Skip to content Skip to main navigation

No choice for exposure to radiation at AMC

By capitolm - 18 February 2010 55

My family member is in remand at the AMC and now will be subjected to several doses of radiation per week as they will now be x-rayed through SOTARS after every visit.  While they would prefer to be subjected to strip searches – they have  been told they must go through the x-ray or have a non-contact visit through the glass booth.  Do they not have the right to express health concerns because they are a prisoner?  I can not find anywhere – where the radiation council has approved the use of this equipment for use, yet it was in use last weekend.  But not today. What is the point of this machine anyway if it is not going to be used consistently?  How can I even begin to oppose its use when there don’t seem to be any publicly available policies on it? I don’t think it’s right that my family member is a guinea pig for the government’s new security screen.  My family member is not a drug user and is not in maximum security.  Now I have the guilt of knowing what they must further endure when I visit.  Family visits and support are an important part of the rehabilitation process for a person in prison and yet my mere presence will be be putting my family member at a measurable health risk.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
55 Responses to
No choice for exposure to radiation at AMC
1
H1NG0 8:17 am
18 Feb 10
#

Small amounts of radiation can be a good thing. Look at the Ninja Turtles.

Report this comment

2
buzz819 9:03 am
18 Feb 10
#

While I understand your concern, YOU have to understand that your family member is in there for being naughty. Unfortunately that means that they are in there with a lot of other people that have also been naughty. (If the courts have decided to remand them then they have been very naughty or naughty on a lot of occasions).

It doesn’t matter if he is a drug user or not, the fact is that there is a high level of drug users in the centre and they will do anything to get drugs in. It picks up more than drugs, ie potential weapons.

I know there are a lot of people that go in there that have the opportunity to use more than when they are outside.

It is the only way that ACT Corrections can try and get on top of the problem. The Corrections officers are the ones on the inside that have to deal with the crims, so I think it should be a way in making it safer for them, yeah?

My advise, suck it up and deal with it, or just do non-contact visits.

Report this comment

3
chewy14 9:13 am
18 Feb 10
#

Hey look on the bright side.
At least your family member will be protected from large doses of UV radiation for a while.
I hear they can be deadly.

Report this comment

4
Tooks 9:39 am
18 Feb 10
#

Happy to be corrected, but the levels of radiation you’re talking about would be negligible, I would’ve thought.

Report this comment

5
sloppery 9:44 am
18 Feb 10
#

buzz819 said :

While I understand your concern, YOU have to understand that your family member is in there for being naughty. Unfortunately that means that they are in there with a lot of other people that have also been naughty. (If the courts have decided to remand them then they have been very naughty or naughty on a lot of occasions).

It doesn’t matter if he is a drug user or not, the fact is that there is a high level of drug users in the centre and they will do anything to get drugs in. It picks up more than drugs, ie potential weapons.

I know there are a lot of people that go in there that have the opportunity to use more than when they are outside.

It is the only way that ACT Corrections can try and get on top of the problem. The Corrections officers are the ones on the inside that have to deal with the crims, so I think it should be a way in making it safer for them, yeah?

My advise, suck it up and deal with it, or just do non-contact visits.

Well said. They don’t put people in gaol here for nothing. Harden up.

Report this comment

6
Skidbladnir 9:56 am
18 Feb 10
#

According to the manufacturer of the SOTER scanner system in place at the AMC:
‘The radiation dose of one SOTER RS scan is 2.7 µSv (microsieverts) for males and 2.2 µSv (microsieverts) for females. This is approximately equivalent to a one hour subsonic plane flight at an altitude of 10,000m’.

Does anyone feel guilty about mutant flight stewardesses or their potentially mutant chldren from ongoing radiation exposure on a plane flights?
No, because the impact is trivial and the risk of harm is minimal, so it is deemed an acceptable risk.

Learn more about microsiverts here, from British Airways, or here, from the Canadian Nuclear Power Generator, OPG.
The amount of radiation you get annually from eating a normal diet is approximately 150 times higher than the radiation scan, and the soil itself gives off more radiation over the course of a year than you would get if you visited your husband every day in that same year.

