in the nearby
area.
Could the benefit of working in proximity to radiation be an indication of
radiation's beneficial effect? Port Hope residents don't know. "The studies
weren't designed to look for hormetic effects," explained Patsy Thompson,
director deneral of the federal government's Directorate of Environmental
and Radiation Protection and Assessment.
But Port Hope residents should know. "If I were from Port Hope, what I would
be asking for is a full environmental assessment, and a public hearing that
gives the people who live in that area the right to question and
cross-examine the scientists and so-called experts who draft the
conclusions," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., another environmentalist whom
local organizers brought to Port Hope in an earlier protest that attempted
to get at the truth of what radiation means for Port Hope. "I can't
understand that there's any reason why that kind of hearing shouldn't
exist."
There is no reason. A full assessment that allowed all parties to bring
forward independent environmental and health experts, and then have them
withstand expert challenges, would at a minimum remove uncertainty and spur
swift remediation - this picture postcard town, which boasts more heritage
buildings per capita than anywhere else in Canada, loses tourist dollars as
well as pride of place whenever its environment is disparaged.
At a maximum, the evidence would show that radiation in small doses enhances
life, that there's no reason to fear invisible threats in their air or
water, and that $260-million doesn't need to be spent fixing a non-problem.
The endeavour would be worthy. Port Hope should live up to its name.
Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon at nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance
Institute and the author of The Deniers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/889858--no-impact-on-port-hop
e-residents
This 85-year-old 1940s employee of Eldorado Nuclear remembers when FARE
(Families Against Radiation Exposure) earlier introduced another "foremost
expert on radiological illnesses." His name was Dr. Durakovic of the Uranium
Medical Research Centre and he said to leave low-level radioactive waste
where it is present.
I remember playing with six buddies in a huge pile of LLRW complete with
uranium mill tailings. We tunnelled in it, slid down its slopes and skinny
dipped in a nearby tadpole pond that was topped with leach from this very
mound. We are still active golfers today.
As for the long-term storage of LLRW, read the Star's Oct. 17, 2009 account,
Life returns to an eerie Chernobyl, where reporter Rosie DiManno said
Chernobyl's lands had become a unique new ecosystem.
And to think that FARE would inveigle the federal government to clean up
this harmless material at a cost of $260 million when a 2007 survey by the
organization responsible for its cleanup, Port Hope Area Initiatives, found
that fewer than one in 10 respondents identified LLRW as a concern.
Bill Tuer, Cobourg
===============================
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:11:47 -0500
From: Doug Boling <euim817boling at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger:
scientists "
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimdeFjoT7DQ6+hXU4QKy6r8Zd1b0Ng-jNHPmGks at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:13:22 -0500
From: Doug Boling <euim817boling at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger:
scientists "
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTiknRxwBGQPHPdbEFXM8VhOP2EGoQ1U-O16nV5Ud at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:20:05 -0000
From: "George Sallit" <georgesallit325 at btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <E6DC7A4FBDE94603B48341774888E522 at DeepSpace9>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
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
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:07:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] risk and safety"
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <608319.59251.qm at web82705.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To many, if not most, safety means zero risk.
Only those who reside in graveyards experience zero risk.
Nothing can harm them.
If anyone has a good, generally acceptable, definition of adequate safety for
living people, I would like to know what it is.
________________________________
From: Jaro Franta <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Sat, November 13, 2010 5:00:08 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] " 'Naked' scanners may pose danger: scientists "
Apologies if someone as already posted this....
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Naked+scanners+pose+danger+scienti
sts/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
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:49:39 +0000
From: "Mark Ramsay" <mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <8C2702A2-71F2-4AB8-9C99-E267EC1DEC1C at ionactive.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ta George
www.ionactive.co.uk/blog.HTML
Wrote a bit more about this in the blog above, and made the very same point about Collective Dose! The comments appear below my plug of some new free industrial radiography resource.
Rgs
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Nov 2010, at 16:41, "George Sallit" <georgesallit325 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:55:42 -0000
From: "Mark Ramsay" <mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<AD078D6379652845A7AA2ABE2245C836029B8739 at exch-be03.exchange.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sorry all the link was wrong:
http://www.ionactive.co.uk/blog.html
rgs
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Ramsay
Sent: 14 November 2010 16:50
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
Ta George
www.ionactive.co.uk/blog.HTML
Wrote a bit more about this in the blog above, and made the very same
point about Collective Dose! The comments appear below my plug of some
new free industrial radiography resource.
Rgs
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Nov 2010, at 16:41, "George Sallit"
<georgesallit325 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 09:09:00 -0800
From: John R Johnson <idias at interchange.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <E0F80760586A46E2BF0363E5A01D71EF at JohnPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
George et al
The question we professional RP specialists need to ask is "is 0.06 microSv ALARA?"
John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
4535 West 9th Ave
Vancouver, B. C.
V6R 2E2, Canada
idias at interchange.ubc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Sallit" <georgesallit325 at btinternet.com>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 463, Issue 1
***************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list