Canadian Radiation Protection Association Association ... · Canadian Radiation Protection Association Association canadienne de radioprotection Vol 31 No 4 Winter / Hiver 2011 Canadian

Canadian Radiation Protection AssociationAssociation canadienne de radioprotection

Vol 31 No 4Winter / Hiver 2011

Canadian Publications Mail Agreement 41574554

Monitoring Personal Occupational Exposures to Radon Progeny and Long-Lived Radioactive Dust

Why bother serving on the CRPA Board of Directors?

The Hook, the Glue, and BINGO!

Can Astronauts Survive Radiation on Prolonged Space Missions?

CRPA-ACRP Secretariat

PO Box 83Carleton Place, Ontario K7C 3P3

tel: 613-253-3779fax: 1-888-551-0712

email: [email protected]: www.crpa-acrp.ca

Canadian Radiation Protection Association /Association canadienne de radioprotection

CRPA is an affi liate of the International Radiation Protection Association / L’ACRP est membre de l’Association internationale de radioprotection.

President / PrésidentSandu Sonoc

ph: 416-978-2028email: [email protected]

President Elect / Président désignéLois Sowden-Plunkett

Past President / Président sortantDave Tucker

Secretary / SecrétairePetra Dupuis

Treasurer / TrésorierChristine Dehm

Directors / Directeurs et directricesBrian Gaulke, Raymond Ilson, Leona Page,

Jeff Sandeman

CRPA Committees / Comités de ACRP

Archives Sunil Choubal, Christine Dehm (BoD Liaison),

Wayne Tiefenbach

Conseil éditorial du Bulletin Editorial Board

Stéphane Jean-François (chief editor / rédacteur en chef), Leona Page (deputy editor / vice-rédactrice en chef); scientifi c advisors / conseillers scientifi ques: Douglas Boreham, Kevin Bundy, Lou Champagne, Kirk Lamont, Jag Mohindra, Daniel Picard, Sandu

Sonoc, Frank Tourneur, Mary Weedmark

CommunicationRalph Bose (chair / présidente),Lamri Cheriet,

Michèle Légaré-Vézina, Hoa Ly, Chester Neduzak, Leona Page, Jodi Ploquin, Jeff Sandeman (BoD

liaison), Greg Zaporozan, Bulletin Editor / Rédacteur en chef, CRPA/ACRP webmaster

Conference / ConférencePauline Jones (chair / présidente),

Lois Sowden-Plunkett (BoD liaison), Ralph Bose, Pam Ellis,Mike Grey, Liz Krivonosov, Gary Wilson

CRPA Position Statements /Déclarations publiques de l’ACRP

Dave Tucker (chair / président)

International Liason / Liaison internationale Chris Clement (chair / président), Brian Gaulke

(BoD liaison), Kevin Bundy, Michèle Légaré-Vézina, Gary Kramer

Membership / RecrutementEmmy Duran (chair / présidente), Brian Gaulke

(BoD liaison), Gary Kramer, Steve Webster

NominationsDebbie Frattinger (chair / président), Petra Dupuis

(BoD liaison), Geoff Byford, Stéphane Jean-François

Registration Certifi cation / Enregistrement Certifi cation

Jeff Dovyak (chair / président), Trevor Beniston, Lamri Cheriet, Ray Ilson (BoD liaison), Pauline

Jones, Sandu Sonoc, Steve Webster

Rules / RèglementsFrank Tourneur (chair / président), Ray Ilson

(BoD liaison), Lysanne Normandeau,

Student Affairs / Liaison avec les étudiantsLeah Shuparski (chair / présidente), Jeff Sandeman

(BoD liaison), Donata DrabikChaulk, Sonia Lala, Michèle Légaré-Vézina, Dave Niven, Chuong Pham

Translation / TraductionRoger Hugron (chair / président), Aimee Lauzon,

Leona Page (BoD liaison), Valerie Phelan, Nathalie Ritchot, Carole Savoie, Colette Tremblay

The Canadian Radiation Protection Associa-tion (CRPA) was incorporated in 1982. The objectives of the association are

• to develop scientifi c knowledge and practi-cal means for protecting all life and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation consistent with the optimum use of radiation for the benefi t of all,

• to further the exchange of scientifi c and technical information relating to the science and practice of radiation protection,

• to encourage research and scientifi c publications dedicated to the science and practice of radiation protection,

• to promote educational opportunities in those disciplines that support the science and practice of radiation protection,

• to assist in the development of professional standards in the discipline of radiation protection; and

• to support relevant activities of other societ-ies, associations, or organizations, both national and international.

The association publishes the Bulletin four times a year and distributes it to all members. Subscription rates for non-members, such as libraries, may be obtained from the secretariat.

