[ RadSafe ] Is it a privacy or radiation issue?

[Khalid Aleissa]

Excellent point Mark in the cost benefit analysis.


Khalid

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Mark Ramsay <mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk>wrote:

> This is of course interesting - if you like, we need 'security
> detriment' as a new ICRP term to look specifically at the benefit /
> detriment from using x-rays in security, much in the same way that
> occupational and medical exposure is dealt with.
>
> That would also get over the slightly unusual justification argument
> when looking at the benefit to a single person who has had a scan from a
> security system.
>
> Take a flight with 299 passengers.
>
> Person 1 gets a scan - benefit to person 1 = zero
>
> Benefit to persons 2 - 299 = positive (i.e. person 1 not holding
> anything that could cause harm to flight).
>
> Persons 2-299 then have scans - each person's personal benefit from the
> scan is zero. However, person 1 has just received benefit from all those
> other exposures.
>
> The above is rather poorly written, but I think you get my drift. The
> basis is not totally alien to current ICRP in that medical exposure can
> be seen as a benefit to a person and to wider society. However, I the
> connection between 299 passengers is much stronger than thinking about
> society in general.
>
> 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 Khalid A.
> Sent: 25 November 2010 08:28
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is it a privacy or radiation issue?
>
> The issue has two major concerns; health physics and civil right. I am
> not
> going to comment on the 2ed one (i. e., the civil right) as it is
> dramatically varying between states, and it is absolutely based on
> constitutional or legal aspects and not scientific facts. It is obvious
> that
> the radiation dose received by passengers from these scanners is very
> low
> and as it is stated in one of the threads mails, it is less than the
> cosmic
> rays from flying at 10,000 m.
>
> It seems that we lose to follow our health physics way of judgment which
> the
> risk balance (i.e., benefit cost balance). People tend to expose to
> X-rays
> or even to much higher dose such as CT scans because of the medical
> benefits. Accordingly, I suggest that security benefits compared to
> radiation risk (having ALARA in mind) is the guiding conclusion to
> tackle
> the fist point of the two concerns.
>
> Furthermore, I would like to see regulation (operation and design) that
> prevent public, including operators from such practice. I am not with or
> against but certainly will adopt the conclusion of such study.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Khalid A. Aleissa,
> P. O. Box 6086
> Riyadh 11442
> Saudi Arabia
> Office +966-1-481-3617         Fax +966-1-2810983 or +966-1-481-3887
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Ahmad Al-Ani
> <ahmadalanimail at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > Many radiation experts naively think that scaring people of radiation
> is
> > the way to protect them from the associated risk. But time proved that
> this
> > approach created an unnecessary radio-phobia within the majority of
> people,
> > and complete apathy within the authorities when there is actual risk.
> >
> > I believe this whole uproar about airport scanners is not about
> radiation
> > exposure, rather about privacy and civil rights. And the advocates of
> those
> > issues have good experience in riding any train that will take them to
> their
> > objectives.
> >
> > This time, they took the radiation train, and many of us radiation
> experts
> > subsidized their tickets, for lack of educating the public, and not
> engaging
> > with the manufacturers and users of those scanners early on in the
> process.
> >
> > According to Johns Hopkins Report below, the effective dose per scan
> is
> > less than 0.05 micro Sv, the same dose an airline passenger at 10,000
> m
> > altitude get in 3 minutes from cosmic rays.
> >
> > http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v2.pdf
> >
> > Ahmad Al-Ani
> > Radiation Physicist
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>