Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
-
Upload
iouriemelianov -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
1/14
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NEW IMAGING SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES FOR
INSPECTING PEOPLE: PART I. ACTIVE MILLIMETER WAVE RADAR VERSUS X-
RAY TRANSMISSION SCANNER
by Iouri Emelianov (ADANI, Belarus)
May 18, 2007
Abstract: Two different security systems, namely X-ray transmission scanner and millimeter wave
radar portal, are compared to reveal their limits to detect dangerous objects hidden on the human
body or inside it. The concerns upon potential long-term adverse effects of microwave radiation on
human health are raised.
Key words: security systems, microwave radiation, X-ray transmission, detection ability, health
effects
1. Introduction
In recent years new imaging security technologies (passive and active terahertz imaging, active
millimeter wave imaging, X-ray transmission imaging, X-ray backscattering imaging) have been
developed to detect and identify dangerous and prohibited objects concealed on the human body or
inside it.
The purpose of this study was to reveal the detection limits of different imaging technologies as
well as to investigate their potential risks for human health. The X-ray transmission technology,
which is better established, is used here as reference to estimate other technologies. In Part I, X-ray
transmission scanner and active millimeter wave radar system are compared. X-ray backscattering
and passive terahertz imaging technologies will be the subject of the following parts of this study.
The comparison is mainly based on the technical information available for the DRS SecureScan
(ADANI, Belarus) [1], which is the X-ray digital transmission scanner, and SafeScout 100/360 (L-3
Communications Safe View, USA) [2], which is an active millimeter wave scanning portal.
2. Risks for human health
2.1.Microwave radiation
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
2/14
2
Obviously the manufacturer of SafeScout claims that microwave radiation used in their scanner
is absolutely safe for people. This conclusion is predicated upon the following facts:
1) The power density of radiation emitted by the source is very low (0.265 W/cm2), which is
much lower than from mobile phones.
2)
The microwave radiation is emitted in the wide frequency range 24.25 to 30 GHz, which is
totally reflected by the skin layer of the body.
3) No any harmful effects on human health were reported.
The power density of microwave radiation used in SafeScout complies with many international
and national standards imposing both general limitations on all (1 mW/cm2, [3-6]) or specific
sources (10 W/cm2, [7-9]) of electromagnetic fields in the frequency (SHF) range from 0.3 to 300
GHz.However, this compliance does not mean that microwave radiation is absolutely safe because
aforesaid limits were established by accounting for the thermal effect only. Long-term non-thermal
biological effects, which were found to exhibit cumulative character[10] (harmful effects on the
eyes, such as cataracts), can be more important and dangerous for the human health even at much
lower power densities as it has been evidenced by many scientific studies [11-15]. Microwave
radiation lies in the frequency range of vital biological processes and can interfere with them
causing various adverse effects on human health [16]. The Commission on Science and Technology
of European parliament states in the recent report concerning mostly the mobile telephony [17] that
the adverse biological effects of microwave radiation at power density of tenth parts of 1 W/cm 2
have been convincingly demonstrated and suggests lowering the commonly adopted limitation on
power density to 10 nW/cm2. This is 26.5 times lower than the power density used by SafeScout.
Some scientists have given the evidence of adverse effects of microwave radiation on adults at
power density
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
3/14
3
communications [22], and currently in security systems [2]. In previous studies various adverse
effects on the health were found at power density >20 W/cm2[19]. It means that adverse effects
could be observed at lower power density, but no through researches were done with respect to
long-term cumulative effects. Yet, the small penetration depth of microwaves in K/Ka band does
not mean that radiation makes no effects on living organism either. Skin contains numerous
periphery sensorial nerve endings that are closely interrelated with other vital biological systems,
and the eyes surface layer is very susceptible to radiation. In [20], general conclusion was made
that neither the laboratory nor human research literature is sufficient at this time to make a
definitive assessment of the health risk of long-term, low-level exposure to microwaves, e.g. which
may have occurred for some police officers using traffic radars in the past.
