New Subject - Shareware or inexpensive Radiation Safety Calculation

[Mark Steinbuchel <markst@ONC.hhsys.org>]

Am enjoying the dialog on the ethics of whole body scanning 
to detect for swallowed diamonds but as I look at the 
responses discussion of the dose rates generated by various 
scanners, I am reminded that I need to see if any others in 
the Rad Safety World have any good PC based programs to 
share or can name a commerical product to quickly calculate 
the decay law, inverse square law, specific activity, 
photon attenulation and a few of the other basics we use in 
Radiation Physics.  I am new at a Oncology application and 
have only worked military (Boeing air launched cruise 
missiles and field radiography) before.  Thanks in advance 
for your reply!!!


On Tue, 30 Sep 97 08:20:44 -0500 Christian Schoenhofer 
<schoenho@via.at> wrote:

> 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

----------------------
Mark Steinbuchel
markst@ONC.hhsys.org