X-rays or Strip Search?

[don.parry@cis.state.mi.us]

I have stayed out of this debate, but I feel compelled to jump in, if for 
no other reason but to prevent people from "piling on" to Ms. Kaufmann.  
Professional people can have opposing views on a topic, and they should be 
able to express those views without having their reputations as Health 
Physicists brought into question.  I am particularly concerned with 
comments like the following:

...with such uninformed technical and bureaucratic views in the "business" 
of "rad safety" there to "explain" radiation to the public....
 
.......so you agree the dose is low, but you oppose its use to save lives.  
I assume you also disapprove of visiting Brazilian beaches and flying?.....

....Of course.  They are regulators and must regulate to zero risk, even if 
the risk is only hypothetical!....

Ms. Kaufmann is a knowledgeable and experienced radiation safety 
professional.  She should be accorded a certain degree of professional 
courtesy.  The disagreements with her may be valid, IF the manufacturer's 
dose projections are accurate.  Ms. Kaufmann appears to be the only one 
among us that has first hand experience with these units.  They were 
discussed in our state, but none are so far registered.  When I reviewed 
the data, I also felt the doses, as described in the manufacturers 
literature, were deminimus.  However, does that mean no precautions should 
be taken?  To achieve the low dose the unit relies on a "flying focal spot" 
that distributes the dose across the body.  Couldn't machine malfunction be 
a concern?  What if the focal spot does not move as intended?  Also, how 
much does the dose vary with distance from the unit?  I don't know, and I 
don't think any of you do either.  I cannot say that I would embrace these 
units for unrestricted use in our State, unless I had more information.  

As regulators, people like Ms. Kaufmann, and probably now myself, take a 
lot of abuse from the so-called "informed" professionals.  But it is our 
responsibility to protect the public.  I can see how Ms. Kaufmann would be 
concerned with the unrestricted use of such a device on all individuals, 
including infants and pregnant individuals with no use limits whatsoever.  
I personally would not be comfortable relying on the manufacturers dose 
measurements, without doing more of my own, in both normal use, worst case 
and equipment failure type conditions.  

I also don't recall the manufacturer claiming that this device does a 
better job than a physical search, simply that it was quicker and that it 
may find non metallic devices that would be missed by the magnetometer.  It 
still will not see devices inserted in body cavities or in other areas 
unless they are close to the surface.

If you have any good, first hand knowledge of these devices, and of actual 
dose measurements done at different conditions, I am sure that information 
is useful.  But making abusive or unflattering comments about someone or 
about a group of individuals (regulators) particularly when working with no 
first hand knowledge, seems unnecessary.

Don

Donald E. Parry
Radiation Safety Section
MI  Dept of Consumer & Industry Services
Voice: 517-241-1989; Fax: 517-241-1981
E-mail: don.parry@cis.state.mi.us
Web site: www.cis.state.mi.us/bhs/hfs/rss/

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html