Health physics最新文献

{"title":"Science-informed Policy Making for Protecting People and the Environment from Radiation.","authors":"David Borrego, Jonathan S Nagata, Michael A Boyd, Sara D DeCair, Lauren R Matakas, Ellen W Wang, David J Pawel, Armin J Ansari","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001831","url":null,"abstract":"The process to arrive at the radiation protection practices of today to protect workers, patients, and the public, including sensitive populations, has been a long and deliberative one. This paper presents an overview of the US Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA) responsibility in protecting human health and the environment from unnecessary exposure to radiation. The origins of this responsibility can be traced back to early efforts, a century ago, to protect workers from x rays and radium. The system of radiation protection we employ today is robust and informed by the latest scientific consensus. It has helped reduce or eliminate unnecessary exposures to workers, patients, and the public while enabling the safe and beneficial uses of radiation and radioactive material in diverse areas such as energy, medicine, research, and space exploration. Periodic reviews and analyses of research on health effects of radiation by scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the International Commission on Radiological Protection continue to inform radiation protection practices while new scientific information is gathered. As a public health agency, US EPA is keenly interested in research findings that can better elucidate the effects of exposure to low doses and low dose rates of radiation as applicable to protection of diverse populations from various sources of exposure. Professional organizations such as the Health Physics Society can provide radiation protection practitioners with continuing education programs on the state of the science and describe the key underpinnings of the system of radiological protection. Such efforts will help equip and prepare radiation protection professionals to more effectively communicate radiation health information with their stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140568790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Society and Nuclear Energy: What Is the Role for Radiological Protection?","authors":"Wade Allison","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001795","url":null,"abstract":"The harm that society expects from ionizing radiation does not match experience. Evidently there is some basic error in this assumption. A reconsideration based on scientific principles shows how simple misunderstandings have exaggerated dangers. The consequences for society are far-reaching. The immediate impact of ionizing radiation on living tissue is destructive. However, this oxidative damage is similar to that produced during normal metabolic activity where the subsequent biological reaction is not only protective but also stimulates enhanced protection. This adaptation means that the response to oxidative damage depends on past experience. Similarly, social reaction to a radiological accident depends on the regulations and attitudes generated by the perception of previous instances. These shape whether nuclear technology and ionizing radiation are viewed as beneficial or as matters to avoid. Evidence of the spurious damage to society caused by such persistent fear in the second half of the 20th century suggests that these laws and attitudes should be rebased on evidence. The three stages of radiological impact-the initial physical damage, the subsequent biological response, and the personal and social reaction-call on quite different logic and understanding. When these are confused, they lead to regulations and public policy decisions that are often inept, dangerous, and expensive. One example is when the mathematical rigor of physics, appropriate to the immediate impact, is misapplied to the adaptive behavior of biology. Another, the tortured historical reputation of nuclear technology, is misinterpreted as justifying a radiological protection policy of extreme caution.Specialized education and closed groups of experts tend to lock in interdisciplinary misperceptions. In the case of nuclear technology, the resulting lack of independent political confidence endangers the adoption of nuclear power as the replacement for fossil fuels. In the long term, nuclear energy is the only viable source of large-scale primary energy, but this requires a re-working of public understanding.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"203 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140568905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Revised System of Radiological Protection Is Needed.","authors":"Bobby R Scott","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001791","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001791","url":null,"abstract":"The system of radiological protection has been based on linear no-threshold theory and related dose-response models for health detriment (in part related to cancer induction) by ionizing radiation exposure for almost 70 y. The indicated system unintentionally promotes radiation phobia, which has harmed many in relationship to the Fukushima nuclear accident evacuations and led to some abortions following the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Linear no-threshold model users (mainly epidemiologists) imply that they can reliably assess the cancer excess relative risk (likely none) associated with tens or hundreds of nanogray (nGy) radiation doses to an organ (e.g., bone marrow); for 1,000 nGy, the excess relative risk is 1,000 times larger than that for 1 nGy. They are currently permitted this unscientific view (ignoring evolution-related natural defenses) because of the misinforming procedures used in data analyses of which many radiation experts are not aware. One such procedure is the intentional and unscientific vanishing of the excess relative risk uncertainty as radiation dose decreases toward assigned dose zero (for natural background radiation exposure). The main focus of this forum article is on correcting the serious error of discarding risk uncertainty and the impact of the correction. The result is that the last defense of the current system of radiological protection relying on linear no-threshold theory (i.e., epidemiologic studies implied findings of harm from very low doses) goes away. A revised system is therefore needed.