Members of the association are drawn from all areas of radiation protection, including hospi-tals, universities, the nuclear power industry, and all levels of government.

Membership is divided into fi ve categories: full members (includes retired members), with all privileges; associate and student members, with all privileges except voting rights; honorary members, with all privileges; and corporate members. Corporate member-ship is open to organizations with interests in radiation protection. Corporate members are entitled to have their name and address listed in each Bulletin, a complimentary copy of each Bulletin, a copy of the Membership Handbook containing the names and addresses of all CRPA members, reduced booth rental rates at the annual meeting, and reduced advertising rates in the Bulletin.

Application forms are available on the CRPA website or from the secretariat.

Les objectifs de l’Association canadienne de radioprotection, dont les statuts ont été dépo-sés en 1982, sont les suivants:

• Développer les connaissances scientifi ques et les moyens pratiques pour protéger toute forme de vie et l’environnement des effets dangereux des radiations, et ce, d’une manière compatible avec leur utilisation optimale pour le bénéfi ce de tous;

• encourager les échanges d’informations scientifi ques et techniques relevant de la science et de la pratique de la radioprotec-tion;

• encourager la recherche et les publications scientifi ques dédiées à la science et à la pratique de la radioprotection;

• promouvoir les programmes éducationnels dans les disciplines qui soutiennent la science et la pratique de la radioprotection;

• aider à la défi nition des normes profession-nelles concernant la radioprotection, et

• soutenir les activités pertinentes des autres sociétés, associations, organisations natio-nales ou internationales.

Les membres de l’association proviennent de tous les horizons de la radioprotection, y com-pris les hôpitaux, les universités, l’industrie nucléaire génératrice d’électricité et tous les niveaux du gouvernement.

L’association publie le Bulletin quatre fois par an et le fait parvenir à tous les membres. Le prix d’un abonnement pour les non-mem-bres, par exemple une bibliothèque, peut être obtenu auprès du secrétariat.

Les membres sont classés selon cinq caté-gories: membres à part entière (y compris les membres retraités), avec tous les privilèges; membres associés et étudiants, avec tous les privilèges sauf le droit de vote; membres ho-noraires, avec tous les privilèges; et membres corporatifs.

Les membres corporatifs ont droit d’avoir leur nom et leur adresse indiqués dans chaque Bulletin, de recevoir un exemplaire du Bulletin, de recevoir un exemplaire de l’annuaire de l’association contenant les noms et adresses de tous les membres de l’association, d’avoir un kiosque à tarif réduit lors des conférences annuelles, d’avoir un espace publicitaire à tarif réduit dans le Bulletin.

Les formulaires de demande d’adhésion peuvent être obtenus sur le site Web ou auprès du secrétariat.

Prospectus

CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 31 No 4 / 5

The CRPA Bulletin is published quarterly and is distributed to all members of the association.

Le Bulletin ACRP est publié trimestriellement et distribué à tous les membres de l’association.

Chief editor / Rédacteur en chefStéphane Jean-François

Deputy editor / vice-rédactrice en chefLeona Page

CRPA-ACRP SecretariatLiz Krivonosov

Design and Production / Montage et productionMichelle Communications

Production team / Équipe de production

Production manager Michelle Boulton English copy editors Ursula Acton Michelle Boulton French copy editor Carolyne Roy Translators Caro Gareau de Recio Carolyne Roy CRPA Translation Committee Proofreader Ursula Acton

Advertising / Annonces

Michelle Communicationsph: 306-343-8519

email: [email protected]

Copyright © 2011 CRPA / ACRP

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, or stored in a retrieval system in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without prior

written consent of the publisher.

For reproduction information, contact Michelle Communications

email: [email protected].

The views expressed in the CRPA Bulletin ACRP are those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent the views of the editors or of the association.

Canadian Publications Mail Agreement No. 41574554

Send change of address notices and undeliverable Canadian addresses to

CRPA-ACRP SecretariatPO Box 83

Carleton Place, Ontario K7C 3P3

tel: 613-253-3779fax: 1-888-551-0712


Contents/Contenu

Regular Columns / Contributions permanentes

7 President’s Message / Message du Président

9 Editor’s Note / Message du rédacteur en chef

11 Student Corner / Coin des étudiants The Hook, the Glue, and BINGO!

17 Book Review / Revue de livre The Road to Yucca Mountain

28 Health Physics Corner Monitoring exposure of on-site visitors: Whose responsibility is it?

28 Coin do spécialiste en radioprotection À qui revient la responsabilité du contrôle de l’exposition des visiteurs sur place?