Thus the innocence of microwaves even at low power densities remains in question due to
lack of proper scientific studies of long-term biological effects of this non-ionizing radiation. Untilit is proven to be safe, the active microwave scanners should not be considered as absolutely safe
and used freely, and the record of number of exposures should be restricted and controlled like it is
normally done for X-ray scanners.
2.2.X-ray radiation
X-rays are classified as ionizing radiation of which properties and biological effects are well
known. Deterministic effects of ionizing radiation can only occur at very high dose that is far
beyond the medical and security equipment useful range. Therefore, only stochastic effects (cancer
risk and hereditary diseases) should be of concern. The effective dose [23] was introduced to limit
the risk of stochastic effects of radiation exposure and is used for regulatory purposes worldwide.
The Table 1 shows the annual effective dose constrains for radiation workers and general public
from all non-medical man-made sources adopted by International Commission on Radiation
Protection [23] and national authorities (National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (USA) [24] and Ministry of Health (Russia, Belarus) [25-26]).
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
4/14
4
Table 1. Limitations for annual effective dose from different standards
ICRP (1991,
2005)
NCRP (USA, 1993);
ANSI 43.17
Ministry of Health (Russia, 1999;
Belarus, 2000)
Occupational
exposure1
20 mSv 1 mSv 20 mSv
General public
exposure2
1 mSv 1 mSv or
250 Sv
1 mSv or
300 Sv
1 For pregnant women (operators) the equivalent dose on the surface of abdomen must not exceed 2
mSv (ICRP), 0.5 mSv/month (NCRP) or 1 mSv (Russia, Belarus) for pregnancy period after its
declaration.
2 If information relating to other sources of radiation exposure is not available, lower limits should
be applied for any given radiation source
For general public there is no difference in dose limits for men and women, but some additional
limitation is recommended for pregnant women who are the radiation workers.
It is recommended that the X-ray facility for scanning people for non-medical reasons shall be
operated to ensure that no individual scanned receives from the facility an effective dose in excess
of 0.25 mSv [24, 27], i.e. 25% of the annual effective dose limit as mentioned above. However,
assuming the individual did not receive radiation exposure from any other non-medical source, the
annual quote of the dose for one person in case of repeated inspections of him/her can be as high as
1 mSv.
It follows from these recommendations that two different subject dose limits are applicable to
the DRS SecureScan as the situation requires. If the user of the scanner is able to make a record
of doses received by the individuals from all man-made, non-medical radiation sources during any
twelve-month period, e.g. in prisons, the maximum annual subject dose from DRS SecureScan
can be as high as 1 mSv. If such the control is not possible, e.g. at the airports, the annual effective
dose limit of 0.25 mSv shall be applied. If the dose per scan is 0.1 Sv or less, the number of scans
is not limited [27]. Table 2 gives the limitation for annual permissible number of scans which
depends on the dose per scan. These data are typical for DRS SecureScan.
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
5/14
5
Table 2. Permissible number of scans per annum for DRS SecureScan
Permissible number of scans per annum as
function of dose per scan
Annual
limit,
mSv 2.0 Sv 1.5 Sv 1.0 Sv 0.5 Sv
Typical applications
0.1 Sv
1 500 666 1000 2000 unlimited Prisons, military sites, nuclear power
stations, precious stones mines
0.25 125 166 2502 500 unlimited Airports, customs offices, public
places
Sometimes questions are asked on how big the dose per scan is or what is the risk to get cancer.
The diagram in Fig.1 compares the typical effective dose received by a person from 1 scan at DRS
Secure Scan with other typical doses from different sources. It can be easily seen how small it is.
100 Sv(1 chest X-ray
exam)
61.6 Sv(London-Los
Angeles, 10 h)
(6.5 Sv/h onaverage at10000 m
altitude)
6.6 Sv(average natural
background, 24 h)
(typical range -2.7-27 Sv, 24 h) < 2 Sv
(1 scan, DRS SecureScan)
1 scan = 7.3 h natural background1 scan =18 minut es (air flight, 10000 m altitude)50 scans = 1 chest X-ray examination
Fig.1. Dose comparison from different sources
Typical doses for air flights were taken from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and National Research Center for Environment and Health (GSF, Germany) reports [28-29]. Some
missing data were interpolated by using dose per hour values for similar air flights from the above
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
6/14
6
mentioned reports. Cosmic radiation dose depends upon departure and destination geographical
locations, flight time, flying path and typical altitudes along path.
