[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Airport screening and medicine



Radsafers



FYI



The "current NCRP imposed limit of 5 Rads/year for occupational staff

member" is only partly correct. NCRP Report # 116 gives the occupational

dose limit of 50 mSv/5 Rads (annual) and 10 mSv x age in years.



The proceedings of the 34-th annual NCRP meeting on "Cosmic Radiation

Exposure of Airline Crews, Passengers and Astronauts" gives a lot of

interesting data and is published in the HPJ, Vol 79, pp 466-613, 2000.



 _________________

John R Johnson, Ph.D.

*****

President, IDIAS, Inc

4535 West 9-Th Ave

Vancouver B. C.

V6R 2E2

(604) 222-9840

idias@interchange.ubc.ca

*****

or most mornings

Consultant in Radiation Protection

TRIUMF

4004 Wesbrook Mall

Vancouver B. C.

V6R 2E2

(604) 222-1047 Ext. 6610

Fax: (604) 222-7309

johnsjr@triumf.ca



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Reuven

Sent: November 13, 2004 10:52 PM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; Richard L. Hess

Subject: Re: Airport screening and medicine





Richard, Julian and all:



It was my experience with several intercontinental flights that the amount

of radiation detected by this RM-70 detector is highly influenced by the

elevation of the sun above the horizon.

When the sun was above the plane, the radiation level I measured was about

X50 the background radiation.



Indeed, this detector does not detect particulate cosmic radiation, which

are ionized, thus affecting a much higher damage to the human tissue.



The current NCRP imposed limit of 5 Rads/year for occupational staff member,

used to be much higher in the past 30 to 40 years, and has been lowered

several times since than.

This limit is for gamma radiation only (I thing for neutron radiation too,

but I can't be sure) where the 'rule-of-thumb' : 1 Roentgen ~~ 1 Rem ~~ 1

Rad applies.



I am sure that many scientist are mulling about this current limit since it

appears to be too high: nobody will disagree that for pregnant occupational

employees, this 5 Rads/year is too high.



Now, the X-ray radiation which the TOTAL BODY airport screening machines

were not approved yet by the FDA. I recall seeing these pictures a year ago

on the webpage of the manufacturer.



These machines, I understand, utilize low energy X-Rays (10 -20 KV or

somewhat lower) which are readily (back)scattered. It is this backscattered

radiation that is detected and converted into images. Low energy X-Ray

radiation such as this is highly absorbed by the human tissue! I am not sure

what is the ratio between the amount of such radiation absorbed to the

amount of radiation (back)scattered from the body. I even think it is not

relevant since even the (back)scattered radiation had a chance to interact

with the human skin / tissue and cause damage.



Here are some point of concern if these machines a used on the population:



1. Damage to the eyes  -- unprotected.

2. Damage to the thyroid gland - practically unprotected.

3. Damage to the gonads of males and ovaries of females, especially pre- and

in their productive age.

4. Damage to the skin which is the part of the human tissue which will

absorb most of this radiation.



On a personal level, I wholeheartedly second the wise contribution of Julian

who wrote:



 "...For me radiation and radioactivity continue to have important uses in

modern society.  We should not be aiming to achieve zero doses, we should be

looking to minimize these to sensible amounts that allow practices to

continue, and to use advances in science, where it is sensible and cost

effective to do so, to minimize peoples exposure."



"SENSIBLE" for me includes prudent use and utilization of SAFE technology

not resorting to "dry" and emotionless "mortality tables" calculation of

"cost / benefit";



Thus, I even dare to predict that those "screening" devices as described,

will not be approved by the Health Authorities to be operated 'en mess' on

the population.



People who are stating that the radiation a pessanger is absorbing during

such "screening" is less than "x%" than the radiation the passenger will be

subjected to, or absorbed, during the flight, are actually comparing bananas

to apples and do not understand all the aspect of radiation demages to the

human tissue.



Best regards to all.



Reuven Zach

Medical Physicist



===================================================================







From: "Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>

To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:39 PM

Subject: Re: Airport screening and medicine





> Reuven and all,

>

> I did this in 2002 and came up with an interesting plot showing about 25X

> the LA background level using an Aware RM-70 which is a small pancake G-M

> tube.

>

> I have the flight plot at http://www.richardhess.com/be/radlog/

>

> The file is named

>             3-hr LAX-CHI.jpg

>

> At the time I did this, the good folks here suggested that the G-M tube

> under-reports the high-energy cosmic ray particles.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Richard

>

> At 01:26 PM 11/13/2004 -0800, you wrote:

>>Sandy:

>>

>>I used the AWARE Electronics Model RM-60

>>Micro Roentgen Radiation Monitor attached to Laptop PC.

>>

>>I tested it prior to the flight on a mammography machine and found it to

>>be quite accurate and reliable.

>>

>>Here in LA, the background radiation was measured to be, if my memory does

>>not fail me, to be

>>around 10 microR/hour.

>>

>>Now, on what are you basing your statement " ... This does seem a bit

>>high. I travel quite

>>a bit, and, I don't expect that I have observed the dose rates you  are

>>quoting..." ?

>>

>>Did you do such measurements?

>>With what detector(s)?

>>

>>Reuven Zach

>>

>>========================================================

>>

>>

>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>

>>To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; "M Nivas" <motnivas@YAHOO.COM>; "Brian

>>Rees" <brees@LANL.GOV>; "Reuven" <reuven99@newsguy.com>

>>Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:51 PM

>>Subject: Re: Airport screening and medicine

>>

>>

>>>On 13 Nov 2004 at 12:03, Reuven wrote:

>>>

>>>>I once MEASURED the radiation dose during an intercontinental flight:

>>>>It was *** 50 times *** HIGHER than the background radiation at sea

>>>>level.

>>>

>>>Reuven,

>>>

>>>What did you use to measure the dose described above, and, what was

>>>the duration of the flight?

>>>

>>>If one considers the natural background to be, for assumption

>>>purposes, equals 7 microR/hr, then you're stating that the rate you

>>>observed was 350 microR/hr. This does seem a bit high. I travel quite

>>>a bit, and, I don't expect that I have observed the dose rates you

>>>are quoting. Additional source information would be appreciated.

>>>

>>>----------------------------------------------------------------

>>>Sandy Perle

>>>Senior Vice President, Technical Operations

>>>Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.

>>>2652 McGaw Avenue

>>>Irvine, CA 92614

>>>

>>>Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306

>>>Fax:(949) 296-1144

>>>

>>>Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/

>>>Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/

>>

>>************************************************************************

>>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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

>>http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>>

>>

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>



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

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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/







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

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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/