33 Contributors

Features / Articles

14 Monitoring Personal Occupational Exposures to Radon Progeny and Long-Lived Radioactive Dust Brent Preston explains how a personal alpha dosimeter (PAD) can be used in the uranium-mining industry, as well as in non-uranium mines, radioactive waste cleanup and storage facilities, and other industries where workers are exposed to uranium-bearing materials.

20 Can Astronauts Survive Radiation on Prolonged Space Missions? Space radiation is entirely different from radiations on Earth—Nicholas Sion explores effects and ways to protect astronauts

16 Why bother serving on the CRPA Board of Directors? Jeff Sandeman, CRPA director, talks about his reasons for volunteering on the Board

Cover Image: 2001 Mars Odyssey equipped with MARIE, the Martian Radiation Environment Experiment, to study the radiation environment on Mars. From NASA’s Mars image collection. See related story on page 20.

Canberra Co. ........................19–19, 36

F & J Specialty Products, Inc. ..............3

Gamble Technologies, Inc...................2

Mirion Technologies .........................29

Radiation Measurement Systems ........6

Stuart Hunt & Associates ...................8

Technical Management Services .......13

Index to Advertisers

For more information about

advertising in the CRPA Bulletin

ACRP, please contact Michelle

Communications:

Michelle Boulton

Michelle Communications

ph: 306-343-8519



President’s Message / Message du Président

It is my pleasure to be reporting to you once again. I am writing this message in the middle of October, but by the time you read it, winter will already be here, and half my term will be gone. So far this has been an easy term without any extraordinary events.

The CRPA board of directors has met twice since the Edmonton conference. The first teleconference was on June 29th and the second on September 15th. During these meetings, the board analyzed the progress made on some key issues in the day-to-day life of our association. Among other positive developments is the availability of electronic voting, which will be ready for the 2011 elections. Mem-bers can also choose the traditional paper-mail vote, if they prefer. We also hope that your suggestions for improving the election process regarding the selection of the candi-dates for different board positions can be included in the 2011 election.

If you haven’t done so already, I encourage you to log on to our webpage and enjoy the new look. If you have prob-lems with the “members only login” part, you may consider updating your web browser. If that doesn’t work, please contact Liz Krivonosov at [email protected].

Over the last two months, I have found two news items that may interest some of you. The first is that the Govern-ment of Canada approved a $35 million investment that is laying the groundwork for a more secure and sustain-able supply of Tc-99m in the medium to long term, and a reduced reliance on reactor-based production with the selection of four projects under the Non-reactor-based Iso-tope Supply Contribution Program. The second interest-ing piece of news is contained in the opening comments made by the IAEA Director General, Yukiya Amano, at this year’s IAEA Scientific Forum where he calls for a “unified action to fight the cancer epidemic in developing countries.” This is the first time I have heard these terms put together.

The preparations for the 2011 conference in Ottawa are very far advanced. In harmony with the 2007 ICRP Recommendation (ICRP Publication 103), in which the concept of protecting the environment is introduced in the radiation protection framework, the theme of our conference will be “Protecting Canadians and the Envi-ronment.” Since the Local Organizing Committee is

C’est avec plaisir que je m’adresse à vous à nouveau. J’écris ce message à la mi-octobre, mais par le temps où vous lirez ceci, nous serons déjà en hiver et la moitié de mon mandat sera passé. Jusqu’à présent, ce fut un mandat facile sans aucun événement hors du commun.

Le conseil d’administration de l’ACRP s’est réuni à deux reprises depuis le congrès d’Edmonton. La première téléconférence s’est tenue le 29 juin et la seconde le 15 sep-tembre. Au cours de ces réunions, le conseil a analysé les progrès réalisés sur certains points du quotidien de notre association. Parmi les développements positifs, notons la possibilité de voter électroniquement à partir de l’élection de 2011. S’ils le préfèrent, les membres pourront continuer à voter de la façon traditionnelle, c’est-à-dire sur un bulle-tin en papier et par la poste. Nous espérons également que vos suggestions afin d’améliorer le processus électoral, en ce qui concerne la sélection des candidats aux différents postes du conseil, pourront être mises en place lors de l’élection de 2011.

Si ce n’est déjà fait, je vous encourage à aller voir le nouveau style de notre page Internet. Si vous avez des problèmes avec la connexion « pour membres seulement », vous devriez envisager la mise à jour de votre navigateur Internet. Si ceci ne fonctionne pas, veuillez communiquer avec Liz Krivonosov à [email protected].