Natural radiation background varies with geographical location on the Earth. Worlds average
data were taken from UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic
Radiation) 2000 Report [30].
Data for cancer risk, which were adapted from [31-32], are shown in Fig.2. One chest X-ray
radiography (100 Sv) is equivalent to 50 scans with DRS SecureScan in cumulated effective dose,
from which we can assume the risk of cancer for 50 scans with DRS SecureScan to be
approximately the same.
50 scans(DRS Secure Scan)
1 chest X-ray radiography
1.5 cigarettes
40 tablespoons peanut butter
30 cans diet soda
100 charcoal steaks
Fig.2. Risk of cancer inducing due to different reasons (1 person per 1,000,000 persons)
In summary, one can conclude that the dose from DRS SecureScan is very low and the
corresponding risk of stochastic effects is negligible and is compared well with risks from non-
radiation sources.
3. Detection thresholdsConcealed objects3.1.
Both scanners are declared to detect all kinds of materials and objects concealed on the human
body. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compare the detection ability of the scanners with respect to
the object dimensions, object materials and its location on the human body in a scientifically right
manner due to the lack of the unified checking procedure and test phantoms. Currently work is
going on to come up with a new standard [33] for quality assessment of X-ray and gamma-ray
personal scanners, which will establish the scientific background for comparison of different
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
7/14
7
technologies using ionizing radiation. X-ray backscattering technology is in some way similar to
microwave technology, and this standard could be probably used for comparative studies.
Nevertheless, the two systems exhibit the evident difference in their ability to detect objects
concealed inside of the body (swallowed or hidden in natural anatomical cavities) and inside of the
prosthetic devices and casts. The microwave scanner cannot detect such the objects and the X-ray
transmission scanner certainly can as illustrated in Fig.3.
Swallowed drugs
Fig.3. X-ray transmission images of swallowed drugs and artificial arm with cavity that can be
used to conceal something.
Artificial
arm
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
8/14
8
Moreover, microwaves in the frequency range specified are reflected by natural leather,
especially when it is impregnated with water. Therefore, it is no problem to make some case from
this or another disguising material, which would follow the landscape of the human body, and place
any objects inside of it. Microwave scanner will never detect any objects hidden in this manner,
while X-ray scanner will see through any casing easily. Besides, the microwave scanner will
hardly detect the objects hidden inside shoes, and the X-ray scanner can detect such objects (see
Fig.4).
Fig.4. Images of mens and womens shoes taken with DRS SecureScan
2D versus 3D3.2.
SafeScout makes the 360 scan of the human body and 3D surface image is mathematically
reconstructed. It can help to recognizing a limited number of objects by their particular shapes, but
many objects are very similar by their shapes, and some others, e.g. plastic explosives can be cast in
either shape. The objects can also be concealed in casual disguising casings making it impossible to
see their contours. Thus, there are many situations when 3D analysis is helpless.
DRS SecureScan makes 2D image of the whole body, which shows the inner structure of the
objects. The inner structure can tell more about the objects to classify them as potential threat or
innocent stuff. Fig. 5 demonstrates how the radio receiver was classified as innocent object.
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
9/14
9
antenna
loud speaker
Fig 5. The image of the radioreceiver taken with DRS SecureScan.
Wire detection3.3.
The capability of detecting thin wires is very important for any security system because wires
usually take part of typical and improvised explosive devices. Such information is not available for
microwave scanners, but there is significant doubt that their ability to detect wires is less than that
of X-ray scanners (copper wire as thick as 0.2 mm in diameter can be detected, Fig.6). Furthermore,
microwave scanners will not see the wires inside of the device.
