IS THERE A WAY TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY ON LOW DOSE EFFECTS? D. J. Higson. Consultant 260 Glenmore Rd, Paddington, NSW 2021, Australia
|
|
- Caitlin Dean
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IS THERE A WAY TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY ON LOW DOSE EFFECTS? D. J. Higson Consultant 260 Glenmore Rd, Paddington, NSW 2021, Australia INTRODUCTION The controversy which is addressed in this paper is whether there are risks or benefits to health from exposure to low levels of ionising radiation or, indeed, whether there are any significant health effects at all. The background to this controversy was outlined in 1998 in the report of a Task Group on Low Dose Effects, convened by the International Nuclear Societies Council (INSC) [1]. For the purpose of the INSC report, low levels of radiation were defined as acute 1 doses less than 10 msv and chronic dose rates less than 20 msv per year. The INSC Task Group itself concluded that, either there is no risk, or there may be health benefits from such exposures. The scientific aspects of the matter were reviewed by the author in 2001 at the IRPA Regional Congress on Radiation Protection in Central Europe, in Dubrovnik [2], and are summarised in the next section of this paper. In Dubrovnik, the author concluded that there is at least as much evidence of beneficial health effects as harmful effects from low level radiation. Controversy on the biological effects of low level radiation continues to be polarised to an extent which should be considered unacceptable in a rational community, and it is aggravated by the multiplicity of different viewpoints from which to consider the information available on this subject. These viewpoints include not only the scientific and regulatory positions, but also public and political perceptions, and the news media; and they lead to a wide variety of views, each of which is considered to be legitimate by most of those who adopt it. Scientific research is continually improving our understanding of low dose effects but it tends not to provide the quick, definitive answers which are often sought by the news media and the public. Hence, the scientific approach is not always comprehensible and acceptable to the laypublic and it can be very frustrating for politicians and journalists. (There is a story, which is no doubt apocryphal, of a politician who was looking for a one-handed scientist so as to get a straightforward answer to a scientific question.) The regulatory approach must essentially be pragmatic. Scientific evidence on the biological effects of low level radiation is often neither clear nor simple. At present, the scientific 1 In this context, an acute dose is a dose that is incurred at a very high rate in a short space of time, as in an atomic bomb explosion or in some medical procedures.
2 approach does not provide answers that can readily be used in regulations. In the practices of radiation protection and regulation, it has therefore proved to be necessary to make simplifying assumptions to facilitate decisions about complex situations specifically, the assumption that the risk of incurring cancer is proportional to dose without a threshold. This assumption, the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, is recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) [3] and is the basis of regulatory requirements in most countries. For members of the radiation protection profession, the LNT hypothesis is a convenient tool, without which their work would be difficult to perform. However, although the assumption of linearity has been shown to be a reasonable approximation for high dose exposures, it is not supported by scientific data at low doses and low dose rates. In recent years, it has become clear that many scientists are concerned that the LNT assumption, when applied to low levels of radiation, is not consistent with the scientific evidence [1,2,4-6]. Strict adherence to ICRP s recommendation has led to the view that the LNT relationship can be extrapolated reliably, over more than four orders of magnitude in terms of dose and over an even greater range in terms of dose rate, to estimate cancer fatality risks from dose rates less than 0.02 msv per year. Regulatory concern is thus being directed toward dose rates which are minute fractions of natural background radiation (much smaller than natural variations). The consequences of such concerns have included: inappropriate countermeasures adopted after the Chernobyl accident, some of which did more harm than good [7]; excessively stringent standards for clean-up of radioactive contamination, which appear to be unnecessarily costly and to be a misallocation of scarce national resources; inappropriate uses of collective dose (tiny doses multiplied by huge populations) as a measure of collective risk. Some consequences outside the field of radiation protection, which were probably not envisaged at the time that LNT was first propounded, include: the erroneous view that there is no safe dose of radiation; disincentives for patients to undertake medical treatment which would be beneficial for them; the myth that nuclear power is a threat to the environment, even though it generates no greenhouse gases or acid rain; unnecessary mental anguish to exposed persons, e.g. former residents of the Chernobyl area [7]; provision of an unwarranted basis for anti-nuclear propaganda. The search for consistency between regulation and science should lie between the regulatory and scientific communities but it is made difficult by the entrenched positions of some political and public interest groups (and, indeed, some scientists) and the needs of the news media and popular science publications to exploit controversy. The purpose of this paper is
3 not to present any new evidence but to propose a practical way forward, based on the understanding that low-level radiation does not have discernible adverse health effects. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE It has been well established by the work of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) in Hiroshima, Japan, that individual acute doses of ionising radiation greater than about 200 mgy cause an increase in the incidence of cancer in human populations. Epidemiological studies of the atomic bomb survivors and the consequences of some medical exposures provide evidence that risks of increased cancer may extend to acute doses less than 200 msv [3,8], but with lower levels of statistical significance. Wakeford [9] believes there is evidence that risks exist in utero down to about 10 msv. There is considerable evidence that a dose that is in any way protracted, incurred at a low dose rate or from intermittent exposures, is less likely to be harmful than an acute exposure to the same total dose. This effect appears to be significant when exposure is spread over a few days or more, as in the Chernobyl reactor accident in UNSCEAR [10] has reported that, apart from radiation sickness and early fatalities of workers who were on the plant at the time of the accident, incurring doses well in excess of the threshold for deterministic effects; and thyroid cancers among children, in some districts around Chernobyl, who were exposed to very high thyroid doses from radioactive iodine; there is no evidence of any other health effects attributable to radiation exposure from Chernobyl. In particular, there has been no discernible increase in the incidence of leukaemia, which was one of the main concerns due to its short latency period (5-10 years after radiation exposure in adults). No increase has been observed in the incidence of any cancer (other than child thyroid cancer) in any of the exposed groups, including emergency response workers, evacuees and the residents who were not relocated. About 100,000 workers involved in the emergency responses and cleanup of Chernobyl incurred doses in excess of 100 msv, the average being about 170 msv for those employed in Several thousand of them probably received doses greater than 500 msv. The maximum estimated individual dose commitment (due to the accident) for local residents was reported to be 250 msv, with the average for the 1,500 most highly exposed members of this group being 160 msv. The lack of clear evidence of risks from low doses of radiation may be because there are no harmful effects of radiation at low levels or because the health effects, whatever they may be, are too few to be statistically significant. A study of cancer mortality among radiation workers with protracted occupational exposures in the nuclear industry in the US, UK and Canada was reported in 1995 [11]. The purpose of this study was to look only for significant dose-related increases in mortality. Data showing significant dose-related decreases were, in effect, excluded. With this vital limitation, the study found that there is no evidence of an association between radiation dose and mortality from all causes or from all cancers, for individual doses up to 100 msv.
