In the last 30 days

• Open/close Radiation accidents over the last 60 years

  Jean-Claude Nénot  2009 J. Radiol. Prot. 29 301 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (254 KB)

  Since the end of the Second World War, industrial and medical uses of radiation have been considerably increasing. Accidental overexposures of persons, in either the occupational or public field, have caused deaths and severe injuries and complications. The rate of severe accidents seems to increase with time, especially those involving the public; in addition, accidents are often not immediately recognised, which means that the real number of events remains unknown. Human factors, as well as the lack of elementary rules in the domains of radiological safety and protection, such as inadequate training, play a major role in the occurrence of the accidents which have been reported in the industrial, medical and military arenas.

• Open/close Radiation in the workplace—a review of studies of the risks of occupational exposure to ionising radiation

  Richard Wakeford  2009 J. Radiol. Prot. 29 A61 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (355 KB)

  Many individuals are, or have been, exposed to ionising radiation in the course of their work and the epidemiological study of occupationally irradiated groups offers an important opportunity to complement the estimates of risks to health resulting from exposure to radiation that are obtained from other populations, such as the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Moreover, workplace exposure to radiation usually involves irradiation conditions that are of direct relevance to the principal concern of radiological protection: protracted exposure to low level radiation. Further, some workers have been exposed to radioactive material that has been inadvertently taken into the body, and the study of these groups leads to risk estimates derived directly from the experience of those irradiated by these 'internal emitters', intakes of α-particle-emitters being of particular interest. Workforces that have been the subject of epidemiological study include medical staff, aircrews, radium dial luminisers, underground hard-rock miners, Chernobyl clean-up workers, nuclear weapons test participants and nuclear industry workers. The first solid epidemiological evidence of the stochastic effects of irradiation came from a study of occupational exposure to medical x-rays that was reported in 1944, which demonstrated a large excess risk of leukaemia among US radiologists; but the general lack of dose records for early medical staff who tended to experience the highest exposures hampers the derivation of risks per unit dose received by medical workers. The instrument dial luminisers who inadvertently ingested large amounts of radium-based paint and underground hard-rock miners who inhaled large quantities of radon and its decay products suffered markedly raised excess risks of, respectively, bone and lung cancers; the miner studies have provided standard risk estimates for radon-induced lung cancer. The large numbers of nuclear industry workers around the world present a possibility of deriving risk coefficients of direct relevance to radiological protection, and the recently published study of workers from 15 countries illustrates what can be achieved by international collaboration. However, it would appear that there are some problems with this study that require attention before reliance can be placed upon the results. Early workers from the Mayak plutonium production facility in Russia were heavily exposed to external sources of penetrating radiation and to plutonium, and appreciable effort has been expended in obtaining dependable risk estimates from this scientifically valuable group of workers. Those occupationally exposed to low levels of radiation also present an opportunity of studying possible somatic health effects other than cancer, such as heart disease and eye cataracts, that are the subject of much discussion at present. Overall, studies of exposure to ionising radiation in the workplace provide a valuable support to studies of those groups exposed under other circumstances, and in some instances (such as exposure to plutonium) effectively offer the only direct source of epidemiological evidence on risks.

• Open/close New ICRP recommendations

  A D Wrixon  2008 J. Radiol. Prot. 28 161 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (130 KB)