Fig.6. Wire detection ability of DRS SecureScan
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
10/14
10
4. Peoples privacy
Since the human body is highly reflective to microwave radiation, the system easily captures
detailed images of a person's anatomy. FAA officials still say they're not sure the 3-D scanner is the
ideal solution for its security needs because they are concerned over the extremely detailed images
the system gives of each person's anatomy under clothing [34]. The bodily detail is probably more
than most travelers would feel comfortable with, said an FAA official.
In contrast, the images taken with X-ray transmission scanners do not show too detail of the
human anatomy which could be offensive. This technology does not undress people like surface
sensitive technologies, and the appearance of intimate areas can be tolerated (see. Fig.7).
male female
Fig.7. Appearance of male and female intimate areas on the images taken with DRS SecureScan
5. Conclusions
As it follows from the literature review, the innocence of microwaves in the frequency range
of 20 to 40 GHz remains in question even at low power densities due to lack of proper scientific
-
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
11/14
11
studies of long-term biological effects of this non-ionizing radiation. Until it is proven to be safe,
the active microwave scanners should not be considered as absolutely safe and used freely, and the
record of number of exposures should be restricted and controlled like it is normally done for X-ray
scanners.
X-ray transmission scanners use very small exposure doses per scan (typical range is 0.1-2 Sv),
that are comparable with average natural radiation background level and are much less than doses
that aircraft passengers receive from cosmic radiation during intercontinental flights. The
assessment of the cancer risk shows that it is negligible. The 50 scans (dose per scan of 2 Sv) on
DRS SecureScan are equivalent in cancer risk to smoking 1.5 cigarette or drinking 30 cans of diet
cola.
The unified checking procedure and test phantoms are needed to compare the detection ability
of the scanners with respect to the object dimensions, object materials and its location on the humanbody in a scientifically correct manner. However, some limitations of microwave technology are
evident and are summarized in the Table 3.
Table 3. Detection thresholds for different technologies
Can the system detect this?Detection parameter
DRS SecureScan SafeScout
Swallowed objects Yes No
Objects concealed in natural anatomical cavities Yes No
Objects concealed under casing made of disguising
materials (natural leather, especially impregnated with
water)
Yes No
Objects in shoes Yes ?
Copper wire 0.2 mm (diameter) Yes ?
Peoples privacy issues are important for microwave scanners whereas there are no such
concerns about X-ray transmission scanners.
References
1. Technical information on DRS SecureScan, available at
http://www.adani.by/products/security/securescan/.
2. Technical information on SafeScout 100/360, available at
http://www.safeviewinc.com/frontend/index.aspx.
http://www.adani.by/products/security/securescan/http://www.safeviewinc.com/frontend/index.aspxhttp://www.safeviewinc.com/frontend/index.aspxhttp://www.adani.by/products/security/securescan/ -
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
12/14
12
3. ICNIRP guidelines Guidelines for limiting exposure to time varying electrical, magnetic
and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz), published in Health physics, 1998, v.74, n.4,
p.494-522, available at http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf.
4. The Swedish radiation protection authoritys general advice on limitation of exposure of the
general public to electromagnetic fields, 28th
October, 2002, available at
http://www.ssi.se/forfattning/pdf_eng/2002_1e.pdf.
5. IEEE standard C95.1-2005 IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure
to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3kHz to 300 GHz, 2006, available at
http://www.cost281.org/download.php?fid=1104.
6. Russian sanitary norms and rules 2.2.4/2.1.8.055-96 Radiofrequency electromagnetic
radiation (RF EMR) under occupational and living conditions, 1996, available at
http://www.cqham.ru/sannormy.htm.7. Russian sanitary norms and rules for mobile phones 2.1.8/2.2.4.019-94, available at
http://www.vrednost.ru/doc019.php.
8. Russian sanitary norms and rules for microwave ovens 2666-83, data compilation is
available at http://www.pole.com.ru/norm.htm#ncell.
