Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Valentin

Publications and source records attributed to J Valentin.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Protecting people against radiation exposure in the event of a radiological attack. A report of The International Commission on Radiological Protection.

This report responds to a widely perceived need for professional advice on radiological protection measures to be undertaken in the event of a radiological attack. The report, which is mainly concerned with possible attacks involving 'radioactive dispersion devices', re-affirms the applicability of existing ICRP recommendations to such situations, should they ever occur. Many aspects of the emergency scenarios expected to arise in the event of a radiological attack may be similar to those that experience has shown can arise from radiological accidents, but there may also be important differences. For instance, a radiological attack would probably be targeted at a public area, possibly in an urban environment, where the presence of radiation is not anticipated and the dispersion conditions commonly assumed for a nuclear or radiological emergency, such as at a nuclear installation, may not be applicable. First responders to a radiological attack and other rescuers need to be adequately trained and to have the proper equipment for identifying radiation and radioactive contamination, and specialists in radiological protection must be available to provide advice. It may be prudent to assume that radiological, chemical, and/or biological agents are involved in an attack until it is proven otherwise. This calls for an 'all-hazard' approach to the response. In the aftermath of an attack, the main aim of radiological protection must be to prevent the occurrence of acute health effects attributable to radiation exposure (termed 'deterministic' effects) and to restrict the likelihood of late health effects (termed 'stochastic' effects) such as cancers and some hereditable diseases. A supplementary aim is to minimise environmental contamination from radioactive residues and the subsequent general disruption of daily life. The report notes that action taken to avert exposures is a much more effective protective measure than protective measure the provision of medical treatment after exposure has occurred. Responders involved in recovery, remediation and eventual restoration should be subject to the usual international standards for occupational radiological protection, which are based on ICRP recommendations, including the relevant requirements for occupational dose limitation established in such standards. These restrictions may be relaxed for informed volunteers undertaking urgent rescue operations, and they are not applicable for voluntary life-saving actions. However, specific protection measures are recommended for female workers who may be pregnant or nursing an infant. The immediate countermeasures to protect the public in the rescue phase are primarily caring for people with traumatic injuries and controlling access. Subsequent actions include respiratory protection, personal decontamination, sheltering, iodine prophylaxis (if radio-iodines are involved), and temporary evacuation. In the recovery phase, the relocation and resettlement of people may be needed in extreme cases. This phase may require remedial action, including cleanup, management of the resulting radioactive waste, management of any human remains containing significant amounts of radioactive substances, and dealing with remaining radioactive residues. The guidance given in relation to public protection is based solely on radiological protection considerations and should be seen as a decision-aiding tool to prepare for the aftermath of a radiological attack. It is expected to serve as input to a final decision-making process that may include other societal concerns, consideration of lessons learned in the past (especially these involving the public perception of the risks posed by radioactive contamination) and the participation of interested parties. A radiological attack could also be the cause of radioactive contamination of water, food, and other widely consumed commodities. This possible outcome is considered unlikely to lead to significant internal contamination of a large number of people owing to the large amounts of radioactive material that would be required to cause high levels of contamination of water, food, and other commodities. Nonetheless, the report recommends radiological criteria for restricting the use of commodities under such circumstances. The report concludes by re-iterating that the response to radiological attacks should be planned beforehand following the customary processes for optimisation of radiological protection recommended by ICRP, and that optimised measures should be prepared in advance. Such plans should result in a systematic approach that can be modified if necessary to take into account the prevailing conditions and to invoke actions as warranted by the circumstances. Many potential scenarios clearly cannot induce immediate severe radiation injuries. Therefore, in order to prevent over-reaction, response measures prepared in advance should reflect the real expected gravity of the various possible scenarios.

Environmental Exposure↗

Prevention of high-dose-rate brachytherapy accidents. ICRP Publication 97.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy is a rapidly growing technique (HDR) that has been replacing low-dose-rate (LDR) procedures over the last few years in both industrialised and developing countries. It is estimated that about 500,000 procedures (administration of treatment) are performed by HDR units annually. LDR equipment has been discontinued by many manufacturers over the last few years, leaving HDR brachytherapy as the major alternative. HDR brachytherapy techniques deliver a very high dose, of the order of 1.6-5.0 Gy/min, so mistakes can lead to under- or overdosage with the potential for clinical adverse effects. More than 500 HDR accidents (including one death) have been reported along the entire chain of procedures from source packing to delivery of dose. Human error has been the prime cause of radiation events. In the present report, the International Commission on Radiological Protection concludes that many accidents could have been prevented if staff had had functional monitoring equipment and paid attention to the results. Since iridium has relatively short half-life, the HDR sources need to be replaced approximately every 4 months. Over 10,000 HDR sources are transported annually, with the resultant potential for accidents; therefore, appropriate procedures and regulations must be observed. A number of specific recommendations on procedures and equipment are given in this report. The need for an emergency plan and for practising emergency procedures is stressed. The possibility of loss or theft of sources must be kept in mind. A collaborating team of specifically trained personnel following quality assurance (QA) procedures is necessary to prevent accidents. Maintenance is indispensable component of QA; external audits of procedures re-enforce good and safe practice, and identify potential causes of accidents. QA should include peer review of cases. Accidents and incidents should be reported and the lessons learned should be shared with other users to prevent similar mistakes.

Brachytherapy↗

A framework for assessing the impact of ionising radiation on non-human species. ICRP Publication 91.