  This paper provides a review of the 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). These new recommendations take account of the latest biological and physical information and consolidate the additional guidance provided by ICRP since 1990. The changes to the scientific data are not substantial. ICRP has retained its fundamental hypothesis for the induction of stochastic effects of linearity of dose and effect without threshold and a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) of 2 to derive nominal risk coefficients for low doses and low dose rates. While the overall detriment from low radiation doses has remained unchanged, ICRP has made adjustments to the values of the radiation and tissue weighting factors. In particular, the tissue weighting factor for breast has increased while that for gonads has decreased. There are some presentational changes to the system of protection. While ICRP has maintained the three fundamental principles—justification, optimisation of protection, and dose limitation—it has attempted to develop a more holistic approach to radiological protection covering all exposure situations—planned, existing and emergency—and all radiation sources, whether of natural or artificial origin. This approach should ensure that attention is focused on those exposures that can reasonably be controlled. It has also strengthened the principle of optimisation of protection with a particular emphasis on the use of constraints for planned exposure situations and reference levels for existing and emergency exposure situations. Dose constraints and reference levels are categorised into three bands which should assist in rationalising the many values of dose restrictions given in earlier ICRP publications. There are no changes to the dose limits. ICRP also indicates its intentions with respect to the development of further guidance on the protection of the environment. The fact that these new recommendations are more a matter of consolidation of previous ICRP recommendations and guidance should provide confidence that the system of protection established by and large in its present form several decades ago has reached a certain level of maturity. As such, no major changes to radiological protection regulations based on the 1990 recommendations should be necessary.

• Open/close Cancer and non-cancer effects in Japanese atomic bomb survivors

  M P Little  2009 J. Radiol. Prot. 29 A43 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (330 KB)

  The survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a general population of all ages and sexes and, because of the wide and well characterised range of doses received, have been used by many scientific committees (International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (BEIR)) as the basis of population cancer risk estimates following radiation exposure. Leukaemia was the first cancer to be associated with atomic bomb radiation exposure, with preliminary indications of an excess among the survivors within the first five years after the bombings. An excess of solid cancers became apparent approximately ten years after radiation exposure. With increasing follow-up, excess risks of most cancer types have been observed, the major exceptions being chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and pancreatic, prostate and uterine cancer. For most solid cancer sites a linear dose response is observed, although in the latest follow-up of the mortality data there is evidence ( p = 0.10) for an upward curvature in the dose response for all solid cancers. The only cancer sites which exhibit (upward) curvature in the dose response are leukaemia, and non-melanoma skin and bone cancer. For leukaemia the dose response is very markedly upward curving, indeed largely describable as a pure quadratic dose response, particularly in the low dose (0–2 Sv) range. Even 55 years after the bombings over 40% of the Life Span Study cohort remain alive, so continued follow-up of this group is vital for completing our understanding of long-term radiation effects in people.

  In general, the relative risks per unit dose among the Japanese atomic bomb survivors are greater than those among comparable subsets in studies of medically exposed individuals. Cell sterilisation largely accounts for the discrepancy in relative risks between these two populations, although other factors may contribute, such as the generally higher underlying cancer risks in the medical series than in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Risks among occupationally exposed groups such as nuclear workforces and underground miners are generally consistent with those observed in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. In general, consistent patterns of variation of risk with age at exposure are also seen in all studies—risks for all cancer types diminish with increasing age at exposure.

  There are also excess risks of various types of non-malignant disease in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, in particular cardiovascular, respiratory and digestive diseases. Indeed, risks are elevated to much the same degree for a number of non-malignant disease endpoints, suggestive of bias. However, in contrast with the cancer data, there is much less consistency in the pattern of risk between the atomic bomb survivors and other exposed groups; for example, radiation-associated respiratory and digestive diseases have not been seen in these other groups. Although cardiovascular risks have been seen elsewhere, particularly in medically exposed groups, in contrast with the cancer data there is much less consistency in risk between studies: risks per unit dose in epidemiological studies vary over at least two orders of magnitude, possibly as a result of confounding factors. In the absence of a convincing mechanistic explanation of epidemiological evidence, at present a cause-and-effect interpretation of the reported statistical associations for cardiovascular disease is unreliable but cannot be excluded. Further epidemiological and biological evidence will allow a firmer conclusion to be drawn.

• Open/close Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what can it teach us about radiation risks?

  Jolyon H Hendry et al  2009 J. Radiol. Prot. 29 A29 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (215 KB)

  Natural radiation is the major source of human exposure to ionising radiation, and its largest contributing component to effective dose arises from inhalation of ²²²Rn and its radioactive progeny. However, despite extensive knowledge of radiation risks gained through epidemiologic investigations and mechanistic considerations, the health effects of chronic low-level radiation exposure are still poorly understood. The present paper reviews the possible contribution of studies of populations living in high natural background radiation (HNBR) areas (Guarapari, Brazil; Kerala, India; Ramsar, Iran; Yangjiang, China), including radon-prone areas, to low dose risk estimation.