9. Russian sanitary norms and rules for household devices 001-96, available at
http://www.tehbez.ru/Docum/DocumShow_DocumID_521.html.
10.J.Carlton Gallawa The complete Microwave Oven Service Handbook, 2006, Ch.3. Safety
of microwave energy, available at http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/Ch3.html.
11.S.Banik, S.Bandyopadhyay, S.Gangulu, Bioeffects of microwave a brief review,
Bioresource Technology, 2003, v.87, n.2, p.155-159, available for purchase at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/09608524/2003/00000087/00000002/art00169.
12.A.Firstenberg, Microwaving our planet: the environmental impact of the wireless
revolution, 1997, available for purchase at
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Microwaving-Planet-Firstenberg1997.htm.
13.A.Firstenberg, Radio wave packet, 2001, available at
http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/radio_wave_packet.pdf.
14.G.J.Hyland, Potential adverse health impacts of mobile telephony. Memorandum, 2000,
University of Warwick (UK) and International Institute of Biophysics (Germany), available
at http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/EMF/hyland/hyland.htm.
15.S.Hagjiloucas et al., Preliminary results on the non-thermal effects of 200-350 GHz
radiation on the growth rate of S. cerevisiae cells in microcvolonies, Phys.Med.Biol.,2002,
v.47, p.3831-3839, available for purchase at http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-
search=21257509.1/0031-9155/47/21/322.
http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdfhttp://www.ssi.se/forfattning/pdf_eng/2002_1e.pdfhttp://www.cost281.org/download.php?fid=1104http://www.cqham.ru/sannormy.htmhttp://www.vrednost.ru/doc019.phphttp://www.pole.com.ru/norm.htm#ncellhttp://www.tehbez.ru/Docum/DocumShow_DocumID_521.htmlhttp://www.gallawa.com/microtech/Ch3.htmlhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/09608524/2003/00000087/00000002/art00169http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Microwaving-Planet-Firstenberg1997.htmhttp://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/radio_wave_packet.pdfhttp://www.feb.se/EMFguru/EMF/hyland/hyland.htmhttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-search=21257509.1/0031-9155/47/21/322http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-search=21257509.1/0031-9155/47/21/322http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-search=21257509.1/0031-9155/47/21/322http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-search=21257509.1/0031-9155/47/21/322http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/EMF/hyland/hyland.htmhttp://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/radio_wave_packet.pdfhttp://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Microwaving-Planet-Firstenberg1997.htmhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/09608524/2003/00000087/00000002/art00169http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/Ch3.htmlhttp://www.tehbez.ru/Docum/DocumShow_DocumID_521.htmlhttp://www.pole.com.ru/norm.htm#ncellhttp://www.vrednost.ru/doc019.phphttp://www.cqham.ru/sannormy.htmhttp://www.cost281.org/download.php?fid=1104http://www.ssi.se/forfattning/pdf_eng/2002_1e.pdfhttp://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf -
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
13/14
13
16.W.Volkrodt Electromagnetic pollution of the environment in Environment and Health: A
Holistic Approach, 1988, available at
http://www.emrpolicy.org/science/forum/volkrodt_elect_pollution_environ.pdf.
17.European Parliament Research directorate, STOA report n.297/574 The physiological and
environmental effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, 2001, available at
http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/eu_report_2001.pdf.
18.Available at http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htm.
19.R.O.Becker, A.A.Marino, Electromagnetism & Life, Ch.10. Health risks due to artificial
electromagnetic energy in the environment, State University of new York, 1982. On-line
book is available at http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC.html.
20.W.G.Lotz, R.A.Rinsky, R.D. Edwards, Occupational exposure of police officers to
microwave radiation from traffic radar devices, National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science and Division of Surveillance,
Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, USA, 1995, available at
http://www.fop.org/downloads/police%20radar%20exposure.pdf.
21.Internet site Police Traffic Radar Handbook by D.S. Sawicki, 2006, available at
http://www.copradar.com/preview/content.html.
22.Available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/ehf.htm.
