Exposure Benefits

["Roy A. Parker" <70472.711@CompuServe.COM>]

Bill,
 
> Dr. Parker then went on to state that there was a prevaling ethical
> code that people should not be exposed to ionizing radiation without
> medical benefit.
 
Please read carefully.  I stated:
 
     This obviously  raises some  moral, ethical,  radiation safety
     and regulatory control issues.  Among those a departure of the
     prevailing philosophy  of  no  purposeful  ionizing  radiation
     exposures to  an individual  unless there  is  an  appropriate
     medical benefit to the individual.
 
I simply  said that  such a  device raises  certain issues.   I  further
offered as  an example  one possible issue for the purpose of initiating
discussion.  I never did state nor infer what my opinion was or is.
 
I also  am and  have been  for  many  years  an  occupationally  exposed
individual and I readily accept any accompanying risks.
 
I can  see where  such systems  can be useful and justified.  I can also
imagine possible  abuses.   I can see companies screening employees both
entering and  leaving work each day.  Five days a week, 50 weeks a year,
one exposure  entering, and  one exposure  leaving  at  3 microrem  each
yields 1.5  mrem  annually.    OK,  not  a  significant  dose.    Is  is
foreseeable that  retail establishment  would want  to  screen  customer
entering and  leaving?  I don't know.  It is foreseeable that it will be
used  in  place  of  or  to  supplement  metal  detectors  at  airports?
Probably.   If an  hand held  unit  is  developed  as  inferred  in  the
newspaper article  that will  be effective  at 60 feet, then is the dose
still going  to be  3 microrem?   What are appropriate user controls (if
any) on the use of such a hand held unit?
 
I think  there are many questions like this.  I certainly don't know the
answers to  them nor  necessarily have  I developed an opinion, but I do
think it  is best  for people  in our profession to begin to think about
them now,  develop  consensus,  and  not  be  forced  into  last  minute
emotional decisions.
 
Roy
 
Roy A. Parker, Ph.D.
E-Mail: 70472.711@compuserve.com
Tel: 504-924-1473
Fax: 504-924-4269
-------------( Forwarded computer archived letter follows )-------------
    09-Apr-97 20:49 CDT
Sb: Exposure Benefits
Fm: "William G. Nabor" > INTERNET:wgnabor@uci.edu
 
 
There was a recent RADSAFE posting by Dr. Roy Parker on a new X-ray
inspection tool that could be used to frisk members of the general
public.  It would give each person so "frisked" 3 microREM exposure.  I
assume that this is not a joke and that such a device is really in the
works.  Amazing.
 
Dr. Parker then went on to state that there was a prevaling ethical code
that people should not be exposed to ionizing radiation without medical
benefit.  I disagree.  I have been allowing myself to be exposed to
ionizing radiation for 23 years without any medical benefit.  Most
members of RADSAFE have been doing this also.  I do it for money.  I get
paid by my employer, who limits my exposure according to regulations to
some small amount, but MUCH greater than 3 microREM and pays me cash on
the first of every month.  While I may argue that the amount of the cash
is smaller than I would like, I accept the exposure because, small
though the amount is, the money paid IS a tangible benefit.  It is NOT,
however, a MEDICAL benefit.
 
Thus, by analogy, we admit that people may be exposed to regulated
amounts of ionizing radiation for benefits other than medical ones.  For
example, freedom from being blown up in mid air.  I am willing to be
exposed to 3 microREM for that benefit.
 
The question will be this:  Is everybody so willing?  Time will tell.
**********************************************************************
William G. Nabor
University of California, Irvine
EH&S Office
Irvine, CA,  92697-2725
WGNABOR@UCI.EDU
**********************************************************************