4 It appears that funds and effort for major epidemiological studies tend to be forthcoming only when harmful effects are to be investigated, not for beneficial effects. Other studies [12-17] have nevertheless shown that radiation workers, occupationally exposed to lifetime doses up to about 100 msv, have lower mortality rates from all causes and from all cancers than the general population and sometimes lower than other workers doing similar or identical work but not exposed to radiation [12,15]. British radiologists who first registered in the period incurred lifetime doses of the order of 20 Sv (20,000 msv). Even these highly exposed radiation workers, who experienced elevated rates of cancer mortality, had substantially decreased rates of non-cancer mortality [14,15]. It has been suggested that this healthy worker effect, including reduction of the incidence of diseases other than cancer, may be due to stimulation of the immune system by radiation [15,18]. This is an effect that has been well documented using animal systems [18]. It would also be consistent with observations reported by Sakamoto and his co-workers in Japan, that beneficial effects in the treatment of cancer have been achieved from repeated therapeutic whole-body and half-body doses of the order of mgy [19]. Laboratory experiments on the biological effects of radiation have shown that there are a variety of effects at the molecular and cellular levels, some of which are potentially harmful and some potentially beneficial. These effects include incorrectly repaired damage to DNA, which can lead to cancer [10,20]; induction or activation of cellular DNA repair capacity, additional to that which exists normally [4,13,18]; apoptosis, whereby cells that are unable adequately to repair their chromosomes are sensitised to die [4,18]. Any significant net effect on human health should be expected to vary from person to person. Mitchel and Boreham [4,18] have shown experimentally that low doses and dose rates have a much higher probability of being protective than harmful. This is not simply a matter of thresholds to carcinogenesis, although thresholds may exist. Most human cancers arise from DNA damage due to agents other than radiation. Hence, DNA repair systems exist primarily for damage other than radiation damage. If low doses of radiation enhance repair of any such damage, the net effect could be a reduction in overall risk, in spite of any small risk increment due to the radiation itself. Such an effect, sometimes called radiation hormesis, has been observed in cells from virtually all types of organisms, in whole plants and animal species other than humans, and in human cells [4,18]. Animal experiments tend to show that protective effects predominate up to about 100 mgy. Above this dose, the detrimental effects begin to show [18]. Natural background radiation is the main source of exposure for most people, and it is therefore a major potential source of information on the effects of radiation exposure. The dose rate from natural background radiation (including inhaled, ingested and external sources) ranges around the world from less than 1 to more than 50 msv per year in some places, e.g. up to 260 msv per year at Ramsar in Iran [21] and 70 msv per year in Kerala, India [22]. Lifetime doses from natural radiation range up to several thousand msv. Even at the highest levels of dose and dose
5 rate, there is no evidence of increased incidences of cancer or other adverse health effects. In fact, the reverse has been reported [23-25 and many other references]. This should not come as a surprise. Radiation hormesis should be expected because evolution has occurred in the presence of ionising radiation [26]. During the evolution of life on earth, natural background radiation has previously been substantially higher than it is today and it is a fundamental tenet of evolutionary biology that organisms adapt to their environment. Fitness measures, including health, longevity and resistance to diseases, should be maximal for organisms in the habitats in which they normally occur. With radiation being part of our normal environment on earth, it follows that fitness should be at its highest within the range of natural background radiation, viz: somewhere between (say) 1 and 50 msv per year. Levels of natural radiation tend to be enhanced in enclosed spaces, such as caves and buildings. Many studies have been conducted of the possible risk of lung cancer due to environmental radon which accumulates inside homes. The results range from negative to positive correlations. For example, Cohen [25] observed that the higher exposures to domestic radon correlated with the lower incidences of cancer (a negative correlation), whereas Lubin and Boice [27] have reported a positive correlation. The only conclusion that can be stated with any level of confidence is that the attribution of large numbers of lung cancer deaths to domestic radon (as claimed by some environmental protection agencies) is speculative. The epidemiology of lung cancer and radon is usually subject to the potential confounding factor of tobacco smoking, which is not fully understood. This was certainly a factor in a recent study of a large population in China, who have been exposed to very high levels of radon in underground dwellings [28]; also to air pollution from stoves used for cooking and heating. The data show that the incidence of lung cancer is elevated at the higher levels of radon, but they do not demonstrate a continuous correlation and would be consistent with a threshold in the relationship. THE LNT HYPOTHESIS The main reason for the belief that there are risks from low levels of radiation is that the ICRP recommends the use of the LNT hypothesis in the practice of radiation protection. Unfortunately, many people are now placing an entirely unwarranted level of confidence in the accuracy and validity of risks that are estimated using it. The LNT assumption is simple to apply and it is claimed by its advocates to be a reasonable and conservative approximation, even by those who acknowledge that it may not be correct at very low doses. Others 2 have criticised it as being seriously misleading in some applications. In June 2001, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) updated its own position statement on the health effects of low level radiation [5] to include the Position Statement "Radiation Risk in Perspective", issued by the Health Physics Society (HPS) in January It is now the position of both societies that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of the LNT hypothesis in the projection of the health effects of low level radiation. The ANS recommends that an independent, multidisciplinary group of reputable scientists should be 2 An extreme view expressed by some critics of LNT, unfortunately, is that advocates of LNT are being unscientific and even dishonest.