23.2005 Recommendations (draft) of International Commission on Radiological Protection
(based on 1990 Recommendations, ICRP publication 60 (1991)), available at
http://www.icrp.org/icrp_rec_june.asp.
24. NCRP Report 116, Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation, 1993, available for
purchase at http://www.ncrppublications.org/.
25.Sanitary norms of Russian Federation on radiation safety, 1999, available at
http://www.sbras.nsc.ru/cotreb/docum/for_tema?tema=temadoc_18_11_2004_14_03_42.
26.Sanitary norms of the Republic of Belarus on radiation safety, 2000.
27.NCRP SC 01-12 report, Presidential Report on Radiation Protection Advice: Screening of
Humans for Security purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems, 2003, available
at http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/PresidentReports.html.
28.Data from FAAs Radiobiology Research Team Web Site, 2001, available at
http://www.faa.gov/education_research/research/med_humanfacs/aeromedical/radiobiology/
29.H.Schraube, Determining radiation exposure of airline staff, GSF National Research
Center for Environment and Health, Institute of Radiation Protection, 2002, available at
http://www.gsf.de/epcard2/index_en.phtml.
http://www.emrpolicy.org/science/forum/volkrodt_elect_pollution_environ.pdfhttp://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/eu_report_2001.pdfhttp://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htmhttp://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC.htmlhttp://www.fop.org/downloads/police%20radar%20exposure.pdfhttp://www.copradar.com/preview/content.htmlhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/ehf.htmhttp://www.icrp.org/icrp_rec_june.asphttp://www.ncrppublications.org/http://www.sbras.nsc.ru/cotreb/docum/for_tema?tema=temadoc_18_11_2004_14_03_42http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/PresidentReports.htmlhttp://www.faa.gov/education_research/research/med_humanfacs/aeromedical/radiobiology/http://www.gsf.de/epcard2/index_en.phtmlhttp://www.gsf.de/epcard2/index_en.phtmlhttp://www.faa.gov/education_research/research/med_humanfacs/aeromedical/radiobiology/http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/PresidentReports.htmlhttp://www.sbras.nsc.ru/cotreb/docum/for_tema?tema=temadoc_18_11_2004_14_03_42http://www.ncrppublications.org/http://www.icrp.org/icrp_rec_june.asphttp://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/ehf.htmhttp://www.copradar.com/preview/content.htmlhttp://www.fop.org/downloads/police%20radar%20exposure.pdfhttp://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/ELTOC.htmlhttp://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htmhttp://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/eu_report_2001.pdfhttp://www.emrpolicy.org/science/forum/volkrodt_elect_pollution_environ.pdf -
8/3/2019 Microwaves vs. X-Ray Transmission
14/14
14
30.UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation) 2000
Report, Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, Vol.1, p.140, available at
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications.html.
31.Pochin, E. E., Why be quantitative about radiation risks?, Louristan Taylor Lecture Series
in Radiation Protection and Measurement, Lecture 2, NCRP, 1978, data compilation is
available at http://www.medims.muhc.mcgill.ca/radprot/RadPerspectives.htm.
32.Cohen, E. L.: A catalog of risks, Health Physics Vol. 36, 1979, p. 707- 722, data
compilation is available at
http://www.medims.muhc.mcgill.ca/radprot/RadPerspectives.htm.
33.ANSI 42.47 (draft, 2007) American National Standard for measuring the imaging
performance of X-ray and Gamma-ray systems for security screening of humans.
34.
Available at http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=092201&ID=s1027747#top.
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications.htmlhttp://www.medims.muhc.mcgill.ca/radprot/RadPerspectives.htmhttp://www.medims.muhc.mcgill.ca/radprot/RadPerspectives.htmhttp://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=092201&ID=s1027747#tophttp://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=092201&ID=s1027747#tophttp://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=092201&ID=s1027747#tophttp://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=092201&ID=s1027747#tophttp://www.medims.muhc.mcgill.ca/radprot/RadPerspectives.htmhttp://www.medims.muhc.mcgill.ca/radprot/RadPerspectives.htmhttp://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications.html