Au cours des deux derniers mois, j’ai trouvé deux nou-velles qui pourraient intéresser certains d’entre vous. La première nouvelle est d’ordre national. Le gouvernement du Canada a approuvé un investissement de 35 millions de dollars afin d’établir les bases en vue d’un approvision-nement plus sécuritaire et durable en Tc-99m à moyen et long termes, ainsi qu’une dépendance réduite envers la production d’isotopes par réacteur et a sélectionné quatre projets du Programme de contribution financière à la production d’isotopes ne nécessitant pas de réacteur. La deuxième nouvelle d’intérêt provient du discours d’ouver-ture du directeur général de l’AIEA, Yukiya Amano, lors du Forum scientifique de l’Agence, alors qu’il a plaidé pour une « action unifiée afin de lutter contre l’épidémie de cancer dans les pays en voie de développement ». C’est la première fois que j’entends tous ces mots en une seule et même phrase.

Les préparatifs en vue du congrès de 2011 à Ottawa vont bon train. En lien avec la recommandation de 2007 de la CIRP (Publication 103 CIRP), laquelle introduit la protection de l’environnement dans le cadre de la radio-protection, le thème de notre conférence sera « Protection

continued on page 31 . . . suite à la page 31 . . .

8 / Vol 31 No 4 CRPA / ACRP Bulletin


continued on page 30 . . . suite à la page 30 . . .

Editor’s Note / Message du rédacteur en chef

I hope you are ready to tackle this new year with aplomb and vigour, as there is much work to be done, my dear CRPA members. It is time to review the year that has just ended. I could go over the CRPA’s stand on tritium levels in Ontario’s drinking water; I could note the well-deserved retirement of our archivist, Tony MacKay, or the induction of another of CRPA’s leading figures, Gary Kramer, as a lifetime honorary member; or I could even give everyone a pat on the back for a job well done on the Bulletin, as it seems to have found its cruising speed.

But what I really want to focus on is the CRPA’s democratic process. Could you blame me? As I write this, there is an online petition garnering some 200 signatures per hour demanding the resignation of Quebec’s Premier. As of November 22, 2010, the count was over 200,000 signatories in just a few weeks. This begs the question: Where are these people during an actual election? As electoral participation rates drop, it seems so much easier to go online to protest some issue with a simple click of the mouse. Can you see where I’m going here—what this has to do with the CRPA? Indeed, in 2010, as was the case for many of the Association’s elections, only one third of members exercised their right to vote in electing the Board of Directors. This figure has remained essentially the same for over two decades. And it is more difficult then ever to find interested candidates. Is it cynicism? Lack of trust or simply lack of time? Is this somehow linked to the dearth of candidates standing for CRPA elections—particularly for the position of president?

One thing is certain: the CRPA is looking for new blood and new ideas. And to attract new members and remain relevant, it needs to renew itself. We already have surveys up online, and we will soon be holding elections in cyberspace. The silent majority needs to speak up and propose new ideas. As a member, I no longer sense enthu-siasm for the certification project or for members’ initia-tives. Many seem more absorbed by their professional and personal concerns. So let’s find some youthful exuberance that seeks no less than to change the world!

Take a close look at the radiation safety professionals around you; the HPS and its public website; the CNSC, which takes the trouble to formally respond to all newspa-per articles that concern it while sending out e-mails about its important activities; and the AAHP, which improves its survey of CHP salaries every year. No, don’t compare

J’espère que vous attaquez l’année du bon pied, en santé et le cœur à l’ouvrage car vous avez du travail, chers mem-bres de l’ACRP. Le temps est à la revue de l’année qui s’est terminée. J’aurais pu revenir sur la prise de position de l’ACRP concernant les normes de tritium dans l’eau potable en Ontario, j’aurais pu signaler la retraite méritée de notre archiviste Tony MacKay, rappeler l’entrée comme membre honoraire à vie d’une autre figure de l’ACRP, Gary Kramer, ou même nous lancer des fleurs, car le Bulletin semble avoir trouvé son rythme de croisière.

Voici que je me donne le droit de me concentrer sur un seul élément : le processus démocratique de l’ACRP. Vous ne pouvez me blâmer. Au moment d’écrire ces lignes, à l’Assemblée nationale du Québec, une pétition en ligne récolte jusqu’à 200 signatures à l’heure demandant la démission du premier ministre provincial. Le compte, au 22 novembre 2010, était de 200 000 signatures en quelques semaines. Je ne peux alors m’empêcher de poser la ques-tion : Où sont ces signataires lors du vrai scrutin provincial? Le taux de participation aux élections est en baisse, mais il semble plus facile de cliquer sur Internet pour protester de façon ponctuelle. Commencez-vous à voir le lien avec l’ACRP? Eh oui, en 2010, comme pour plusieurs élections de l’Association, un membre sur trois a exercé son droit de vote pour élire les membres du CA. Et ce chiffre reste sensi-blement le même depuis plus de 20 ans. Que dire de notre difficulté de trouver des candidats intéressés par le défi du CA ? Est-ce du cynisme? Un manque de confiance ou simplement par manque de temps? Et y a-t-il un lien avec le manque de candidats qui se présentent aux élections de l’ACRP, surtout au poste de président?