Personally, I like having a Hobson’s Choice on contact visitation in a prison.
You can either exercise the option they give you, or not exercise it and get no contact visit.
That is your only choice.

Report this comment

7
Northwest9 10:07 am
18 Feb 10
#

I’ve said it before and ill say it again to anyone who complains about their treatment in that palace they call the “hume hilton”, which as far as I’m concerned is a giant spit in the face of victims wanting justice

The best way to avoid percieved mistreatment in a prison is to NOT BREAK THE LAW.

Quite simple really.

Report this comment

8
MsCheeky 10:22 am
18 Feb 10
#

Sent this one off to my friend who is a radiation expert in a govt. dept. that won’t let staff access riotact, and got the following:

“Hmmm. Lots of generalities, non-specifics and acronyms to obscure the facts. What is ‘SOTARS’ anyway? I think this person is using the term ‘x-rayed’ much like people who ‘hoover’ the floor. Does the screening device actually use an x-ray source or an RF source? I couldn’t imagine that an x-ray source for this application would gain approval anywhere – even the use of airport baggage x-ray scanners is strictly controlled to ensure that humans cannot access the x-ray radiation. An RF source, however, such as the new XRF body scanners, is an ideal solution and is as safe as the proverbial out-house.

I reckon its one more reason to avoid going to jail.”

I think my friend and skidbladinir are in agreement. Stop worrying about the ‘xrays’ and focus on the important things.

Report this comment

9
PigDog 11:04 am
18 Feb 10
#

While I don’t have any sympathy for this person, there is a requirement (through a notifiable instrument) that they use the SOTER scanner, and it is publically available:

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2010-37/current/pdf/2010-37.pdf

Report this comment

10
GardeningGirl 11:06 am
18 Feb 10
#

“they have been told they must go through the x-ray OR have a non-contact visit through the glass booth.”
Sounds like a choice to me.
I’m sure victims of crime would have liked a choice.

Report this comment

11
Ian 12:07 pm
18 Feb 10
#

They had plenty of choice about the radiation – they blew it when they committed crimes that got them sent to jail (and in the ACT that would take some fairly major crimes and probably repeat offences).

Report this comment

12
MsCheeky 1:51 pm
18 Feb 10
#

Ok, nerd friend has been on the job, and now offers the following:

I’ve done a bit of research and it appears to me that the SOTER dealing is very well controlled in terms of legislation. The scanner delivers less than 3 uSv per scan and the ACT Government has set a limit of 0.25 mSv per prisoner, which gives approx 84 scanned visits per year. The limit set by the ACT Govt is arbitrarily set well below the National noc-occupational /general public radiation dose limit. This limit, which is set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and based on international standards, is 1 mSv per year. To put this limit into perspective, the background exposure level in Australia is about 2 mSv per year – you have no choice in avoiding this dose – with about 12% of that (coincidentally about 0.25 mSv) coming from internal sources, mostly radioactive Potasium-40. Yep, we are all naturally radioactive and you can’t avoid that either. I would be more concerned with driving the car to the correction centre and walking around under solar UV radiation emitted by the sun than the piddly dose from these x-ray scanners.”

Visit early, visit often.

Report this comment

13
bd84 2:08 pm
18 Feb 10
#

They aren’t making him live inside the machine so there isn’t a problem. The radiation levels from these machines is very small, and it is normally only dangerous when exposed to it constantly and at higher levels. If he really doesn’t like being subjected to the scans then he should change his lifestyle so it keeps out of jail. Xray scanning is far more acceptable compared to these people running around in the community committing crimes.

Report this comment

14
p1 2:44 pm
18 Feb 10
#

I’d rather be x-rayed then have body cavity searches. But that’s just me.

Report this comment

15
Pommy bastard 4:19 pm
18 Feb 10
#

I’ve heard those machines can cause sterility.

We live in hope.

Report this comment

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site