  Much of the direct information about risk related to HNBR comes from case–control studies of radon and lung cancer, which provide convincing evidence of an association between long-term protracted radiation exposures in the general population and disease incidence. The success of these studies is mainly due to the careful organ dose reconstruction (with relatively high doses to the lung), and to the fact that large-scale collaborative studies have been conducted to maximise the statistical power and to ensure the systematic collection of information on potential confounding factors. In contrast, studies in other (non-radon) HNBR areas have provided little information, relying mainly on ecological designs and very rough effective dose categorisations. Recent steps taken in China and India to establish cohorts for follow-up and to conduct nested case–control studies may provide useful information about risks in the future, provided that careful organ dose reconstruction is possible and information is collected on potential confounding factors.

• Open/close Is there a place for quantitative risk assessment?

  Eric J Hall  2009 J. Radiol. Prot. 29 A171 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (856 KB)

  The use of ionising radiations is so well established, especially in the practice of medicine, that it is impossible to imagine contemporary life without them. At the same time, ionising radiations are a known and proven human carcinogen. Exposure to radiation in some contexts elicits fear and alarm (nuclear power for example) while in other situations, until recently at least, it was accepted with alacrity (diagnostic x-rays for example).

  This non-uniform reaction to the potential hazards of radiation highlights the importance of quantitative risk estimates, which are necessary to help put things into perspective. Three areas will be discussed where quantitative risk estimates are needed and where uncertainties and limitations are a problem.

  First, the question of diagnostic x-rays. CT usage over the past quarter of a century has increased about 12 fold in the UK and more than 20 fold in the US. In both countries, more than 90% of the collective population dose from diagnostic x-rays comes from the few high dose procedures, such as interventional radiology, CT scans, lumbar spine x-rays and barium enemas. These all involve doses close to the lower limit at which there are credible epidemiological data for an excess cancer incidence. This is a critical question; what is the lowest dose at which there is good evidence of an elevated cancer incidence? Without low dose risk estimates the risk–benefit ratio of diagnostic procedures cannot be assessed.

  Second, the use of new techniques in radiation oncology. IMRT is widely used to obtain a more conformal dose distribution, particularly in children. It results in a larger total body dose, due to an increased number of monitor units and to the application of more radiation fields. The Linacs used today were not designed for IMRT and are based on leakage standards that were decided decades ago. It will be difficult and costly to reduce leakage from treatment machines, and a necessary first step is to refine the available radiation risks at the fractionated high doses characteristic of radiotherapy. The dose response for carcinogenesis is known for single doses up to about 2 Sv from the A-bomb data, but the shape at higher fractionated doses is uncertain.

  Third, the proliferation of proton facilities. The improved dose distribution made possible by charged particle beams has created great interest and led to the design and building of many expensive proton centres. However, due to technical problems, most facilities use passive scattering, rather than spot scanning, to spread the pencil beam to cover realistic target volumes. This process, together with the methods used of final collimation, results in substantial total body doses of neutrons. The relative biological effectiveness of these neutrons is not well known, and the risk estimates are therefore uncertain. Unless and until the risks are known with more certainty, it is difficult to know how much effort and cost should be directed towards reducing, or eliminating, the neutron doses. These three examples, where uncertainties in quantitative risk estimates result in important practical problems, will be discussed.

• Open/close Modelling carcinogenesis after radiotherapy using Poisson statistics: implications for IMRT, protons and ions

  Bleddyn Jones  2009 J. Radiol. Prot. 29 A143 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (544 KB)

  Current technical radiotherapy advances aim to (a) better conform the dose contours to cancers and (b) reduce the integral dose exposure and thereby minimise unnecessary dose exposure to normal tissues unaffected by the cancer. Various types of conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using x-rays can achieve (a) while charged particle therapy (CPT)—using proton and ion beams—can achieve both (a) and (b), but at greater financial cost.

