Armchair Lawyering - XRAY Vision -Reply

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Joyce's insightful "tentative ramblings" make several very good points. As
input to these considerations, it would help to formally consider the
distinction between a penetrating dose and the non-penetrating technology
being used here; and to consider the true exposure and dose that is actually
being delivered (energies and entrance/depth)? It only has to get thru
clothing and reflect from various objects, how much skin penetration is
required? Does anyone know? Perhaps the comparison to 5 min of background is
inappropriate (especially for those who see the dose equivalent as a
technically meaningless artifact), and the comparison should be to minutes on
the beach? :-)  (with or without sun block and coverup? :-) 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

> 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