X-rays or strip search?

[Vincent.King@DOEGJPO.COM (Vincent King)]

     Group,
     
     Mr. Ford and others illustrate my concern perfectly: while pursuing 
     our careers as safety professionals, let's not allow ourselves to 
     become so tunnel-visioned that we lose perspective, describing the 
     trees in excruciating detail and yet wondering where this 'forest' 
     is that everyone keeps talking about.
     
     Most of us, myself included, are required by our jobs to consider 
     the microscopic, postulated risks that are assumed to be associated 
     with millirems of exposure. I'm not criticizing anyone for taking 
     this part of our job seriously.  I think we cover that end of the 
     risk spectrum quite well, even with our differing viewpoints.   
     
     But if we must take those risks seriously, wouldn't it be supremely 
     inconsistent to neglect consideration of the detriment to society 
     from the bad things that x-ray (or other) searches can prevent?  
     After all, the detriment of a single fatality that could have been 
     prevented by such a search is measurable and very much real, not 
     hypothetical.
     
     So if our risk 'equation' only includes the positive medical 
     benefit to an individual, balanced against the assumed detriment of 
     low-level radiation exposure, I think we're missing something. It 
     is certainly justified to take that additional societal risk as 
     seriously as the others we consider. 
     
     I don't care which method is best (x-rays or strip search); I DO 
     care if we toss away a tool that could benefit society without 
     examining what we are really doing. 
     
     Vincent King
     vincent.king@doegjpo.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html