Une chose est certaine, l’ACRP cherche du sang neuf, des idées nouvelles et elle doit se renouveler pour conser-ver sa pertinence et attirer de nouveaux membres. Nous avons déjà des sondages en ligne et, bientôt, les élections sur la cybertoile. La majorité silencieuse de l’ACRP doit se faire entendre et faire des propositions. En tant que mem-bre, je ne perçois plus la fougue du projet de certification, je ne sens plus l’enthousiasme des initiatives des membres. Plusieurs semblent absorbés par leurs occupations profes-sionnelles et personnelles. Alors, vivement du sang neuf qui ne demande qu’à changer le monde!

Observez bien les professionnels en radioprotection autour de vous, HPS et son site Web destiné au public, la CCSN qui se donne la peine de répondre formellement à tous les articles de journaux la concernant tout en commu-niquant par courriel ses activités importantes, l’AAHP qui raffine chaque année son sondage sur le salaire des CHP. Non, ne comparez pas les ressources, c’est trop facile. Nous pouvons faire beaucoup à partir des concepts et des


Welcome to Ottawa in the springtime!CRPA 2011 will be held at the Westin Ottawa, per-fectly situated steps from Parliament Hill, the historic Byward Market, the Rideau Canal, and attached to the Rideau Centre mall. The Tuesday evening banquet will be in the spectacular Grand Hall of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, overlooking the Ottawa River and across to Parliament Hill.

Ottawa has so much to offer! Visit world-class muse-ums, stroll along the historic Rideau Canal, shop in the Rideau Centre and Byward Market, or enjoy the outdoors in nearby Gatineau Park.

CRPA 2011, OttawaMark it on your calendar now!

Bienvenue à Ottawa au printemps!L’ACRP 2011 aura lieu au Westin Ottawa qui est attenant au Centre commercial Rideau et qui est situé à quelques pas de la Colline du Parlement, du canal Rideau et du marché historique By. Le ban-quet aura lieu mardi soir dans la Grande Galerie spectaculaire du Musée canadien des civilisations, d’où l’on peut voir la rivière des Outaouais et les édifices du Parlement.

Ottawa a beaucoup à offrir! Visitez des musées de renommée mondiale, flânez le long du canal Rideau, visitez les boutiques et magasins du Centre Rideau et du marché By ou profitez du plein air, à proximité, dans le parc de la Gatineau.

ACRP 2011, OttawaInscrivez-le à votre agenda dès maintenant!

Conference Call for Proposals

The Conference Committee, currently working with Halifax (2012) and Sher-brooke (2013), is inviting interested parties to submit expressions of interest for annual conferences beyond 2013. Anyone wishing to submit a proposal should contact me and I will forward a copy of both the Conference Proposal Guide and the Conference Planning Guide

Pauline Jones, Conference Committee ChairPh 902-494-2055 • email [email protected]

Appel aux propositions pour la conférence

Le comité organisateur de la conférence, qui travaille actuellement avec Halifax (2012) et Sherbrooke (2013), invite les parties intéressées à soumettre une lettre d’intérêt pour les conférences annuelles suivant l’an 2013. Les parties désirant soumettre une proposition devraient me contacter afi n que je puisse leur faire parvenir une copie du Guide des propositions de conférence ainsi que le Guide de planifi cation des conférences.

Pauline Jones, présidente du comité organisateur de la conférenceTel (902) 494-2055 • couriel [email protected]

Pho

tos

cour

tesy

Otta

wa

Tour

ism

.


Student Corner / Coin des étudiant


RésuméLeah Shuparski a passé l’été dernier à enseigner la RCP C et à mettre des pansements sur des enfants à un camp d’été. Elle souligne trois leçons tirées de cette expérience qui peuvent aussi s’appliquer à la radioprotection : il faut un hameçon pour capter l’attention des individus et les motiver à participer; il est utile de cultiver les « personnes-liaison », les suiveurs conviviaux ayant un enthousiasme contagieux; et BINGO (oui, le jeu) peut s’avérer un outil de participation des spectateurs très utile et passionnant.

Leah partage aussi quelques mises à jour brèves sur les activités du Comité des affaires étudiantes. Pour les per-sonnes qui s’intéressent au réseautage virtuel, l’ACRP possède maintenant son propre groupe sur Facebook. Pour ceux qui préfèrent le réseautage en personne, l’idée de mentorat a été discuté lors de la dernière conférence et un programme de mentorat est prévu être en place par la conférence 2011 à Ottawa. En parlant de conférences, le comité orga-nisateur local d’Ottawa prépare, pour la conférence 2011, des sessions ciblant les étudiants et les professionnels de la radioprotection en début de carrière. Pour plus d’information au sujet de ces initiatives, contactez Leah par couriel à [email protected].

