[ RadSafe ] Is it a privacy or radiation issue?

Fri Nov 26 18:50:52 CST 2010

If I remember correctly, the California prison system has been scanning visitors entering for several years. This is not a new use of technology, just the number of scans is significantly increasing.

Regards,

Sandy Perle
Sent from my Windows phone from AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Smart <r.smart at unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 7:45 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is it a privacy or radiation issue?

This is analogous to the radiation exposure received by volunteers in
medical clinical trials, when the volunteer consents to the radiation
exposure recognising that he/she may not benefit directly, but that others
may benefit in the future.  This is well accepted under the ICRP's
philosophy.

The key point is "informed consent". The travelling public needs accurate
information on any risks so that they can consent (or otherwise) to the
scans.

Regards

Richard Smart PhD
Chief Physicist & Radiation Safety Officer
Conjoint A/Prof University of NSW
Prof Fellow University of Wollongong
Department of Nuclear Medicine
St George Hospital
Gray Street
Kogarah, NSW 2217
Australia
Tel: +61-2-91133129
Fax: + 61-2-91133991
email: r.smart at unsw.edu.au

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
>
_______________________________________________
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

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.