Health physics最新文献

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has played a critical role in the development and establishment of contemporary radiation safety standards, beginning with its safety standards program launched in 1958. These standards have been developed and/or reviewed in continuous cooperation with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. This long-lasting partnership ensures that the latest scientific findings are integrated into international safety standards, fostering global harmonization. In 2021, the ICRP announced a review and potential revision of the system of radiological protection, which could lead an update of 2007 Recommendations (ICRP Publication 103) and called for cooperation and discussion among all relevant international stakeholders. Since then, numerous discussions among radiation protection professionals worldwide have taken place at key international meetings and events, focusing on the proposed changes and highlighting the need for further dialogue and cooperation in potential future revision. Any changes to the system will have consequences that must be carefully considered and justified. Potential revisions should be thoroughly evaluated to ensure they enhance the safety for the public, workers, patients, and the environment, while maintaining the system's stability and respecting national and regional specificities. The IAEA's work on providing for application of the current set of IAEA safety standards in its Member States aims to ensure that safety standards remain relevant, effective, and also adaptable to emerging challenges. It is important to stress the need for cooperation among all relevant international stakeholders to maintain the system's global applicability. Reviews of this work indicate that the current system is robust and effective, but with challenges primarily related to the way and feasibility of implementation and interpretation of safety standards rather than associated with the system itself.

This paper aims to discuss some of the challenges (and opportunities) associated with NORM and sustainability. Practical examples are used to demonstrate that the strict application of operational quantities, such as exemption values or surface contamination limits, can restrict the use of products that could be used in an unrestricted manner from a risk-based perspective. This can lead to the devaluation of material goods, such as phosphogypsum, radioactively contaminated scrap, and lead-containing 210Pb, among others, which clash with the objectives of the circular economy and thus also sustainability. The paper exemplifies the linkages between radiation protection and sustainability and aims to open a discussion on the adverse social and economic effects of the current practice. This is particularly relevant given the further development of the radiation protection system initiated by ICRP. Some preliminary ideas for this discussion are described.

This paper summarizes the presentations and panel discussion held at Plenary Session 1 of the 16th IRPA International Congress/69th Health Physics Society Annual Meeting, in Orlando, FL, in July 2024. Plenary Session 1 discussed the basics of the systems of radiological protection (RP) for ionizing radiation (IR) and non-ionizing radiation (NIR) and included five presentations and a panel discussion. Rodney Croft, Chair of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), delivered the first presentation. Croft introduced the System of RP for NIR and provided an overview of ICNIRP's coverage and current areas of work. Werner Rühm, Chair of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), delivered the second presentation. He gave an overview of the System of RP for IR and covered the key principles of justification, optimization, and dose limitation, including the current plans of ICRP toward the envisaged revision of the System of RP. The third speaker, Sigurður Magnús Magnússon, from the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), provided the perspective of the RP professionals on the development of the Systems of RP for IR and NIR. Emilie van Deventer, from the World Health Organization (WHO), presented WHO's views of both Systems of RP and discussed the relevant current activities of WHO with regard to IR and NIR. Kathryn Higley, President of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), delivered the final presentation. Higley outlined the history of NCRP, the differences between ICRP and NCRP, and discussed the role of the NCRP in the System of RP, including NCRP's role to analyze mechanisms of interaction of NIR with biological systems, including humans. The session concluded with a fruitful panel discussion, where the audience had the opportunity to ask the five invited speakers questions.