6 established to conduct an open scientific review of all data and analyses on this subject and that new, interdisciplinary research should be initiated on the health effects of low-level radiation. In the meantime, the ANS agrees with the HPS that quantitative estimation of health risks should not be made for individual doses less than 50 msv in one year, or less than 100 msv in a lifetime 3, in addition to background radiation. The treatment of risks in this dose range should be strictly qualitative, accentuating a range of hypothetical health outcomes with an emphasis on the likely possibility of zero adverse health effects. Mitchel and Boreham [4] have reported that no actual scientific data support the LNT approach at occupational and public exposure levels. They have tested the LNT hypothesis and found that it is not consistent with laboratory observations of the responses of plants and animals, and of human and animal cells, to low or chronic doses of beta, gamma or x-radiation. They have also concluded that the data indicate that the use of the LNT hypothesis and ALARA is not conservative, but may actually increase the overall risk of cancer. This is a possibility that the radiation protection profession cannot afford to ignore. RESOLVING THE CONTROVERSY Controversy about the health effects of low levels of ionising radiation, and the LNT hypothesis in particular, does not serve any legitimate purpose but it will not be going away until it is resolved. A major programme of work to investigate the potential for health benefits (hormesis) from exposure to low level radiation is therefore imperative. This matter cannot be ignored for ever. Mitchel and Boreham [4] appear to be making good progress in laboratory investigations of the biological mechanisms that might explain, and help to quantify, hormesis in human populations. However, more is needed. Most (if not all) significant epidemiological studies appear to be directed toward the investigation of harm, not hormesis. Funding and effort should be provided for more objectively based studies. In the meantime, the public must have adequate reassurance of safety, but it needs to be recognised that the assumption of LNT has had some unfortunate consequences, as outlined above in the introduction to this paper. Even if the possibility of radiation hormesis were to be completely set aside, none of these consequences should be seen as being in society s best interests. In other fields, risks are consciously accepted to derive benefits. It is widely recognised that most human activities (even being at home) involve risks, and that the dictionary concept of safety as being freedom from risk is not attainable. Nevertheless, when it comes to the uses of low level radiation and radioactive materials, zero (or extraordinarily low) risk tends to be sought by many. This paper therefore suggests a pragmatic way towards the perception and regulation of radiological risks, giving due cognisance to all the conflicting points of view, as follows: 1. It must surely be agreed by anyone who has studied this subject that a single acute dose up to 10 msv (50 msv for adults), or a total chronic dose rate up to at least 20 msv per year, 3 It would not be unreasonable to extend the latter figure to 1,000 msv in a lifetime.
7 causes no discernible harm 4 to humans 5. This is regardless of the source of exposure. However, 20 msv per year is well within the range of variations in natural background radiation around the world. Natural radiation is generally accepted as harmless and it causes no concern to the public. Hence, these levels of exposure can reasonably be described as safe. 2. The vast majority of the world s population is exposed to background dose rates that are significantly less than 10 msv per year, i.e. less than half the level described above as safe. In this environment, 10 msv per year (the other half of the safe rate) could reasonably be regarded as safe for sources which are subject to regulation. It would then be a matter for national authorities to decide how to regulate radiological risks in the areas where natural background radiation exceeds 10 msv per year, and whether to site nuclear installations in such areas. 3. It follows from 1 & 2 above that no regulatory action need be taken to avert exposure to dose rates less than 10 msv per year, from sources which are subject to regulation, or to an acute dose less than 10 msv provided the average rate over a number of years does not exceed 10 msv per year. These figures apply to all members of the population. They could be increased to 50 msv per year and 50 msv (acute dose) for application to radiation workers who are subject to health physics monitoring. CONCLUSIONS This paper leads to the proposal that no regulatory action need be taken to avert the exposure of any member of the general public to dose rates less than 10 msv per year, from sources which are subject to regulation; or an acute dose less than 10 msv from any such source, provided the average rate over (say) a 5-year period does not exceed 10 msv per year. These figures could be increased by a factor of five for application to radiation workers who are subject to health physics monitoring. This is not to say that risks to a particular individual would be zero from doses at these levels (although they are likely to be trivial, if not zero), or that these doses would necessarily be beneficial to a particular individual (although there is significant evidence that they might be). However, the biological effects (if they exist) are not such as to warrant action to avert or change them. This would be an entirely pragmatic approach to finding a way through the controversy over the biological effects of exposure to low levels of ionising radiation. It would not resolve the scientific issues in this controversy but it is consistent with scientific observations. The proposed dose levels, below which there would be no need for regulatory action, could arguably be increased or decreased marginally. However, a variation by more than a factor of 4 Harm as defined in paragraph 42 of reference [3]. 5 Such exposures may, in fact, be inducing a discernible adaptive response to radiation [10,21].
8 about two (up or down) would, in the author s opinion, reflect a concession to one or other of the extremes in this controversy. Even this small step toward reconciliation could only take place through the auspices of the radiation protection community. If our profession continues to maintain that radiation-induced risk must be assumed to be proportional to dose from zero, and regulated accordingly, it appears that there can be no resolution of the controversy. References [1] Graham, J., Higson, D.J. et al (1998), Low Doses of Ionising Radiation Incurred at Low Dose Rates. Report of the International Nuclear Societies Council s Task Group on Low Doses; presented at a Special Session of the ENC 98 World Nuclear Congress held in Nice, France, 25th October 1998; published by the European Nuclear Society in Worldwide Integrated View on Main Nuclear Energy Issues (October 1998) and reprinted in the Journal of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society, 16(1), (March 1999); summary report presented by D J Higson at the SOUTHPORT'99 Symposium of the British, French, Dutch and Swiss/German Societies for Radiological Protection in the UK, 16 June 1999 and reprinted in the Bulletin of the Canadian Nuclear Society, 21(1), (May 2000). [2] Higson, D. J. (2001), Are there Risks from Low Level Radiation? Regional Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association, Radiation Protection in Central Europe, organised by the Croatian Radiation Protection Association in Dubrovnik, Croatia, May [3] International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1990). [4] Mitchel, R.E.J. and Boreham, D.R. (2000), Radiation Protection in the World of Modern Radiobiology: Time for a New Approach. 10 th International Congress of IRPA; May 14-19, 2000; Hiroshima, Japan; PS-1-2, P-2a-87. [5] American Nuclear Society (2001), Health Effects Of Low-Level Radiation. Position Statement 41 on WebSite (for which an Acrobat Reader will be needed). [6] Higson, D.J. (2002), Resolving the Controversy on Risks from Low Levels of Radiation. The Nuclear Engineer, 43(5), September/October [7] United Nations Development Programme and UNICEF (2002), The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident. This report can be accessed at [8] Pierce, D.A. and Preston, D.L. (2000), Radiation-Related Cancer Risks at Low Doses among Atomic Bomb Survivors. Radiation Research 154, , [9] Wakeford, R. (2001), from a private communication.