The Hook, the Glue, and BINGO!The first half of my summer was spent teaching standard first aid and CPR-C, while the latter half had me patching up kids at a summer camp. The opportunity to hone my teaching skills was a valuable one. Here are three things I learned while teaching first aid that could (and should!) be translated into radiation protection.

administered at the scene. Now imagine your loved one being in that 70–80% that doesn’t get bystander CPR . . . If these numbers don’t convince my class that they should know CPR, nothing will.

Wanted: “Glue Person” “Glue people” are gregarious, thought-ful people who get on board with class activities. Through their friendliness, they engage others who wouldn’t otherwise be interested in what’s happening in the class-room. A teacher can only carry a group so far; the group has to be interested and engaged in the subject to truly learn. And glue people help foster that engagement.

Now, it’s time for BingoYes, Bingo. The kind you played in the school gym on rainy days. My version is called “First Aid Bingo” and here’s how it works. On the BINGO sheet, the five columns are named for first aid catego-ries instead of B-I-N-G-O. A selection of answers are listed in each of the squares on the page. Thanks to a handy computer code devised by my clever boyfriend, I’m able to generate bingo cards based on whatever I input, and no two cards are the same. The bingo caller reads out first aid questions by category: the answers may or may not be found under their respec-tive column, depending on the card a particular individual has. I tend to make the “bingo!” criteria more difficult (two intersecting lines—an X) so that I can cycle through more questions. This game can be an excellent review.

So, that was my learning experience for the summer. Since I’ve been back at school, life has been filling up with lots of adventures, both school-related and extracurricular. Following are a few brief updates on CRPA Student Affairs Com-mittee activities. We will return to our regular programming as soon as possible!

CRPA on FacebookAre you on Facebook? Now CRPA is, too! To join the CRPA Facebook group, search for “Canadian Radiation Protection Association” in the search window at the top of the Facebook page. Once you become a member of the group, you can post photos from previous confer-ences or share news about an upcoming radiation protection event in your city.

MentorshipAt the Edmonton conference, we dis-cussed the idea of having a mentorship program within the CRPA. The response was great; many experienced CRPA mem-bers jumped at the chance to share their wealth of knowledge with less-experienced members. The mentorship program, which will be run by the Student Affairs Committee, should be up and running by the Ottawa 2011 conference. If you’d like to be a mentor, please contact me ([email protected]).

Ottawa 2011 Student NewsThe Ottawa Local Organizing Committee has been working tirelessly to create ses-sions at the next conference that will be geared to students and radiation protection professionals who are just starting their careers. The Student Affairs Committee and the Local Organizing Committee are especially proud to present a panel discussion on radiation protection career opportunities across all industries. You can do your part by helping the students at your workplace secure funding to attend and by generally spreading the word about the conference. Let’s make 2011 our best student year yet! I’ll see you there!!

You need a hookA “hook” is a story or set of statistics that will make your class sit up and pay attention. Your hook can be an incredible attitude changer. My favourite first aid hook? Bystander CPR. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is done at the scene by bystanders only 20–30% of the time. Why do we care? Because survival rates are two to four times better when bystander CPR is


You may already have a paper that could be submitted that you have completed in the course of your studies!

CONTEST CONDITIONS:

• To be eligible: students must be full-time in a Canadian college or university program related to the radiation sciences

• Topic of paper: radiation • Maximum length: 3000 words • Deadline for Submission:

March 1, 2011 • Send submissions to:

[email protected]

PRIZE:

• CRPA will pay your travel and lodging expenses to present your paper at the CRPA annual conference May 8–12, 2011, in Ottawa, ON

• Your paper will be published in the CRPA Bulletin

STUDENT PARTICIPATION AT THE CONFERENCE:

• Posters and presentations are also welcome, however, these can not be included in the Student Paper Contest

• Attending the CRPA conference is an excellent opportunity to meet professionals in the radia-tion sciences (nuclear power industry, health physics, medical physics, university/education, research, government, business)

Peut-être avez-vous déjà une com-munication que vous avez préparée dans le cadre d’un cours et que vous pourriez nous soumettre!