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140568716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protracted Exposure to a Sub-background Radiation Environment Negatively Impacts the Anhydrobiotic Recovery of Desiccated Yeast Sentinels.","authors":"Michel R Lapointe, Taylor Laframboise, Jake Pirkkanen, T C Tai, Simon J Lees, Sergio R Santa Maria, Sujeenthar Tharmalingam, Douglas R Boreham, Christopher Thome","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001804","url":null,"abstract":"Experiments that examine the impacts of subnatural background radiation exposure provide a unique approach to studying the biological effects of low-dose radiation. These experiments often need to be conducted in deep underground laboratories in order to filter surface-level cosmic radiation. This presents some logistical challenges in experimental design and necessitates a model organism with minimal maintenance. As such, desiccated yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) is an ideal model system for these investigations. This study aimed to determine the impact of prolonged sub-background radiation exposure in anhydrobiotic (desiccated) yeast at SNOLAB in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Two yeast strains were used: a normal wild type and an isogenic recombinational repair-deficient rad51 knockout strain (rad51Δ). Desiccated yeast samples were stored in the normal background surface control laboratory (68.0 nGy h-1) and in the sub-background environment within SNOLAB (10.1 nGy h-1) for up to 48 wk. Post-rehydration survival, growth rate, and metabolic activity were assessed at multiple time points. Survival in the sub-background environment was significantly reduced by a factor of 1.39 and 2.67 in the wild type and rad51∆ strains, respectively. Post-rehydration metabolic activity measured via alamarBlue reduction remained unchanged in the wild type strain but was 26% lower in the sub-background rad51∆ strain. These results demonstrate that removing natural background radiation negatively impacts the survival and metabolism of desiccated yeast, highlighting the potential importance of natural radiation exposure in maintaining homeostasis of living organisms.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140568794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"If You Torture Your Data Long Enough, It Will Confess to Anything: On the Epidemiological Basis of the LNT Model.","authors":"Yehoshua Socol","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001775","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001775","url":null,"abstract":"This note deals with epidemiological data interpretation supporting the linear no-threshold model, as opposed to emerging evidence of adaptive response and hormesis from molecular biology in vitro and animal models. Particularly, the US-Japan Radiation Effects Research Foundation's lifespan study of atomic bomb survivors is scrutinized. We stress the years-long lag of the data processing after data gathering and evolving statistical models and methodologies across publications. The necessity of cautious interpretation of radiation epidemiology results is emphasized.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"255 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140568705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Impact of the Linear No-threshold Hypothesis on Litigation.","authors":"Alan Fellman, Dave Wiedis","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001799","url":null,"abstract":"As the basis of radiation safety practice and regulations worldwide, the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis exerts enormous influence throughout society. This includes our judicial system, where frivolous lawsuits are filed alleging radiation-induced health effects caused by negligent companies who subject unwitting victims to enormous financial and physical harm. Typically, despite the lack of any supporting scientific basis, these cases result in enormous costs to organizations, insurance companies, and consumers.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"255 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140568707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Replace the Linear No-threshold Model with a Risk-informed Targeted Approach to Radiation Protection.","authors":"Rodican P Reed","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001803","url":null,"abstract":"The linear no-threshold (LNT) model may be useful as a simple basis for developing radiation protection regulations and standards, but it bears little resemblance to scientific reality and is probably overly conservative at low doses and low dose rates. This paper is an appeal for a broader view of radiation protection that involves more than just optimization of radiation dose. It is suggested that the LNT model should be replaced with a risk-informed, targeted approach to limitation of overall risks, which include radiation and other types of risks and accidents/incidents. The focus should be on protection of the individual. Limitation of overall risk does not necessarily always equate to minimization of individual or collective doses, but in some cases it might. Instead, risk assessment (hazards analysis) should be performed for each facility/and or specific job or operation (straightforward for specialized work such as radiography), and this should guide how limited resources are used to protect workers and the public. A graded approach could be used to prioritize the most significant risks and identify exposure scenarios that are unlikely or non-existent. The dose limits would then represent an acceptable level of risk, below which no further reduction in dose would be needed. Less resources should be spent on ALARA and tracking small individual and collective doses. Present dose limits are thought to be conservative and should suffice in general. Two exceptions are possibly the need for a lower (lifetime) dose limit for lens of the eye for astronauts and raising the public limit to 5 mSv y-1 from 1 mSv y-1. This would harmonize the public limit with the current limit for the embryo fetus of the declared pregnant worker. Eight case studies are presented that emphasize how diverse and complex radiation risks can be, and in some cases, chemical and industrial risks outweigh radiation risks. More focus is needed on prevention of accidents and incidents involving a variety of types of risks. A targeted approach is needed, commitments should be complied with until they are changed or exemptions are granted. No criticism of regulators or nuclear industry personnel is intended here. Protection of workers and the public is everyone's goal. The question is how best to accomplish that.