Mea culpa - my fault (X-ray surveillance)

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

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



Dear RADSAFErs,



I would like to admit that I have been obviously wrong in my judgement of

surveillance by X-rays. I did not know about methods like X-ray

back-scattering and my starting point was the "old fashioned" methods of

penetrating x-ray imaging as we experience in chest x-raying and other

medical application of x-rays. I was also wrong in claiming that within the

EU no such methods would be allowed, I have received a message from Finland,

stating that such methods are in use at the border between Finland and

Russia.



I thank all the collegues, who provided the list and me personally with

hints to literature and companies involved in such work. It will sure take

me quite a time to check all these hints.



However, I am shocked because of two reasons:



I was always of the opinion, that use of ionizing radiation on human beings

was prohibited in the European Union for purposes other than medical ones. I

will try to check with my collegues in other European Countries. Any such

tolerance would seem to be a slap into the face of regulators at the EU or

the "fathers" of the IAEA Basic Safety Standards, which set a limit of 1

mSv/a to the public from practices, which recommend 0.3 mSv/a from for

instance building material, has a limit for the total indicative dose from

drinking water of 0.1 mSv/a  and which recommends 10 microSv/a to the

members of the public from emissions of nuclear power plants etc.

These are the facts. I do  n o t  say, that these values are in accordance

with my personal opinion, but these limits are either legal, or the

recommendations should be implemented into national legislation - and then

they have to be followed.



The second reason is, that in Europe there is a very widespread opposition

against nuclear power - as well as in the USA. Any negligible doses from the

transport of used nuclear fuel, any hardly detectable emission from nuclear

power plants and even more any potential - but not occurring - doses from

nuclear emergencies are the subject of fierce opposition to nuclear power.

Deliberate delivery of doses to potential immigrants seems not to be on the

agenda of these groups.



So please accept my apology for forwarding opinions, which were based on

wrong assumptions and therefore were wrong.



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.