Re: secure 1000

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

>Hi Les and Radsafers,
>
>Here in New Jersey our rules are very explicit. IMO NJ would prohibit
>the use of these devices unless operated by a licensed radiological
>technologist. Here is the reg:
>
>"...no person other than a licensed practicioner or the holder of a
>license as provided in this subchapter shall use x-rays in such a manner
>as to expose human beings."
>
>Regards, Wes
Wesley R. Van Pelt, Ph.D., CIH, CHP                KF2LG
President, Van Pelt Associates, Inc.     
Consulting in radiological health and safety.
mailto:VanPeltW@IDT.net        
http://shell.idt.net/~vanpeltw/index.html
================================

It is possible to understand that such equipment:  Fighting terrorists by
monitoring individuals carrying metal/plastic weapons or explosives and
Contraband (illegal passage of drugs) was approved in NJ and the only
restriction is: "the use of these devices should be  operated by a licensed
radiological technologist."

O.K. 

a) How and when the Competent Authority (NJ) justified the exposure of
humans for non medical examination?

b) The justification was only considering the above purpose?

c) What are the expected benefits to the community (NJ) to compensate for
economic, social and others' relevant factors, including the radiation
detriment to justify this practice?

d) There was an  Ethical Review Committee to advice on this subject?

e) Do you believe that such practice was approved without any justification,
only considering the  requirement: "the use of these devices should be
operated by a licensed radiological technologist."

Thanks  

J. J. Rozental, <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
Consultant, Radiation Safety and Regulation
for developing countries