Re: HIGH-TECH SECURITY TOOLS GET A SECOND LOOK

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

> Franz, John, et al,

> Surely there must be some dose level below which there is no rational

> basis for concern regardless of the circumstances of its administration. I

> would think that anything that results in doses less than 10% of background

> levels would qualify. How about 1.0%, or even 0.1%. What are your thoughts?



Jerry, et al.,



What's "background?"  Average?  Who's average?  US average?

 External?  1.6 mSv?   or with radon?  3.6 mSv?    World avg?  2.4 mSv?



World range:  <0.7 mSv   to  >70 mSv   (to 700 mSv)



10%?   of what?  10% of world avg (2.4 mSv)   limit  =  2.7 mSv

                                 10% of U.S. avg,       limit   =  4.0 mSv

             People at 100 mSv?  and more?



As you know, such low-dose "hazard" and "protection," and "unjustified"

doses, is promulgated by self-serving rad protectionists.  No public health

or safety benefit - just large costs.



Regards, Jim

=========== 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Franz Schoenhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>

> 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS) <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>

> 

> Here we go again: the wish for "security" (whatever this is) "justifies" the

> use of x-rays, additional doses to flight passengers, inmates, school

> children etc. Is this really not "sold" under the name of hormesis? "High

> Tech", thats the wonder word. On the other side we have those anti's, who

> regard an atto-Curie per cubic light year of tritium as a deadly threat to

> our civilisation, or an expectable amount of Sr-90 in baby teeth as the

> confirmation of the deadly impact of nuclear reactors (TFP).

> 

> Is the US really going to use security considerations as a justification of

> violation of human rights? We have the ALARA principle and at least in

> Europe we have a legislation, which prohibits the deliberate use of ionizing

> radiation on humans for other purposes than medical ones.

> 

> Not taking into considerations the very basic reasons for refusal of the use

> of ionizing radiation for such cases - what are the doses delivered to the

> inmates? Is this procedure really allowed in US regulations?

> 

> Other questions which arise for me: Are these inmates forced to subject to

> x-rays, twice a day? Are they subject to pressure for that? Do they receive

> benefits for consent?

> 

> This was the most disgusting information I can think of.

> 

> Please tell me, that it is a hoax. I find it hard to believe.

> 

> Franz



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.