In its 1990 Recommendations, the ICRP indicated that it believed that the standards of environmental control needed to protect man to the degree currently thought desirable would ensure that other species are not put at risk. The ICRP considers that its system of radiological protection has provided a fairly good indirect protection of the human habitat. However, no internationally agreed criteria or policies explicitly address protection of the environment from ionising radiation, and it is difficult to determine or demonstrate whether or not the environment is adequately protected from potential impacts of radiation under different circumstances. The present report suggests a framework, based on scientific and ethical-philosophical principles, by which a policy for the protection of non-human species could be achieved. The primary purpose of developing such a framework is to fill a conceptual gap in radiological protection; it does not reflect any particular concern over environmental radiation hazards. The proposed framework is designed to harmonise with the ICRP's approach to the protection of human beings, but does not intend to set regulatory standards. Instead, the proposed framework is intended to be a practical tool to provide high-level advice and guidance for regulators and operators. An agreed set of quantities and units, a set of reference dose models, reference dose-per-unit-intake (or unit exposure), and reference fauna and flora are required to serve as a basis for the more fundamental understanding and interpretation of the relationships between exposure and dose and between dose and certain categories of effect, for a few, clearly defined types of animals and plants. As a first step, a small set of reference fauna and flora with supporting databases will be developed by the ICRP. Others can then develop more area- and situation-specific approaches to assess and manage risks to non-human species.

Advisory Committees↗

Guide for the practical application of the ICRP Human Respiratory Tract Model. A report of ICRP supporting guidance 3: approved by ICRP committee 2 in October 2000.

The ICRP Publication 66 Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection (HRTM) has been applied to calculate dose coefficients (doses per unit intake) and bioassay functions in ICRP Publications 68, 71, 72 and 78. For these purposes, ICRP assigned numerical values to a range of model parameters, such as the size of the inhaled particles and the breathing rate of the subjects. These are known as 'default' or 'reference' values, and were chosen to be typical, representative values. In any particular situation the actual values of many parameters can be considerably different from the reference values. Usually, doses from intakes of radionuclides are low compared with the relevant limit or constraint, and the resulting difference is unimportant. There are, however, circumstances where more reliable assessments of intake and dose are desirable. This Guidance Document therefore gives advice on applying specific information within the framework of the HRTM for assessing occupational and environmental exposures and for interpreting bioassay data. Chapters on each aspect of the model (morphometry, physiology, deposition, clearance, gases and vapours, dosimetry) provide: A summary of how the HRTM treats that topic;Information on the reference values of relevant parameters;Guidance on choosing between default values;Information on how doses and bioassay quantities (lung retention, urine, and faecal excretion) vary with the values of selected parameters, giving guidance on the importance of obtaining specific information;Simple examples of the use of specific information relating to the topic.Annexes give additional information for those directly involved in applying the HRTM to specific situations, including guidance on obtaining parameter values. A brief overview is given of the deposition, characterisation, and sampling of aerosols, with references to further information, as there are relevant text books already available. Issues specific to radioactive aerosols, such as low particle number concentrations for high specific activity materials are, however, addressed. Guidance on obtaining information about absorption of inhaled radionuclides into blood is given in greater detail, because this is a topic on which ICRP has traditionally given guidance, and because a compilation of such information is not readily available elsewhere. Several detailed examples are also provided. One involves assessment of an individual's intake and committed dose from comprehensive bioassay monitoring data. The others deal with the derivation of HRTM absorption parameter values from experimental data, and their application, with additional information on e.g. size distribution, to calculate dose coefficients and interpret bioassay data.

Adolescent↗

Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures.

Interventional radiology (fluoroscopically-guided) techniques are being used by an increasing number of clinicians not adequately trained in radiation safety or radiobiology. Many of these interventionists are not aware of the potential for injury from these procedures or the simple methods for decreasing their incidence. Many patients are not being counselled on the radiation risks, nor followed up when radiation doses from difficult procedures may lead to injury. Some patients are suffering radiation-induced skin injuries and younger patients may face an increased risk of future cancer. Interventionists are having their practice limited or suffering injury, and are exposing their staff to high doses. In some interventional procedures, skin doses to patients approach those experienced in some cancer radiotherapy fractions. Radiation-induced skin injuries are occurring in patients due to the use of inappropriate equipment and, more often, poor operational technique. Injuries to physicians and staff performing interventional procedures have also been observed. Acute radiation doses (to patients) may cause erythema at 2 Gy, cataract at 2 Gy, permanent epilation at 7 Gy, and delayed skin necrosis at 12 Gy. Protracted (occupational) exposures to the eye may cause cataract at 4 Gy if the dose is received in less than 3 months, at 5.5 Gy if received over a period exceeding 3 months. Practical actions to control dose to the patient and to the staff are listed. The absorbed dose to the patient in the area of skin that receives the maximum dose is of priority concern. Each local clinical protocol should include, for each type of interventional procedure, a statement on the cumulative skin doses and skin sites associated with the various parts of the procedure. Interventionists should be trained to use information on skin dose and on practical techniques to control dose. Maximum cumulative absorbed doses that appear to approach or exceed 1 Gy (for procedures that may be repeated) or 3 Gy (for any procedure) should be recorded in the patient record, and there should be a patient follow-up procedure for such cases. Patients should be counselled if there is a significant risk of radiation-induced injury, and the patient's personal physician should be informed of the possibility of radiation effects. Training in radiological protection for patients and staff should be an integral part of the education for those using interventional techniques. All interventionists should audit and review the outcomes of their procedures for radiation injury. Risks and benefits, including radiation risks, should be taken into account when new interventional techniques are introduced.A concluding list of recommendations is given. Annexes list procedures, patient and staff doses, a sample local clinical protocol, dose quantities used, and a procurement checklist.

Adult↗

Outlook

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Journal Article↗