9 [10] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2000), Report to the General Assembly, 6 June [11] Cardis, E., Gilbert, E.S. et al (1995), Effects of Low Doses and Low Dose Rates of External Ionizing Radiation: Cancer Mortality among Nuclear Industry Workers in Three Countries. Radiation Research, 142, , [12] Matanoski, G. (1991), Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation in Shipyard Workers. Final Report (471 pages). Report No. DOE DE-AC02-79 EV1005. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA (1991). [13] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1994), Adaptive Responses to Radiation in Cells and Organisms. Document A/AC.82/R.542, approved 11 March [14] Berrington, A., Darby, S.C., Weiss, H.A. and Doll, R. (2001), 100 Years of Observation on British Radiologists: Mortality from Cancer and other Causes The British Journal of Radiology, 74, , [15] Cameron, J. (2001), Is Radiation an Essential Trace Energy? Forum on Physics & Society of The American Physical Society, October 2001 (see also ) [16] Habib, R. (2002), Retrospective Cohort Study of Cancer Incidence and Mortality among Workers at Lucas Heights Science and Technology Centre. Doctoral thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia. [17] Higson, D.J., Healthy Radiation Workers. Radiation Protection in Australasia Journal of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society, 19 (1), 59-60, April [18] Mitchel, R.E.J. (2002), from a private communication. [19] Sakamoto, K., Myojin, M. et al (1997), Fundamental and Clinical Studies on Cancer Control with Total or Upper Half Body Irradiation. J. Jpn. Soc. Ther. Radiol. Oncol., 9, , [20] National Radiological Protection Board (1995), Risk of Radiation-induced Cancer at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes. Documents of the NRPB, 6(1), [21] Ghiassi-nejad, M., Mortazavi, S.M.J. et al (2002), Very High Background Radiation Areas of Ramsar, Iran: Preliminary Biological Studies. Health Physics, 82(1), 87-93, January [22] Krishnan Nair, M., Nambi, K.S.V. et al (1999), Population Study in the High Natural Background Radiation Area in Kerala, India. Radiation Research, 152, S145-S148 (1999). [23] Luckey, T.D. (1991), Radiation Hormesis. CRC Press. [24] Cohen, B.L. (1995), Test of the Linear No-threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay Products. Health Physics, 68, 157, 1995.
10 [25] Jagger, J. (1998), Natural Background Radiation and Cancer Death in Rocky Mountain States and Gulf Coast States. Health Physics, 75(4), 428, October [26] Parsons, P.A. (2000), Hormesis: an Adaptive Expectation with Emphasis on Ionizing Radiation. J. Appl. Toxicol., 20, , [27] Lubin, J.H. and Boice, J.D. (1997), Lung Cancer Risk from Residential Radon: Metaanalysis of Eight Epidemiological Studies. J. National Cancer Inst., 89 (1), 49-57, Jan.1, [28] Wang, Z., Lubin, J.H. et al (2002), Residential Radon and Lung Cancer Risk in a High-exposure Area of Gansu Province, China. American Journal of Epidemiology, 155 (6), , 2002.
THE AUSTRALASIAN RADIATION PROTECTION SOCIETY S POSITION STATEMENT ON RISKS FROM LOW LEVELS OF IONIZING RADIATION
Dose-Response: An International Journal Volume 5 Issue 4 NON-LINEAR RISK FROM LOW DOSE RADIATION EXPOSURE Article 8 12-2007 THE AUSTRALASIAN RADIATION PROTECTION SOCIETY S POSITION STATEMENT ON RISKS FROM
More informationRisks from Radon. Dr Donald J Higson 260 Glenmore Road, Paddington, NSW 2021, Australia
Risks from Radon Dr Donald J Higson 260 Glenmore Road, Paddington, NSW 2021, Australia Abstract: In its draft report Radiological Protection against Radon Exposure (October 2011), the ICRP has reduced
More informationCONTROLLABLE DOSE: A discussion on the control of individual doses from single sources. Roger H Clarke
CONTROLLABLE DOSE: A discussion on the control of individual doses from single sources Roger H Clarke (1 October 1998) OVERVIEW Contaminated land is an issue of considerable interest in many countries.
More informationRadiation doses and cancer incidence (excluding thyroid cancer) due to the Chernobyl accident
Radiation doses and cancer incidence (excluding thyroid cancer) due to the Chernobyl accident Eva Forssell-Aronsson Dept of Radiation Physics Inst of Clinical Sciences Sahlgrenska Academy University of
More informationSave Our Sievert! Ches Mason BHP Billiton Uranium, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA5000, Australia
Save Our Sievert! Ches Mason BHP Billiton Uranium, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA5000, Australia Abstract The protection quantity effective dose was devised by the International Commission on Radiological
More informationWhere does the estimate of 29,000 cancers come from? Based on Table 12D from BEIR VII, + risk estimates for 56,900,000 patients
BEIR VII: What It Does and Doesn t Say Michael K O Connor, Ph.D. Dept. of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Using BEIR VII report, estimated radiation-related incident cancers Estimated that 29,000 future cancers
More informationBEIR VII: Epidemiology and Models for Estimating Cancer Risk
National Cancer Institute U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health BEIR VII: Epidemiology and Models for Estimating Cancer Risk Ethel S. Gilbert National Cancer Institute
More informationThe Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT): Made to Be Tested, Made to Be Questioned. Richard C. Miller, PhD Associate Professor The University of Chicago
The Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT): Made to Be Tested, Made to Be Questioned Richard C. Miller, PhD Associate Professor The University of Chicago Regulatory Organizations NCRP (Nat l Council on Radiation
More informationCOMMENTARY ON USING LNT FOR RADIATION PROTECTION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Dose-Response, X:xxx xxx, 2010 Formerly Nonlinearity in Biology, Toxicology, and Medicine Copyright 2010 University of Massachusetts ISSN: 1559-3258 DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.10-003.Cuttler COMMENTARY
More informationRadiation Health Effects
Radiation Health Effects Elena Buglova Incident and Emergency Centre Department of Nuclear Safety and Security Content Historical background Primary target for cell damage Deterministic effects Stochastic
More informationArchives of Environmental & Occupational Health, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2006 Copyright 2007 Heldref Publications
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2006 Copyright 2007 Heldref Publications Background Radiation and Cancer Mortality in Bavaria: An Ecological Analysis Alfred Körblein, PhD;
More informationPutting Radiation Risks from NORM Into Perspective
Putting Radiation Risks from NORM Into Perspective Alan Fellman, Ph.D., C.H.P. March 16, 2016 1 Topics for Discussion Typical radiation levels at oil and gas facilities Radiological Health Risk perception
More informationAnnex X of Technical Volume 4 RADIATION AND HEALTH EFFECTS AND INFERRING RADIATION RISKS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI ACCIDENT
Annex X of Technical Volume 4 RADIATION AND HEALTH EFFECTS AND INFERRING RADIATION RISKS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI ACCIDENT Anxieties about the risk of harm from radiation are often out of proportion
More informationCancer Risk Factors in Ontario. Other Radiation
Cancer Risk Factors in Ontario Other Radiation OTHer radiation risk factor/ exposure Radon-222 and decay products X-radiation, gamma radiation Cancer The context where high risks were reported Magnitude
More informationHEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW LEVEL RADIATION: WHEN WILL WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE REALITY?