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140568718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Review of Recent Low-dose Research and Recommendations for Moving Forward.","authors":"Charles Wilson, Grace G Adams, Pooja Patel, Kiran Windham, Colby Ennis, Emily Caffrey","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001808","url":null,"abstract":"The linear no-threshold (LNT) model has been the regulatory \"law of the land\" for decades. Despite the long-standing use of LNT, there is significant ongoing scientific disagreement on the applicability of LNT to low-dose radiation risk. A review of the low-dose risk literature of the last 10 y does not provide a clear answer, but rather the body of literature seems to be split between LNT, non-linear risk functions (e.g., supra- or sub-linear), and hormetic models. Furthermore, recent studies have started to explore whether radiation can play a role in the development of several non-cancer effects, such as heart disease, Parkinson's disease, and diabetes, the mechanisms of which are still being explored. Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence to replace LNT as the regulatory model despite the fact that it contributes to public radiophobia, unpreparedness in radiation emergency response, and extreme cleanup costs both following radiological or nuclear incidents and for routine decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Rather, additional research is needed to further understand the implications of low doses of radiation. The authors present an approach to meaningfully contribute to the science of low-dose research that incorporates machine learning and Edisonian approaches to data analysis.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"125 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140568796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Influence of the Method of Calculating the Effective Atomic Number on the Estimate of Fluorescence Yield for Metal Alloys of Biomedical Interest.","authors":"Caroline V Garcia, Divanizia N Souza, Edson R Andrade","doi":"10.1097/HP.0000000000001789","DOIUrl":"10.1097/HP.0000000000001789","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>This study evaluates the influence of the method used to calculate the effective atomic number (Z eff ) on the estimate of secondary radiation yielded under kilovoltage x-ray beams by metal alloys with a wide range of biomedical applications. Two methods for calculating Z eff (referred to here as M 1 and M 2 ) are considered, and six metallic alloys are investigated: Ti-6Al-4 V, Co-Cr-Mo, Ni-Cr-Ti, Ni-Cr, Co-Cr-Mo-W, and Ag 3 Sn-Hg (amalgam). The results indicate significant differences in the estimates of fluorescence yield depending on the method used to estimate Z eff for each metallic alloy. Both the choice of the calculation method for Z eff and the energy ranges of the incident radiation are essential factors affecting the behavior of alloys in terms of fluorescence production. Our results may guide the selection of the best material for a biomedical application. The metallic alloys simulated here show equivalences and discrepancies that depend on the method used to estimate Z eff and the energy range of the incident photons. This finding allows for the creation of combinations of alloys and methods for calculating Z eff and the photon energy to maximize safety and minimize cost.</p>","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":" ","pages":"188-195"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139512224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessment of Radiation Doses to the General Public around Nuclear Power Plants Based on Representative Person Concept.","authors":"Ki Hoon Kim, Hyun Su Seo, Yong Ho Jin, Kwang Pyo Kim","doi":"10.1097/HP.0000000000001792","DOIUrl":"10.1097/HP.0000000000001792","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended that the representative person concept should be used in radiation dose assessment of the general public to specify exposed individuals. The objective of this study is to assess radiation doses of the residents around nuclear power plants (NPPs) in relation to the introduction of the representative person concept. Critical group candidates and representative agro-livestock product producing areas were selected around a NPP site by considering radioactive effluents and regional meteorological data, geographical information, etc. A total of five exposure scenarios, including adult (non-fishery, fishery, and commuter), 10-y-old, and 1-y-old groups, were selected for the dose assessment. Generally, radiation doses were higher for 1-y-old, 10-y-old, and adult groups, in that sequence. There was no significant difference among the radiation doses by occupation in adult groups. Radiation dose results calculated by applying the representative person concept and dose assessment method currently used in Korea were compared. Application of the representative person concept results in lower radiation dose by 68.2% due to consideration of actual residential and agro-livestock product producing areas for the radiation dose assessment, by 13.3% due to the application method of habit data for dose calculation, and by 33.3% due to representative value of the dose results. Finally, considering all the factors above, radiation dose calculated by the current dose assessment method was 8.16 × 10 -2 mSv y -1 , while that calculated using the representative person concept was 1.40 × 10 -2 mSv y - 1 (82.8% lower). The results of this study can be used as reference data when introducing the representative person concept to the regulatory systems in Korea.</p>","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":" ","pages":"196-206"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139575570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}