Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “RADIATION PROTECTION”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1991

Development of radiation protection standards.

Radiation protection standards are based on the best available knowledge, caution, and perception. Dose limits for occupational exposure have decreased as knowledge was gained about radiation effects: from 0.6 Sv (60 rem)/year for 1900-1930 to 50 mSv (5 rem)/year in 1958 (the level still used as of 1990). Current dose limits for public exposure range from 1 mSv to 5 mSv, depending on frequency of exposure. For the embryo and fetus, dose limits are 0.5 mSv/mo and 5 mSv for the entire gestation. In the 1970s, the concept of acceptable risk and that of a non-threshold dose-response relationship became the basis for setting dose limits. Three principles of radiation protection are that (a) dose levels should not exceed acceptable levels, (b) optimal dose levels should be as low as reasonably achievable, and (c) radiation should not be used unless it produces a positive net benefit. Although no dose limits have been set for patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic radiologic procedures, such measures must provide a net benefit to patients at optimal dose levels.

History, 20th Century↗
PubMed1965

RADIATION PROTECTION IN CANADA. VII. SETTING STANDARDS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION.

The current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection have as a basic objective the limitation of the radiation dose to "that which involves a risk that is not unacceptable to the individual and to the population at large". The problem is to decide what degree of risk is acceptable, in relation to the benefits of a practice that necessitates a radiation exposure. At the present time it is not possible to make more than very rough estimates of some of the risks of exposure to radiation, but such estimates can be usefully compared with some of the other risks that are tolerated by society. On the assumption that it would be possible to make quantitative assessments of both the benefits and the risks, the question is raised as to how and by whom an appropriate balance should be made.

Canada↗
PubMed1992

A decade of changes in radiation protection.

Although radiation protection standards have changed remarkably little over the past decade, there have been changes in our understanding of radiation hazards that may affect the practice of radiation medicine over the next decade. With recognition of indoor radon exposure has come a new focus for public health concerns, because it is now clear that radon rather than medical exposure is the largest controllable source of radiation exposure to the general public. Continued follow-up of irradiated populations has led to an increase in our estimate of the cancer risk for high-dose exposures; this increased risk estimate is, in turn, leading to decreases in radiation exposure limits. Although our concern about the carcinogenic risk for radiation exposure has increased, our concern about genetic consequences has decreased, because no genetic effects have yet been observed in the offspring of atomic bomb survivors. Studies of atomic bomb survivors have also led to a change in the focus of concern over prenatal radiation exposure; the principle risk now appears to be mental retardation rather than childhood cancer.

Accidents↗
PubMed2001

Alternative goals and policy mechanisms for radiation protection.

For decades, radiation protection philosophy and practice have been the domain of professionals trained in the physical and medical sciences. Radiation protection policy was formulated and implemented largely without consultation with or participation by other professional disciplines or the general public. Although, from a public health standpoint, past radiation protection efforts have worked well, there are growing signs that the public has lost confidence in the radiation risk management system as currently configured. This paper draws on perspectives of political science, social psychology, economics, and decision analysis to analyze the limitations of the current radiation protection regime and to suggest alternatives for enhancing public trust and improving efficacy.

Community Participation↗