Dose-Response: An International Journal Volume 5 Issue 4 NON-LINEAR RISK FROM LOW DOSE RADIATION EXPOSURE Article 7 12-2007 HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW LEVEL RADIATION: WHEN WILL WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE REALITY?
More informationSources of Data of Stochastic Effects of Radiation. Michael K O Connor, Ph.D. Dept. of Radiology, Mayo Clinic
Sources of Data of Stochastic Effects of Radiation Michael K O Connor, Ph.D. Dept. of Radiology, Mayo Clinic Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) 2007 National Academy of Science National Research
More informationEpidemiologic Data on Low-Dose Cancer Risk
Epidemiologic Data on Low-Dose Cancer Risk International Radiation Protection Association Congress Glasgow, Scotland, May 2012 Roy Shore, K Ozasa, W-L Hsu, H Sugiyama, K Furukawa Radiation Effects Research
More informationBiological Effects of Radiation KJ350.
Biological Effects of Radiation KJ350 deborah.oughton@nmbu.no 2111 2005 Radiation Biology Interaction of radiation with biological material Doses (Gy, Sv) and effects Scientific Controversy Radiation Protection
More informationEveryday Radiation. David D. Dixon HDT Rally Hutchinson, KS October 15, 2014
Everyday Radiation David D. Dixon HDT Rally Hutchinson, KS October 15, 2014 Overview Types of radiation and radiation damage Sources of radiation Naturally Occurring Medical Energy Industry Other Man-Made
More informationGUIDELINES ON IONISING RADIATION DOSE LIMITS AND ANNUAL LIMITS ON INTAKE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
RADIATION PROTECTION AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE (RPAZ) RADIATION PROTECTION ACT [CHAPTER 15:15] GUIDELINES ON IONISING RADIATION DOSE LIMITS AND ANNUAL LIMITS ON INTAKE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL Compiled by Radiation
More informationEpidemiologic Studies. The Carcinogenic Effects of Radiation: Experience from Recent Epidemiologic Studies. Types of Epidemiologic Studies
Division Of Cancer Epidemiology And Genetics Radiation Epidemiology Branch The Carcinogenic Effects of Radiation: Experience from Recent Epidemiologic Studies Elaine Ron Columbia University Radiation Course
More informationEstimating Risk of Low Radiation Doses (from AAPM 2013) María Marteinsdóttir Nordic Trauma,
Estimating Risk of Low Radiation Doses (from AAPM 2013) María Marteinsdóttir Nordic Trauma, 20140521 Stochastic effects Linear No Threshold - LNT-model Uncertain Material produced by William R. Hendee
More informationIs a Linear Extrapolation of Cancer Risks to Very Low Doses Justified?
Is a Linear Extrapolation of Cancer Risks to Very Low Doses Justified? May 3, 2000 Radiation Research Society Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Daniel J. Strom Risk Analysis & Health Protection Richland, Washington
More informationThe Epidemiology of Leukaemia and other Cancers in Childhood after Exposure to Ionising Radiation
IMPORTANT The following is a slide show presentation, presented by Dr. Richard Wakeford at the CHILDREN with LEUKAEMIA International Scientific Conference in London, September 2004. As such it is strictly
More informationProtecting the Health of Uranium Mine Workers: The Situation from the 1930s to the Present Day
Protecting the Health of Uranium Mine Workers: The Situation from the 1930s to the Present Day nuclearsafety.gc.ca September 16, 2014 Main Points of the Presentation The s (CNSC) role in protecting miners
More informationnuclear science and technology
EUROPEAN COMMISSION nuclear science and technology Gene-radiation interactions: their influence on pre-menopausal breast cancer risk after Chernobyl (GENE-RAD-INTERACT) Contract N o FIGH-CT2002-00215 Final
More informationSummary of ICRP Recommendations on Radon
ICRP ref 4836-9756-8598 January 26, 2018 Summary of ICRP Recommendations on Radon Radon is a natural part of the air we breathe. Radon levels outdoors are generally very low, but can be considerably higher
More informationErnest Rutherford:
November 1895: Roentgen discovers x rays February 1896: Becquerel discovers radioactivity Ernest Rutherford 1898-99 Ernest Rutherford: 1898-99 The Electromagnetic Spectrum Interaction of Charged Particles
More informationCore Concepts in Radiation Exposure 4/10/2015. Ionizing Radiation, Cancer, and. James Seward, MD MPP
Ionizing Radiation, Cancer, and Causation James P. Seward, MD MPP FACOEM Clinical Professor of Medicine, UCSF American Occupational Health Conf May 4, 2015 Ionizing Radiation, Cancer, and Causation James
More informationJacques LOCHARD Vice-chair of ICRP Director of CEPN France
Jacques LOCHARD Vice-chair of ICRP Director of CEPN France First Thomas S. Tenforde Topical Lecture Fifty-First NCRP Annual Meeting, Bethesda, Maryland, USA 17 March 2015 This presentation has neither
More informationSupplementary Information. Renseignements supplémentaires. Exposé oral. Oral Presentation. Presentation from Jerry Cuttler
CMD 18-H6.35A File / dossier: 6.01.07 Date: 2018-05-22 Edocs: 5541801 Supplementary Information Oral Presentation Presentation from Jerry Cuttler Renseignements supplémentaires Exposé oral Présentation
More informationDownloaded From: on 1/15/2019 Terms of Use:
Response to Comments on Estimating Risks of Low Radiation Doses A Critical Review of the BEIR VII Report and Its Use of the Linear No- Threshold (LNT) Hypothesis Authors: Michael K. O'Connor, and Edward
More informationIONIZING RADIATION, HEALTH EFFECTS AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES
May 2011 IONIZING RADIATION, HEALTH EFFECTS AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES KEY FACTS Ionizing radiation is a type of energy released by atoms in the form of electromagnetic waves or particles. People are exposed
More informationCANADIAN PERSPECTIVE ON EYE DOSE & INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED TO: Presented To:
CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE ON EYE DOSE & INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED TO: Presented To: ISOE ALARA SYMPOSIUM HYATT REGENCY PIER 66 FORT LAUDERDALE 11 JANUARY 2016 Douglas Chambers Ph.D. Arcadis Canada
More informationEveryday Radiation. David D. Dixon HDT Rally Hutchinson, KS October 13, 2015
Everyday Radiation David D. Dixon HDT Rally Hutchinson, KS October 13, 2015 Overview Nuclear Energy Industry Outlook Types of radiation and radiation damage Sources of radiation Naturally Occurring Medical
More informationLOW DOSES OF RADIATION REDUCE RISK IN VIVO
Dose-Response: An International Journal Volume 5 Issue 1 ADAPTIVE BIOLOGICAL RESPONSES FOLLOWING EXPOSURES TO IONIZING RADIATION Article 4 3-2007 LOW DOSES OF RADIATION REDUCE RISK IN VIVO REJ Mitchel
More informationTo All Concerned in Overseas
To All Concerned in Overseas Remarks from the chairperson of Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) - About the assessment of the effect of food on health of radioactive nuclides in foods 1. On October
More informationIndoor Radon A public health perspective
