[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: HIGH-TECH SECURITY TOOLS GET A SECOND LOOK
Jerry,
NCRP 116 proposes an annual public dose limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year.
That seems reasonable to me.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:53 PM
To: Franz Schoenhofer; Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); RadSafe
Subject: Re: HIGH-TECH SECURITY TOOLS GET A SECOND LOOK
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?
----- Original Message -----
From: Franz Schoenhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS) <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>; RadSafe
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: HIGH-TECH SECURITY TOOLS GET A SECOND LOOK
Private:
Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna, AUSTRIA
Phone: -43 699 11681319
e-mail: franz.schoenhofer@chello.at
Office:
MR Dr. Franz Schoenhofer
Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Dep. I/8U, Radiation Protection
Radetzkystr. 2
A-1031 Vienna, AUSTRIA
phone: +43-1-71100-4458
fax: +43-1-7122331
e-mail: franz.schoenhofer@bmu.gv.at
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS) <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>
An: RadSafe <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Datum: Mittwoch, 26. September 2001 21:04
Betreff: FW: HIGH-TECH SECURITY TOOLS GET A SECOND LOOK
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.