Re: X-ray Scanning For Theft Detection

[Christian Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 Wien
AUSTRIA
Tel./Fax: +43-1-4955308
Mobiltel.: +43-664-3380333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at

----------
> Von: Douglas.Minnema@dp.doe.gov
> An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Betreff: X-ray Scanning For Theft Detection
> Datum: Montag, 29. September 1997 15:28
> 
> ------ =_0_MIME_Boundary_6636.342fb5cf.im7cfi60.dpmail.dp.doe.gov
> 
>     
>     With regards to this subject, the reference is somewhat dated, 
>     but:
>     
>     "The [ICRP] Commission has been asked for its views on an 
>     international proposal to use radiography as part of a system for 
>     the security-screening of airline passengers. ...................the 
>     Commission believes that the proposal, if performed under the 
>     conditions already specified, could be justified in the light of 
>     the benefits that might be expected."  HPS Journal, Vol. 21, p. 
>     616, 1971.
>     
A consideration of the ICRP from the year 1971 (or before) cannot be
regarded as a justification of such a practice in the year 1997. In the
year 1971 it was even possible to erect nuclear power plants and to get
them onto the grid. Times have changed considerably since then. Nobody
would any more use x-ray machines to look whether the shoes fit, though
this was done not so long time ago.

>     This reference indicates that the Commission had already 
>     considered anti-crime activities, but it gives no reference.  
>     Somebody may be able to point us towards it, or an update of 
>     either of these statements.
>     
I would be very interested to know whether such considerations have been
made later.


>     The only question that I would still have is whether the 
>     Commission's decisions depend upon who the receptor is - a member 
>     of the public, or an employee.  One could argue that for an 
>     employee, the irradiation is a condition of employment, and 
>     therefore is elective, similar to other radiological workers.

No, this is an unacceptable argument. I find it hard to believe that there
exists no legislation in the USA which forbids deliberate exposure of
persons to ionizing radiation. In Austria any exposure other than for
medical purposes is forbidden. The medical purpose must also guarantee a
benefit for the patient. 

The comparison to radiological workers is not justified, because radiation
workers must not be subjected deliberately to a radiation exposure. The
limit of exposure is not intended that careless work is accepted and that
radiation workers  may  receive any doses as long as their sum  does not
exceed the limits. Their doses have to be kept as low as reasonably
achievable  a n d  must not exceed the limits. What about the ALARA
principle? 

 Franz