Indoor Radon A public health perspective Dr E. van Deventer Radiation Programme Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health Geneva, Switzerland Outline Introduction Health
More informationUnderstanding radiation-induced cancer risks at radiological doses
Understanding radiation-induced cancer risks at radiological doses David J. Brenner Center for Radiological Research Columbia University Medical Center New York, NY djb3@columbia.edu Let s distinguish
More informationFUNDAMENTAL SAFETY OVERVIEW VOLUME 2: DESIGN AND SAFETY CHAPTER S: RISK REDUCTION CATEGORIES 3. RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS
PAGE : 1 / 10 3. RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS 3.1. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 3.1.1. Safety objectives The safety approach for EPR reactors is deterministic, complemented by probabilistic analyses,
More informationCONTENTS NOTE TO THE READER...1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS...3
CONTENTS NOTE TO THE READER...1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS...3 PREAMBLE...9 Background...9 Objective and Scope...9 Selection of Topics for Monographs...10 Data for Monographs...11 The Working Group...11 Working
More informationIonizing Radiation. Alpha Particles CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1 Ionizing Radiation Ionizing radiation is radiation that has sufficient energy to remove electrons from atoms. In this document, it will be referred to simply as radiation. One source of radiation
More informationA risk assessment of the potential impacts of radon, terrestrial gamma and cosmic rays on childhood leukaemia in France
A risk assessment of the potential impacts of radon, terrestrial gamma and cosmic rays on childhood leukaemia in France Olivier LAURENT 1, Sophie ANCELET 1, Géraldine IELSCH², Denis HEMON 3,4, Jacqueline
More informationRisk factors for radiogenic cancer: a comparison of factors derived from the Hanford survey with those
British Journal of Industrial Medicine 1985;42: 341-345 Risk factors for radiogenic cancer: a comparison of factors derived from the Hanford survey with those recommended by the ICRP K F BAVERSTOCK AND
More informationADVICE ON SETTING A REFERENCE LEVEL FOR RADON CONCENTRATIONS IN LONG- STAY INSTITUTIONS
ADVICE ON SETTING A REFERENCE LEVEL FOR RADON CONCENTRATIONS IN LONG- STAY INSTITUTIONS Advice on setting a reference level for a radon concentrations in long-stay institutions Radiological Protection
More informationThe health risks of exposure to internal radiation. Korea National Assembly Seoul 22 nd August 2015
The health risks of exposure to internal radiation Korea National Assembly Seoul 22 nd August 2015 Christopher Busby Green Audit UK/ Environmental Research SIA, Riga, Latvia Scientific Secretary: European
More informationDOWNLOAD OR READ : IONIZING RADIATION EFFECTS IN ELECTRONICS FROM MEMORIES TO IMAGERS DEVICES CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS BOOK 50 PDF EBOOK EPUB MOBI
DOWNLOAD OR READ : IONIZING RADIATION EFFECTS IN ELECTRONICS FROM MEMORIES TO IMAGERS DEVICES CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS BOOK 50 PDF EBOOK EPUB MOBI Page 1 Page 2 systems book 50 ionizing radiation effects in
More informationUnderstanding Radiation and Its Effects
Understanding Radiation and Its Effects Prepared by Brooke Buddemeier, CHP University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Presented by Jeff Tappen Desert Research Institute 1 Radiation
More informationRadiation in Everyday Life
Image not found Rincón http://www.rinconeducativo.org/sites/default/files/logo.jpg Educativo Published on Rincón Educativo (http://www.rinconeducativo.org) Inicio > Radiation in Everyday Life Recursos
More informationExposure to Background Radiation In Australia
AU9816851 Exposure to Background Radiation In Australia S.B.SOLOMON, Australian Radiation Laboratory, Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, Victoria, 3085 SUMMARY The average effective dose received by the Australian
More informationSpace Radiation Risks for Long. Duration Missions Edward Semones
Space Radiation Risks for Long Duration Missions Edward Semones Radiation Health Officer Space Life Sciences Directorate Johnson Space Center Presented to the American Astronautical Society November 16,
More informationAn Open Letter To IAEA
An Open Letter To IAEA Exposure to Low Level of Radiation Research Group Citizen Science Initiative Japan (CSIJ) 3-1-1 Sendagi, Bunkyo-ku P.O.BOX 113-0022 Tokyo, Japan 22 February 2016 Yukiya Amano Director
More informationRulemaking1CEm Resource
Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:42 PM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource Subject: Comment on PRM-20-28, 20-29 & 20-30 Attachments: EPA comments.pdf
More informationWhat is the Appropriate Radiation Level for Evacuations? J. M. Cuttler Cuttler & Associates Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
What is the Appropriate Radiation Level for Evacuations? J. M. Cuttler jerrycuttler@rogers.com Cuttler & Associates Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Abstract This commentary reviews the international
More informationLINEAR VERSUS NON-LINEAR: A PERSPECTIVE FROM HEALTH PHYSICS AND RADIOBIOLOGY
LINEAR VERSUS NON-LINEAR: A PERSPECTIVE FROM HEALTH PHYSICS AND RADIOBIOLOGY N.E. Gentner and R.V. Osborne Health & Environmental Sciences Division, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Chalk River, Ontario
More informationA Simple Model for Establishing Exemption Limits
A Simple Model for Establishing Exemption Limits S. Baechler 1, A. Aroua 1, J.F. Valley 1, W. Zeller 2 1 University Institute of Applied Radiation Physics, Grand-Pré 1, CH-1007 Lausanne, Switzerland E-mail:
More informationHiroshima / Fukushima: Gender Matters in the Atomic Age
Hiroshima / Fukushima: Gender Matters in the Atomic Age Mary Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) www.nirs.org / maryo@nirs.org Presentation posted: http://tinyurl.com/olson2016 Original
More informationFor IACRS. May 13, Geneva. Christopher Clement ICRP Scientific Secretary
For IACRS May 13, 2011 -- Geneva Christopher Clement ICRP Scientific Secretary sci.sec@icrp.org Current efforts Fukushima Tissue Reactions ICRP 2011 Meeting & Symposium 2 Publication 113: Education and
More informationCANCER AND LOW DOSE RESPONSES IN VIVO: IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION
CANCER AND LOW DOSE RESPONSES IN VIVO: IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION Ron Mitchel Radiation Biology and Health Physics Branch Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River,
More informationAnnex V of Technical Volume 4 UNSCEAR ASSESSMENT OF THE DOSE TO THE PUBLIC
Annex V of Technical Volume 4 UNSCEAR ASSESSMENT OF THE DOSE TO THE PUBLIC V 1. UNSCEAR ASSESSMENT OF EXTERNAL EXPOSURE V 1.1. External exposure during passage of the plume There were not enough environmental
More informationProtection action levels for radionuclides in foodstuffs in the context of an emergency, based on Health Canada guidance.
DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY PROJECT JOINT REVIEW PANEL File: 2.05 e-doc: 4204629 UNDERTAKING RESPONSE No. 30 by the Canadian Nuclear (CNSC) staff UNDERTAKING: Protection action levels for radionuclides in
More informationICRP: What It Does and Why Dr Jack Valentin
ICRP: What It Does and Why Dr Jack Valentin Scientific Secretary, ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP: Who, why, what? The 2007 Recommendations Justification (political) optimisation
More informationThreshold doses and circulatory disease risks
Threshold doses and circulatory disease risks J.H. Hendry Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, Christie Hospital, Manchester M20 4BX, UK; e-mail: jhendry2002uk@yahoo.com Abstract Tissue reactions
More informationICRP Recommendations Evolution or Revolution? John R Cooper Main Commission
ICRP Recommendations Evolution or Revolution? John R Cooper Main Commission 3 September 2009 ICRP Recommendations 1. Reasons for new Recommendations 2. Summary of health risks 3. Summary of changes to
More informationU.S. Low Dose Radiation Research Program
U.S. Low Dose Radiation Research Program Update November 2010 ISCORS NF Metting, ScD, Program Manager Office of Science Office of Biological and Environmental Research The Department of Energy Office of
More informationProgress in understanding radon risk
Progress in understanding radon risk D LAURIER Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) Fontenay-aux-Roses, France EU Scientific Seminar 2010 "Issues with internal emitters Luxembourg,
More informationRERF s Views on Residual Radiation 8 December 2012 Radiation Effects Research Foundation. Introduction
RERF s Views on Residual Radiation 8 December 2012 Radiation Effects Research Foundation Introduction Analyses of radiation doses from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that have been
More informationSocial impacts induced by radiation risk in Fukushima
Social impacts induced by radiation risk in Fukushima Takehiko Murayama, PhD Department of Environmental Science and Technology Tokyo Institute of Technology e-mail: murayama.t.ac@m.titech.ac.jp ABSTRACT
More informationRecommendations. Background
Recommendations The Fifth International Expert Symposium in Fukushima on Radiation and Health: Chernobyl+30, Fukushima+5: Lessons and Solutions for Fukushima s Thyroid Questions Background Following the
More informationTHE OTHER REPORT ON CHERNOBYL (TORCH)
THE OTHER REPORT ON CHERNOBYL (TORCH) AN INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 20 YEARS AFTER THE NUCLEAR DISASTER PROVIDING CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A RECENT REPORT BY THE
More informationRADIATION RISK ASSESSMENT
RADIATION RISK ASSESSMENT EXPOSURE and TOXITY ASSESSMENT Osipova Nina, associated professor, PhD in chemistry, Matveenko Irina, Associate professor, PhD in philology TOMSK -2013 The contents 1.What is
More informationRadiation related cancer risk & benefit/risk assessment for screening procedures
WHO Workshop on Justification of CT for IHA 15-17 Oct 2014 Radiation related cancer risk & benefit/risk assessment for screening procedures Elke A. Nekolla BfS Federal Office for Radiation Protection Radiation
More informationUNSCEAR Recent and Future Programme of Work. Emil Bédi
UNSCEAR Recent and Future Programme of Work Emil Bédi 5th MELODI Workshop Brussels, 8 October 2013 Recently published documents 2012: "Biological mechanisms of radiation actions at low doses. A white paper
More informationRADON RISK IN URANIUM MINING AND ICRP
Submitted to 13 th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association Glasgow, Scotland, 13-18 May 2012 RADON RISK IN URANIUM MINING AND ICRP D. Chambers*, R. Stager* and N. Harley**
More informationHEALTH P H Y S I C S SOCIETY
HEALTH P H Y S I C S SOCIETY Specialists in Radiation Safety May 15, 2017 Office of Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Stop: Washington, DC20555 0001. Nancy P. Kirner, CHP Scientific
More informationRadiation Protection Dosimetry (2012), Vol. 152, No. 1 3, pp Advance Access publication 8 August 2012
Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2012), Vol. 152, No. 1 3, pp. 9 13 Advance Access publication 8 August 2012 doi:10.1093/rpd/ncs147 CANADIAN POPULATION RISK OF RADON INDUCED LUNG CANCER: A RE-ASSESSMENT
More informationLeukemia: Lessons from the Japanese Experience
Leukemia: Lessons from the Japanese Experience STUART C. FINCH Cooper Hospital, Camden, New Jersey, USA Key Words. Leukemia. Japan Life Span Study Atomic bomb. Radiation ABSTRACT Probably more has been
More informationMaximum Exposure Guideline. Radon in Drinking Water
Maximum Exposure Guideline for Radon in Drinking Water CAS Registry Number: 10043-92-2 October 2, 2006 Environmental & Occupational Health Program Division of Environmental Health Maine Center for Disease
More informationChanges in International Standards (ICRP) and Potential Implications
Changes in International Standards (ICRP) and Potential Implications Overview Who is the ICRP? Brief Sojourn Epidemiology Studies vs. Dosimetric Modelling What does the ICRP say about radon? What is the
More informationLeukaemia Among Uranium Miners Late Effects of Exposure to Uranium Dust. L. Tomášek 1, A. Heribanová 2
Leukaemia Among Uranium Miners Late Effects of Exposure to Uranium Dust L. Tomášek 1, A. Heribanová 2 1 National Radiation Protection Institute, Prague, Šrobárova 48, Czech Republic E-mail: ladislav.tomasek@suro.cz
More informationNon-Targeted Effects. Break out Session 1 H.Métivier Rapporteur
Non-Targeted Effects Break out Session 1 H.Métivier Rapporteur Non-Targeted Effects The group discussed the non-targeted effects and their potential impacts on RP system. However, after a fruitful and