  Not only is the long term risk of radiation related normal tissue complications important, but so is the risk of carcinogenesis. Physical dose distribution plans can be generated to show the differences between the above techniques. IMRT is associated with a dose bath of low to medium dose due to fluence transfer: dose is effectively transferred from designated organs at risk to other areas; thus dose and risk are transferred. Many clinicians are concerned that there may be additional carcinogenesis many years after IMRT. CPT reduces the total energy deposition in the body and offers many potential advantages in terms of the prospects for better quality of life along with cancer cure. With C ions there is a tail of dose beyond the Bragg peaks, due to nuclear fragmentation; this is not found with protons. CPT generally uses higher linear energy transfer (which varies with particle and energy), which carries a higher relative risk of malignant induction, but also of cell death quantified by the relative biological effect concept, so at higher dose levels the frank development of malignancy should be reduced.

  Standard linear radioprotection models have been used to show a reduction in carcinogenesis risk of between two- and 15-fold depending on the CPT location. But the standard risk models make no allowance for fractionation and some have a dose limit at 4 Gy. Alternatively, tentative application of the linear quadratic model and Poissonian statistics to chromosome breakage and cell kill simultaneously allows estimation of relative changes in carcinogenesis that incorporate fractionation and relative biological effects (RBE). This alternative modelling approach allows absolute and relative risk estimations per cell and can be extended to tissues. The classical turnover point in carcinogenesis occurring after a single exposure is a feature of the model; also, the dose–response relationship becomes pseudo-linear with extended fractionation and when heterogeneity of the radiosensitivity parameters is introduced; there is also an inverse relationship between dose per fraction and cancer induction. In principle, this new approach might influence the conduct of proton and ion beam therapy, particularly beam placements and fractionation policies. The theoretical implications for future radiotherapy are considerable, but these predictions should be subjected to cellular and tissue experiments that simulate these forms of treatment, including any secondary neutron production in some cases depending on the beam delivery technique, e.g. in tissue equivalent humanoid phantoms using cell transformation techniques. Since the UK has no working high energy particle beam facility over 100 MeV, British scientists would require use of particle beam facilities in Europe, USA or Japan to perform experiments.

• Open/close Review of relative biological effectiveness dependence on linear energy transfer for low-LET radiations

  Nezahat Hunter and Colin R Muirhead  2009 J. Radiol. Prot. 29 5 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (327 KB)

  Information on Japanese A-bomb survivors exposed to gamma radiation has been used to estimate cancer risks for the whole range of photon (x-rays) and electron energies which are commonly encountered by radiation workers in the work place or by patients and workers in diagnostic radiology. However, there is some uncertainty regarding the radiation effectiveness of various low-linear energy transfer (low-LET) radiations (x-rays, gamma radiation and electrons). In this paper we review information on the effectiveness of low-LET radiations on the basis of epidemiological and in vitro radiobiological studies. Data from various experimental studies for chromosome aberrations and cell transformation in human lymphocytes and from epidemiological studies of the Japanese A-bomb survivors, patients medically exposed to radiation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and occupational exposures of nuclear workers are considered. On the basis of in vitro cellular radiobiology, there is considerable evidence that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of high-energy low-LET radiation (gamma radiation, electrons) is less than that of low-energy low-LET radiation (x-rays, betas). This is a factor of about 3 to 4 for 29 kVp x-rays (e.g. as in diagnostic radiation exposures of the female breast) and for tritium beta-rays (encountered in parts of the nuclear industry) relative to Co-60 gamma radiation and 2–5 MeV gamma-rays (as received by the Japanese A-bomb survivors). In epidemiological studies, although for thyroid and breast cancer there appears to be a small tendency for the excess relative risks to decrease as the radiation energy increases for low-LET radiations, it is not statistically feasible to draw any conclusion regarding an underlying dependence of cancer risk on LET for the nominally low-LET radiations.

