AW: Airport screening and medicine

[Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

Franz Schoenhofer

PhD, MR iR

Habicherg. 31/7

A-1160 Vienna

AUSTRIA

phone -43-0699-1168-1319



Find my comments below:



----------------------------------------------------------



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-

> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] Im Auftrag von Brian Rees

> Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. November 2004 14:48

> An: Reuven; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Betreff: Re: Airport screening and medicine

> 

> OK, so the dose to his medicine was 50x less. That's more than 10x. I

said

> that the dose from the x-ray machine was more than an order of

magnitude

> less than what it'd receive during the flight.  I'm not sure what your

> problem is with what I said.  I even pointed out what an order of

> magnitude

> meant.

> 

------------------------



Whatever the factor would be: there is no damage to be expected by

radiation exceeding environmental radiation to your medication -

whatever it would be!! - by five or six orders of magnitude. At least my

medication worked during a four weeks visit to the American South West

and several X-ray inspections, not talking about the doses exhibited by

all my flight connections. So it obviously doesn.t matter whether the

dose rate differs by orders of magnitude and therefore any discussion,

whether it is 10 or 50 times more or less is simply "hair-splitting",

one of the most popular past-time of some "self-announced" radiation

protection "specialists". 



The individual did not say he was a flight crew member (even pilots fly

> more than 20 times/year).  I'm not aware of anyone who has flown for a

365

> days continuously.

> 

> The number of publications that discuss peoples' concerns about any

> subject

> are indeed numerable (not innumerous), although I doubt it's worth the

> effort.  The number of reputable (i.e. peer-reviewed) publications

that

> discuss actual harm to women employed by airlines is quite numerable,

and

> small. 



I agree with you that it is not worth discussing peoples concerns about

radiation during flight (did you really refer to it?). If they really

were concerned they would not fly, whatever the consequences would be.

But what I really cannot accept is your expression "actual harm". Do we

have to consider human guinea pigs, which would show harm (probably

LD50). Did you forget about the ALARA principle? Did you probably forget

about legal restrictions? 

The number of publications confirming a subject is not proportional to

its importance and validity!!!! The number of publications not

confirming it - sorry, no comment, this is mere nonsense.  





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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

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