CONDITIONS DU CONCOURS :• Pour être admissibles : les

étudiants doivent étudier à temps plein au niveau postsecondaire au Canada dans une discipline liée aux rayonnements

• Sujet de la communication : tout sujet lié aux rayonnements

• Longeur : Maximum de 3 000 mots

• Date limite d’envoi des commu-nications : le 1er mars 2011

• Envoyez les soumissions à : [email protected]

PRIX :• L’ACRP défraiera vos frais de

déplacement et d’hébergement pour présenter votre communica-tion à son congrès annuel, du 8 au 12 mai 2011, à Ottawa, ON

• L’Association publiera votre com-munication dans son Bulletin

PARTICIPATION D’ÉTUDIANTS AU CONGRÈS :• Bien que nous acceptions aussi

les affi ches et les présentations, celles-ci ne font pas partie du concours de communications étudiantes

• Venez rencontrer des profession-nels des sciences des rayon-nements (qui œuvrent dans les domaines de l’électronucléaire, de la radioprotection, de la physique médicale, de la recherche, dans les universités, les compagnies privées et aux gouvernements)

Pour plus de renseignements, visitezWWW.CRPA-ACRP.CA

ANTHONY J. MACKAY CONTEST

COMMUNICATIONSÉTUDIANTES

STUDENTPAPER

CONCOURS DE ANTHONY J. MACKAY

For more information visitWWW.CRPA-ACRP.CA


Advertising in the

Advertising in the CRPA Bulletin ACRP delivers your message to the heart of the radiation protection community through an association and a publication readers know and trust. The editorial content of the Bulletin delivers the insights, contacts, information, advice, and valuable solutions that people in radiation protection need to stay at the forefront of their profession.

If you want to reach the radiation protection community, the targeted nature of the Bulletin will get your message out to people who are interested in what you sell or do.

Submissions

To place an ad in the Bulletin, contact

Michelle Boulton 2501 Blain AvenueSaskatoon, SK S7J 2B7

ph 306-343-8519fax 306-477-5418

email [email protected]


Monitoring Personal Occupational Exposures to Radon Progeny and Long-Lived Radioactive Dust

by Brent Preston, National Laboratories, Radiation Safety Institute of Canada

RésuméLe dosimètre alpha personnel (DAP) constitue un moyen fiable pour déduire le niveau d’exposi-tion individuel aux progénitures de radon et de thoron ainsi qu’à la poussière radioactive à période longue (PRPL). L’article examine en détail la conception et l’opération du DAP, puis discute des calculs utilisés pour déterminer l’exposi-tion aux progénitures de radon et de thoron, ainsi qu’à la PRPL.

IntroductionThe personal alpha dosimeter (PAD) is a lightweight monitoring system designed to infer individual exposures to radon and thoron progeny and to long-lived radioac-tive dust (LLRD). Although used primar-ily in the uranium-mining industry, the PAD has also been used in non-uranium mines, radioactive waste cleanup and storage facilities, and a variety of other industries where workers may be exposed to uranium-bearing materials.

The PAD is licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) under Regulatory Standard S-106 Revision 1 Tech-nical and Quality Assurance Requirements for Dosimetry Services. This is the only licensed dosimeter in Canada capable of inferring the exposure of individual workers to radon and thoron progeny and LLRD.

DesignThe dosimeter is comprised of a track-etch detector, commonly referred to as a dosimeter head, which is mounted inside a battery-powered air pumping system, referred to as the PAD body (Figure 1).

Figure 1: PAD body (yellow) and dosimeter head (green)

The PAD body is a lightweight air-pumping system that draws air through the dosimeter head at a nominal flow rate of 4 L/h. The pump is enclosed in a dura-ble polycarbonate box, which is designed to be worn on an individual’s belt.

The PAD is powered by a small rechargeable battery that is designed to operate for a minimum of 12 hours. The charger uses induction to recharge the PAD. An electric card on the charger generates a high-frequency alternating cur-

rent, which feeds a coil that supplies the energy necessary to recharge the battery.

The dosimeter head (Figure 2) is an alpha-particle spectrometer capable of separately detecting the 5.99 MeV and 7.69 MeV alpha particles from radon prog-eny (Po-218 [RaA] and Po-214 [RaCʹ]) and the 8.78 MeV alpha particles from thoron progeny (Po-212 [ThCʹ]) without the use of electronics. This is achieved using a three-channel collimator, each channel having an energy-absorbing Mylar™ strip with a thickness specifically chosen for the alpha particle the channel is designed to identify. The thickness of each Mylar™ absorber is chosen so that the alpha par-ticle of interest hits the cellulose nitrate film with the energy required to make an easily identifiable track.

OperationThe air flow through the PAD is deter-mined using an indirect technique that utilizes the basic principles of air-flow circuit dynamics. By measuring parameters such as the PAD body-stall pressure (the pressure exerted by the PAD body at zero air flow) and the pressure drop across the dosimeter head (at a constant air-flow rate

Figure 2: Exploded view of dosimeter head

End Cap

Metal Screen

Membrane Filtre

Gasket

Barrel

Absorbers

CollimatorDetectorLR115 Type II Barrel

Holder


of 4 L/h), the air flow through the PAD, Q, can be calculated using the equation

The parameter PAverage denotes the average PAD stall-pressure measurement, which is measured weekly during the monitoring period. The terms ∆P1 and ∆P2 denote the initial and final pres-sure drops across the dosimeter head, which are measured before and after the monitoring period. Both the stall-pressure and the pressure-drop measurements are performed with a standard Magnehelic pressure gauge.

