Annals of the ICRP最新文献

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publishes guidance on protection from radon in homes and workplaces, and dose coefficients for use in assessments of exposure for protection purposes. ICRP Publication 126 recommends an upper reference level for exposures in homes and workplaces of 300 Bq m^-3. In general, protection can be optimised using measurements of air concentrations directly, without considering radiation doses. However, dose estimates are required for workers when radon is considered as an occupational exposure (e.g. in mines), and for higher exposures in other workplaces (e.g. offices) when the reference level is exceeded persistently. ICRP Publication 137 recommends a dose coefficient of 3 mSv per mJ h m^-3 (approximately 10 mSv per working level month) for most circumstances of exposure in workplaces, equivalent to 6.7 nSv per Bq h m^-3 using an equilibrium factor of 0.4. Using this dose coefficient, annual exposure of workers to 300 Bq m^-3 corresponds to 4 mSv. For comparison, using the same coefficient for exposures in homes, 300 Bq m^-3 corresponds to 14 mSv. If circumstances of occupational exposure warrant more detailed consideration and reliable alternative data are available, site-specific doses can be assessed using methodology provided in ICRP Publication 137.

In Australia, worker exposure to radon in underground uranium mines has been a focus of policy makers and regulators, and has been well controlled in the industry sector. That cannot be said for public exposure to radon. Radon exposure studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s demonstrated that the levels of radon in Australian homes were some of the lowest in the world. The International Basic Safety Standards, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency, requires the government to establish and implement an action plan for controlling public exposure due to radon indoors. When considering different policy options, it is important to develop radon prevention and mitigation programmes reflecting elements that are unique to the region or country. The Australian Radon Action Plan is being considered at a national level, and presents a long-range strategy designed to reduce radon-induced lung cancer in Australia, as well as the individual risk for people living with high concentrations of radon. In Australia, workers who are not currently designated as occupationally exposed are also considered as members of the public. In the Australian context, there are only a limited set of scenarios that might give rise to sufficiently high radon concentrations that warrant mitigation. These include highly energy efficient buildings in areas of high radon potential, underground workplaces, workplaces with elevated radon concentrations (e.g. spas using natural spring waters), and enclosed workspaces with limited ventilation. The key elements for a successful plan will rely on collaboration between government sectors and other health promotion programmes, cooperative efforts involving technical and communication experts, and partnering with building professionals and other stakeholders involved in the implementation of radon prevention and mitigation.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) of Japan invited comments from the public on a revised guide on measurement and evaluation for clearance in 2019, which included a strict decision on how to treat uncertainties in the measurement and the nuclide vector. To resolve the issue on the uncertainty in clearance, a probabilistic approach had been established previously in the Atomic Energy Society of Japan Standard and incorporated into International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Report No. 67. NRA's new decision on the uncertainty in clearance was up to 10 times stricter than the probabilistic approach. This issue has been discussed at an international level in the framework of the ongoing revision of IAEA Safety Guide RS-G-1.7. This discussion on the uncertainty in clearance has raised serious concerns about its effects on other radiological protection regulations worldwide. This is because if we need strict treatment for the uncertainty in clearance, the same or even stricter treatment for conformity assessment may have to be applied to other radiological protection criteria for doses exceeding 10 µSv year^-1. Radiological protection experts including regulators, professionals, and operators should be aware of the essential meaning of the radiological protection criteria by considering the background scientific basis on which they were established.

Olympic Dam is one of the world's most significant polymetallic orebodies producing copper, uranium, gold, and silver in remote South Australia. The polymetallic deposit is located 520 km north-northwest of Adelaide, South Australia and has an inferred resource of 2660 Mt at 1.2% Cu, 1.4 kg t^-1 U₃Os, and 0.5 g t^-1 Au. Ore is mined from the underground operation at a rate of approximately 10 mt year^-1, and is processed on site through a concentrator and hydrometallurgical facility, smelter, and electrolytic refinery. Olympic Dam is one of the only sites in the world to claim the 'mine to market' title. Protection of the workforce and the environment has been a primary focus for the operations through its 30+ year life and will continue to be into the future. Broken Hill Propriety Company (BHP) believes that its most important asset is its people. With such a large orebody and a very long potential mine life, it is important to think strategically about the future to ensure the viability of the operation. This requires development of mine and surface processing facilities in a staged manner. Importantly, it also involves the development of people. This presentation provides an overview of BHP's work at Olympic Dam and outlines development plans for Olympic Dam into the future.© 2020 ICRP. Published by SAGE.

Whereas scientific evidence is the basis for recommendations and guidance on radiological protection, professional ethics is critically important and should always guide professional behaviour. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) established Task Group 109 to advise medical professionals, patients, families, carers, the public, and authorities about the ethical aspects of radiological protection of patients in the diagnostic and therapeutic use of radiation in medicine. Occupational exposures and research-related exposures are not within the scope of this task group. Task Group 109 will produce a report that will be available to the different interested parties for consultation before publication. Presently, the report is at the stage of a working document that has benefitted from an international workshop organised on the topic by the World Health Organization. It presents the history of ethics in medicine in ICRP, and explains why this subject is important, and the benefits it can bring to the standard biomedical ethics. As risk is an essential part in decision-making and communication, a summary is included on what is known about the dose-effect relationship, with emphasis on the associated uncertainties. Once this theoretical framework has been presented, the report becomes resolutely more practical. First, it proposes an evaluation method to analyse specific situations from an ethical point of view. This method allows stakeholders to review a set of six ethical values and provides hints on how they could be balanced. Next, various situations (e.g. pregnancy, elderly, paediatric, end of life) are considered in two steps: first within a realistic, ethically challenging scenario on which the evaluation method is applied; and second within a more general context. Scenarios are presented and discussed with attention to specific patient circumstances, and on how and which reflections on ethical values can be of help in the decision-making process. Finally, two important related aspects are considered: how should we communicate with patients, family, and other stakeholders; and how should we incorporate ethics into the education and training of medical professionals?

The Medical Futurist says that radiology is one of the fastest growing and developing areas of medicine, and therefore this might be the speciality in which we can expect to see the largest steps in development. So why do they think that, and does it apply to dose monitoring? The move from retrospective dose evaluation to a proactive dose management approach represents a serious area of research. Indeed, artificial intelligence and machine learning are consistently being integrated into best-in-class dose management software solutions. The development of clinical analytics and dashboards are already supporting operators in their decision-making, and these optimisations - if taken beyond a single machine, a single department, or a single health network - have the potential to drive real and lasting change. The question is for whom exactly are these innovations being developed? How can the patient know that their scan has been performed to the absolute best that the technology can deliver? Do they know or even care how much their lifetime risk for developing cancer has changed post examination? Do they want a personalised size-specific dose estimate or perhaps an individual organ dose assessment to share on Instagram? Let's get real about the clinical utility and regulatory application of dose monitoring, and shine a light on the shared responsibility in applying the technology and the associated innovations.