• Open/close Biokinetic and dosimetric modelling in the estimation of radiation risks from internal emitters

  John Harrison  2009 J. Radiol. Prot. 29 A81 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (406 KB)

  The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has developed biokinetic and dosimetric models that enable the calculation of organ and tissue doses for a wide range of radionuclides. These are used to calculate equivalent and effective dose coefficients (dose in Sv Bq ⁻¹ intake), considering occupational and environmental exposures. Dose coefficients have also been given for a range of radiopharmaceuticals used in diagnostic medicine. Using equivalent and effective dose, exposures from external sources and from different radionuclides can be summed for comparison with dose limits, constraints and reference levels that relate to risks from whole-body radiation exposure. Risk estimates are derived largely from follow-up studies of the survivors of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

  New dose coefficients will be required following the publication in 2007 of new ICRP recommendations. ICRP biokinetic and dosimetric models are subject to continuing review and improvement, although it is arguable that the degree of sophistication of some of the most recent models is greater than required for the calculation of effective dose to a reference person for the purposes of regulatory control. However, the models are also used in the calculation of best estimates of doses and risks to individuals, in epidemiological studies and to determine probability of cancer causation. Models are then adjusted to best fit the characteristics of the individuals and population under consideration. For example, doses resulting from massive discharges of strontium-90 and other radionuclides to the Techa River from the Russian Mayak plutonium plant in the early years of its operation are being estimated using models adapted to take account of measurements on local residents and other population-specific data. Best estimates of doses to haemopoietic bone marrow, in utero and postnatally, are being used in epidemiological studies of radiation-induced leukaemia.

  Radon-222 is the one internal emitter for which control of exposure is based on direct information on cancer risks, with extensive information available on lung cancer induction by radon progeny in mines and consistent data on risks in homes. The dose per unit ²²²Rn exposure can be calculated by comparing lung cancer risk estimates derived for ²²²Rn exposure and for external exposure of the Japanese survivors. Remarkably similar values are obtained by this method and by calculations using the ICRP model of the respiratory tract, providing good support for model assumptions. Other informative comparisons with risks from external exposure can be made for Thorotrast-induced liver cancer and leukaemia, and radium-induced bone cancer. The bone-seeking alpha emitters, plutonium-239 and radium isotopes, are poorer leukaemogens than predicted by models.

  ICRP dose coefficients are published as single values without consideration of uncertainties. However, it is clear that full consideration of uncertainties is appropriate when considering best estimates of doses and risks to individuals or specific population groups. An understanding of the component uncertainties in the calculation of dose coefficients can be seen as an important goal and should help inform judgements on the control of exposures. The routine consideration of uncertainties in dose assessments, if achievable, would be of questionable value when doses are generally maintained at small fractions of limits.

• Open/close CT scanning: patterns of use and dose

  Fred A Mettler Jr et al  2000 J. Radiol. Prot. 20 353 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (61 KB)

  CT scanning is a relatively high-dose procedure. In spite of the use of magnetic resonance imaging, with faster CT scanners and helical techniques CT is becoming more common. There are few data from practice in the United States regarding the age and sex distribution of patients receiving CT scans, what type of scan and how many scans they receive, or how much radiation dose CT scans contribute.

  We reviewed over 33 700 consecutive CT examinations done at our institution in 1998 and 1999. Information on the types of scans as well as the age and sex distribution of the patients was determined.

  Between 1990 and 1999, CT examinations in our institution increased from 6.1% to 11.1% of all radiology procedures. Nineteen per cent of all patients seen in our department in the last year had at least one CT scan and more than half had multiple scans on the same day. Thirty-six per cent of all patients had a prior CT examination done on an earlier date. The male/female ratio of patients was 56/44. Studies of children age 0-15 years comprised 11.2% of scans. The highest percentage of scans was done in the 36-50-year-old age group. CT scanning accounted for 67% of the effective dose from diagnostic radiology.

  In most large hospitals in the United States CT scanning probably accounts for more than 10% of diagnostic radiology examinations and about two-thirds of the radiation dose. Most patients have multiple scan sequences. Studies done on children are probably more common than previously thought.