[ RadSafe ] interesting new question

Carol Marcus csmarcus at ucla.edu
Tue Oct 26 20:04:08 CDT 2010

Dear Mike:

The radiation dose sounds extremely low.  I can't get excited about 
this.  As I don't believe in LNT, these small doses aren't harmful, 
and as to invasion of privacy---I think we have lost that battle already.

Ciao, Carol

At 10:58 AM 10/26/2010, you wrote:

>This particular application of radiation raises some interesting new 
>questions in the justification-regulation-optimization philosophy of 
>health physics (I have always thought that optimization comes after 
>regulation, although the ICRP lists them in the opposite order). 
>Exposing unknowing persons to radiation (admittedly low level) to 
>ostensibly prevent terrorism, particularly when the exposed persons 
>may not be citizens of the country doing the irradiatiing, is a new 
>balancing of risks and benefits that has not been part of the normal 
>equation until now. And the balance is different if we are talking 
>about daily screening of everything or particular screening of 
>containers, naval vessels, etc., in the case of a specific, credible 
>risk scenario. Fun stuff philosophically, frightening stuff practically.
>Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
>Associate Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Vanderbilt University
>1161 21st Avenue South
>Nashville, TN 37232-2675
>Phone (615) 343-4628
>Fax   (615) 322-3764
>e-mail     michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.edu
>internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com<http://www.doseinfo-radar.com/>
>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: 
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other 
>settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

More information about the RadSafe mailing list