Computed tomography is acknowledged as the most widely used imaging technique in both adults and children. Although computed tomography offers valuable diagnostic information, it contributes to a high radiation dose and poses relatively high risks of stochastic effects to patients. Stochastic risks are of special concern in pediatric imaging since children are more vulnerable to effects of ionizing radiation than adults. Therefore, the justification of pediatric computed tomography examinations is of paramount importance to critically weigh the benefits of computed tomography against the individual detriment. This study evaluates the current radiological justification for pediatric computed tomography in Kenya and propose strategies to enhance justification. An extensive literature review on pediatric computed tomography justification was explored based on the international guidelines of ICRP and IAEA and individual publications. The foundation of the review focused on the 3 A's: awareness, appropriateness, and audits as tools to ensure proper justification. The recommendations and guidelines proposed in this study can guide in the implementation of the 3 A's in the country.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model was introduced into the radiological protection system by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1966. The appropriateness of this model is still hotly debated today. Based on a recently published article, we summarize recent results in radiobiology and epidemiology and discuss their impact on the use of the LNT model regarding radiological protection. The scientific results published in radiobiology and epidemiology have strengthened our scientific knowledge of cancer risks associated with low dose and/or low dose-rate radiation exposure. In radiobiology, early stages of mutational carcinogenesis are considered to play a key role in carcinogenesis, with linear responses at doses as low as 10 mGy. Today, some non-mutation mechanisms appear clearly as non-linear, but their impact on the overall carcinogenesis process remains difficult to assess. In epidemiology, excess cancer risk has been observed at dose levels of 100 mGy or less. Some findings suggest that for some cancers, non-linear dose relationships may exist, but overall, the LNT model does not seem to seriously overestimate the risks of cancer at low doses. Overall, current results in radiobiology or epidemiology do not demonstrate the existence of a dose threshold below which the risk of radiation-induced cancer would be zero. Uncertainties remain, but if such a dose threshold existed for all solid cancers, it could not be greater than a few tens of mGy. In conclusion, we consider that the recent scientific knowledge does not call into question the use of the LNT model to assess cancer risks associated with exposure to ionizing radiation for the purpose of radiological protection. Today, the use of this model seems reasonable, and no other dose-response model seems to be more appropriate or justified for radiological protection purposes.

A commentary written by Jan Beyea claimed that the HPS interview of Edward Calabrese on the historical evolution of the linear no-threshold model was unreliable because it overlooked key historical text and statistical concepts. Beyea states that the purpose of his commentary was to defend the integrity of historical figures and committees from the accusation of scientific misconduct as presented by Calabrese. Based on his review of the video series and other documents, he provided what he defined as evidence of errors of fact, reasoning, and statistics to support his position. If true, Beyea's work would have the effect of impugning the reputation of Calabrese, myself, and the credibility of the HPS. This response intends to expose the issues with Beyea's commentary, including mischaracterization of Calabrese's work, lack of objectivity, misleading and factually incorrect statements, reliance on secondary sources, ignoring evidence specifically provided in the video series, and failing to address evidence provided in primary-sourced documents that contradict his conclusions. As a result, the reliability of Beyea's commentary is highly compromised, representing a serious lack of scholarship, research, and objectivity such that it should be retracted by Health Physics Journal based on the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. The HPS interview-style documentary reflects historical events based on primary-sourced documents as discovered by Calabrese. Scientific debate on this topic is necessary to progress our field, but the debate must be supported by facts with primary-sourced evidence and not driven by outdated public policies, logical fallacies, or ideology.

Introduction: This research explores the application of advanced geostatistical methods to predict the locations of residual radioactive hotspots at the former Zamzow uranium mine site, located near Three Rivers, TX. The site, part of the broader Lamprecht-Zamzow project, has a complex history, having undergone in situ uranium mining and processing, followed by decommissioning activities. The role of this study is not to set or recommend remediation goals, as this responsibility lies with the State of Texas. Rather, the purpose of the statistical analyses in this work is to present the data objectively, predicting potential contamination at unsampled locations and where further actions may be needed. Importantly, the findings of this study aim to inform state regulators regarding the unrestricted release of the site for landowner use, providing critical insights into the effectiveness of previous remediation efforts. By employing rigorous geostatistical techniques on survey data collected by environmental services contractors, this study models the spatial distribution of contamination referred to as "hotspots" with precision. This research marks an important advancement toward a scientifically grounded, objective approach in assessing radioactive site remediation and informing future decisions regarding site decommissioning and land restoration at former uranium sites. Importantly, the statistical analysis in this work demonstrated a clear reduction in the number of hotspots after site remediation, highlighting the effectiveness of the intervention.

Effective decision-making in a nuclear emergency is an essential element of achieving the goals of Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR). Within the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) General Safety Requirements (GSR) Part 7, preparedness goals are stated generally as having adequate capabilities in place for an effective response. Past nuclear accident experience has demonstrated the complexities involved in urgent and early phase protective action decision-making which is characterized by a distinct lack of information resulting in poor or inappropriate decisions that do more harm than good. The Operational Planning Process (OPP) has been developed by many professional militaries around the world as a means of dealing with equally complex situations. In this work we explore a component of the OPP, wargaming, and apply it to the preparedness phase of a nuclear emergency to validate response planning. The work demonstrates the usefulness of the activity at improving urgent and early phase decision-making and decision-making tool development. The concept effectively addresses several lessons learned from past nuclear incidents as well as continued observations calling for improved tools to better integrate a scientific and technical understanding into a justified and optimised, all hazards emergency response environment.