More informationROUND TABLE 1: Health risk management Health examinations in different workplaces
ROUND TABLE 1: Health risk management Health examinations in different workplaces Dr María del Rosario Pérez Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health International Conference
More informationNuclear Radiation Today
CHAPTER 10 13 SECTION Nuclear Changes Nuclear Radiation Today KEY IDEAS As you read this section, keep these questions in mind: Where are some common sources of radiation? What are some beneficial uses
More informationQUANTIFICATION OF THE RISK-REFLECTING STOCHASTIC AND DETERMINISTIC RADIATION EFFECTS
RAD Conference Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 104 108, 2017 www.rad-proceedings.org QUANTIFICATION OF THE RISK-REFLECTING STOCHASTIC AND DETERMINISTIC RADIATION EFFECTS Jozef Sabol *, Bedřich Šesták Crisis Department,
More informationWhat is the Situation Regarding Low Dose and Low Dose-Rate Ionizing Radiation in the USA? William F. Morgan, Ph.D., D.Sc
What is the Situation Regarding Low Dose and Low Dose-Rate Ionizing Radiation in the USA? William F. Morgan, Ph.D., D.Sc Biological Sciences Division Pacific Northwest National Laboratory USA wfmorgan@pnnl.gov
More informationHealth Physics and the Linear No-Threshold Model
Health Physics and the Linear No-Threshold Model Understanding Radiation and Its Effects John Baunach Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN What is health physics? Outline What organizational bodies govern
More informationPOLONIUM IN CIGARETTES: A MAJOR SOURCE OF RADIATION EXPOSURE. NC-VA CHAPTER MEETING New Bern, NC Dade W. Moeller March 12, 2009
POLONIUM IN CIGARETTES: A MAJOR SOURCE OF RADIATION EXPOSURE NC-VA CHAPTER MEETING New Bern, NC Dade W. Moeller March 12, 2009 1 ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM The Earth Contains Uranium and Radium Which Decay
More informationUnited Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation ATTACHMENT D-1 ESTIMATION OF THE POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTION OF INTAKES OF SHORT-LIVED RADIONUCLIDES TO EFFECTIVE DOSE AND ABSORBED DOSES
More informationCurrent and Planned NCRP Activities
Current and Planned NCRP Activities David A. Schauer, Executive Director National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Bethesda, Maryland Presentation at 2008 Mid-Atlantic States Radiation
More informationGenome Instability is Breathtaking
Genome Instability is Breathtaking Effects of Alpha Radiation exposure on DNA at a molecular level and consequences to cell health Dr. Aaron Goodarzi A.Goodarzi@ucalgary.ca Radiation what do you think
More informationIonizing Radiation. Michael J. Vala, CHP. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Ionizing Radiation Michael J. Vala, CHP Bristol-Myers Squibb michael.vala@bms.com 732-227-5096 2013 American Industrial Hygiene Association, New Jersey Section, Inc. Course Objectives At the end of this
More information1. The Accident of Chernobyl Unit 4 of 1,000 MWe Graphite-Moderated Boiling Water Pressure Tube Reactor in 1986
April 12, 2011 The Lesson learned from the Chernobyl Accident and the Data from Atomic Bomb Survivors For Understanding the Fukushima Daiichi Accident and the Robustness of the Human Body to Ionizing Radiation
More informationThe activity. Suggested Answers
Teacher notes Introduction This activity encourages students to consider the principles of radiation protection and how they might apply in the nuclear industry and in medicine. They discuss and answer
More informationEstimates of Risks LONG-TERM LOW DOSE EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION
Estimates of Risks LONG-TERM LOW DOSE EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION Low Level Radiation Exposure Single exposure of 10 rad or less Larger exposures delivered over periods of days or longer (low dose
More informationTraining Course on Medical Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency Pre- Test - BASIC
Training Course on Medical Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency Pre- Test - BASIC Name Date. (dd/mm/yyyy) Circle the correct answer(s). 1. Delayed effects of radiation exposure
More informationC H A M B E R O F COMME R C E O F T H E U N ITED STATES OF AME R ICA. November 19, 2015
C H A M B E R O F COMME R C E O F T H E U N ITED STATES OF AME R ICA W I L L I A M L. K O V A C S S E N I O R V I C E P R E S I D E N T E N V I R O N M E N T, T E C H N O L O G Y & R E G U L A T O R Y
More informationRADON LEVELS IN DWELLINGS
RADON LEVELS IN DWELLINGS FACT SHEET 4.6 December 2009 CODE: RPG4_Rad_Ex1 Estimated annual mean of radon levels in dwellings and proportion of dwellings with levels above 200 Bq.m -3 and 400 Bq.m -3 This
More informationTESTIMONY OF John D. Boice, Jr., Sc.D.
TESTIMONY OF John D. Boice, Jr., Sc.D. BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY'S ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES HEARING ON NUCLEAR ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT
More informationQ&A: Health effects of radiation exposure
Page 1 of 10 HEALTH 30 March 2011 Last updated at 08:38 ET Q&A: Health effects of radiation exposure By Richard Warry BBC News Concern remains over the potential effect on human health from radiation leaks
More informationVice-Chair of ICRP. First European Workshop on the Ethical Dimensions of the Radiological Protection System Milan, Italy December 2013
Jacques LOCHARD Vice-Chair of ICRP First European Workshop on the Ethical Dimensions of the Radiological Protection System Milan, Italy 16-18 December 2013 This presentation has neither been approved nor
More information