Armchair Lawyering - XRAY Vision -Reply

[Joyce Davis <JOYCED@DNFSB.GOV>]

Let's not cut off this line of discussion just yet.  Here we have,
apparently, a new use of radiation.  It is important that radsafers
think over the implications so we, as professionals and citizens, can
recommend to our societies' how the use of these new modalities
should be approached.
Some rough thoughts of mine from what I've seen on Radsafe so far:
1.  For a first cut I'll assume that the dose given (3 microrem per
exposure) is correct (order of magnitude).  For airport screening,
where, as many have noted the security benefits to those exposed are
probably not insignificant, this seems a reasonable and safe use.  No
chance of a dose in the range where most HPs would become concerned. 
This probably applies even to routine screening of aircrews. 
Regulation through requirements for device and operator licensing
seems reasonable to me; licensing of operators should be for both
technical and security reasons.
2.  What bothers some of us is the possible other uses.  If policemen
have these devices and take them home, will we have children playing
with them like they do with daddy's (or mom's) gun?  Maybe that is no
problem, since a million zaps would be needed to get to the 3 rem
range.
3.  If work places, and shopping malls, and hospitals, and the county
court house, and schools all get these devices need we worry about
the cumulative radiation?  Maybe not, unless the devices can be
modified to give much larger doses or continuous output. (We need
more technical info here).
4.  What really scares some of us, is not the radiation, directly,
but the prospect of such devices becoming as ubiquitous as police
scanners, or cell phones, or TVs.  Talk about invasion of privacy ! 
Some uses of radiation may be immoral or at least unjustified.  Part
of this is related to the general question: must the benefit of the
radiation practice accrue to the person who gets the detriment in
order for the practice to be justified?
5.  With all these concerns, some of us wonder whether such a
controversial use of radiation should be barred, not because the
radiation is directly harmful, but because, if these devices are
hated for their intrusion into people's lives, they will bring
radiation further into public disrepute.  People will want to believe
this evilly used radiation is dangerous, and they will.  This would
reduce the chances of our ever getting the general public to adopt a
reasonable approach to radiation safety.
Only the tentative, rambling opinion of J. P. Davis
joyced@dnfsb.gov