In the last 30 days

• 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 And now, Fukushima

  Richard Wakeford 2011 J. Radiol. Prot. 31 167 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (6.71 MB)

  The full text of the Editorial is given in the PDF file.

• Open/close Reflections on CERRIE

  Richard Wakeford 2004 J. Radiol. Prot. 24 337 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (36 KB)

  The PDF file below contains the full text of this editorial.

• Open/close Cancer consequences of the Chernobyl accident: 20 years on

  Elisabeth Cardis et al 2006 J. Radiol. Prot. 26 127 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (268 KB)

  26 April 2006 marks the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. On this occasion, the World Health Organization (WHO), within the UN Chernobyl Forum initiative, convened an Expert Group to evaluate the health impacts of Chernobyl. This paper summarises the findings relating to cancer. A dramatic increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has been observed among those exposed to radioactive iodines in childhood and adolescence in the most contaminated territories. Iodine deficiency may have increased the risk of developing thyroid cancer following exposure to radioactive iodines, while prolonged stable iodine supplementation in the years after exposure may reduce this risk. Although increases in rates of other cancers have been reported, much of these increases appear to be due to other factors, including improvements in registration, reporting and diagnosis. Studies are few, however, and have methodological limitations. Further, because most radiation-related solid cancers continue to occur decades after exposure and because only 20 years have passed since the accident, it is too early to evaluate the full radiological impact of the accident. Apart from the large increase in thyroid cancer incidence in young people, there are at present no clearly demonstrated radiation-related increases in cancer risk. This should not, however, be interpreted to mean that no increase has in fact occurred: based on the experience of other populations exposed to ionising radiation, a small increase in the relative risk of cancer is expected, even at the low to moderate doses received. Although it is expected that epidemiological studies will have difficulty identifying such a risk, it may nevertheless translate into a substantial number of radiation-related cancer cases in the future, given the very large number of individuals exposed.

• Open/close The silver anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. Where are we now?

  Richard Wakeford 2011 J. Radiol. Prot. 31 1 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (123 KB)

  The full text of the Editorial is given in the PDF file.

• Open/close The Windscale reactor accident—50 years on

  Richard Wakeford 2007 J. Radiol. Prot. 27 211 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (53 KB)

  The full text of the Invited Editorial is given in the PDF file.

• 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 Effective dose: practice, purpose and pitfalls for nuclear medicine

  C J Martin 2011 J. Radiol. Prot. 31 205 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (483 KB)

  Effective dose ( E) is the only comparatively simple dose quantity that is related to health detriment for stochastic effects from exposure to ionising radiation. As such, E has found wide application for medical exposures, as it allows comparisons with doses from different examinations and other sources. E is derived from the weighted sum of doses to tissues known to be sensitive to radiation from epidemiological studies and contains inherent approximations. Thus it is not a scientific quantity, but a practical one that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has created for use in the calculation of reference doses for protection purposes. In the application of E to medical exposures, there has been a tendency to attribute a greater accuracy to values of E than is justified by its derivation. Recognising that E is strictly not subject to uncertainties, an analysis has been undertaken of potential uncertainties in E for different nuclear medicine examinations to enable users to judge its reliability as a comparator of relative risk. Assessments have been based on the considered accuracy of the component parts and indicate that the uncertainties in the values of E as a relative indicator of harm for nuclear medicine procedures for a reference patient are about ± 50%. These are larger than those for radiology procedures, because of the tendency for doses to single organs, especially the bladder, to form a substantial part of E for some procedures. Revision of the tissue weighting factors in 2007 produced a 10% decrease in the mean value of E for nuclear medicine examinations. Estimations of cancer risk based on E for an individual could vary by one or two orders of magnitude. E fulfils an important role as a health-related dose quantity that can be used in justification of nuclear medicine examinations, but physicians should be aware of its limitations. General terminology should be used in conveying risks to patients and medical professionals.

• Open/close Health Effects Due to Radiation from the Chernobyl Accident. Annex D of UNSCEAR 2008: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Volume 2: Effects

   2011 J. Radiol. Prot. 31 275 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (101 KB)

  The full text of the Book Review is given in the PDF file.

• Open/close WHO Workshop on Radiation Risk Assessment in Paediatric Health Care ALARA Issues Arising for the Safety and Security of Radiation Sources and Security Screening Devices: Summary and Recommendations

   2010 J. Radiol. Prot. 30 105 Tag this article

  Article References Full text PDF (114 KB)

  The full text of the meeting reports in this issue is given in the PDF file.