During operation, particulates in the air are drawn through the dosimeter head. The particulates, including any attached radon and thoron progeny and LLRD, will get caught in the filter inside the dosimeter head. Although worn outside the breathing zone of the individual being monitored, testing has shown that signifi-cant aerosol concentration gradients do not exist between the hip and the breath-ing zone. The sampled air can therefore be considered representative of the air breathed by the individual.

As the attached radon and thoron progeny decay, alpha particles are emitted. Some of these alpha particles will travel up the three-channelled collimator and pass through the absorbers attached to the collimator. The alpha particles will then strike the detector film located at the top of the collimator. The detector film (LR-115 Type II) is only sensitive to alpha particles that have energy in the range of 1.5–4.0 MeV.

To properly discriminate between alpha particles, each collimator is fitted with a Mylar™ absorber of a specific thick-ness. The thickness of each absorber is chosen so that the alpha particle of inter-est emerges from the Mylar™ absorber with an approximate energy of 1.5–4.0 MeV in order for it to leave identifiable tracks on the film. Alpha particles that are not of interest will either be stopped completely by the Mylar™ absorber or pass through the film with energy greater than that required to leave identifiable tracks. The result is three distinct film regions that only contain alpha damage

tracks from RaA (Po-218), RaCʹ (Po-214), and ThCʹ (Po-212), respectively.

Figure 3: Damage tracks on fi lm

The tracks on the film are then enlarged by etching the films for 90 minutes in a sodium-hydroxide solution at a temperature of 60°C. The etching process enlarges the damage tracks on the film so that they can be counted using a specialized image-analysis system (Figure 3). The number of damage tracks can then infer the individual’s inhalation exposure to radon and thoron progeny using the following expressions:

where NRaA, NRaCʹ, and NThCʹ refer to the number of tracks counted in the RaA, RaCʹ, and ThCʹ regions, respectively. The constant 0.8 refers to the collection efficiency for radon and thoron attached aerosols, while the constant 0.001037 represents the efficiency factor of the dosimeter head. The constants 1.3 x 105 and 170 are the required factors to convert the result from MeV/L to Working Level Months (WLM).

Following a minimum waiting period to allow all radon and thoron progeny to decay, the gross alpha activity of the dosimeter-head filter is measured using a low background proportional counter. The activity of the filter can then be used

to infer the individual’s exposure to long-lived alpha emitting radionuclides, using the following expression:

where 1200 [L/h] represents the average breathing rate of ICRP 23’s reference man during light activity and 0.8 refers to the aerosol collection efficiency of the PAD for inhalable LLRD.

PAD Detection LimitsThe limits of detection for the measure-ment of radon and thoron progeny with the PAD are governed by the ability to accurately determine the number of tracks on the exposed film.

Theoretically, the PAD can measure radon and thoron progeny to exposures as low as 0 Working Level Months (WLM), which would correspond to zero tracks on the film. However, at low exposure, the uncertainty in the results due to statisti-cal errors is quite large. Therefore, the lower limit is governed by the number of background tracks and surface defects typi-cally found on the detection film, which translates into a lower detection limit of approximately 0.002 WLM.

The upper limit of detection for the PAD is governed by track density on the film and the resolution of the track count-ing system being used. The upper limit of detection for the measurement of radon and thoron progeny is approximately 11 to 18 WLM.

The upper and lower detection limits for the measurement of LLRD are deter-mined by the operating parameters of the low-background proportional counter.

PAD TestingThe PAD has undergone extensive testing in Canada, the United States, and Europe for the measurement of radon and thoron progeny and LLRD. This testing contin-ues to provide results that are consistent with testing-facility reference systems and that are in compliance with the CNSC Regulatory Standard S-106 Revision 1 accuracy requirements.


When Stéphane put out a call asking the CRPA Board members for brief articles on what it’s like serving on the board, I thought, “sure, I can do that,” and dove right in. Only one problem—he suggested a 500 word maximum. Anybody who knows me will tell you I can’t even say hello in less than 500 words, but I’ll give it a shot.

I’m now serving my second, two-year term as a director and I’m not going to tell you it’s the greatest joy in existence. In fact, it frequently seems like an attempt at “herding cats” . . . an exercise that’s guaranteed to take a long time and cause a lot of frustration for little gain. It’s very difficult to function when you only meet every couple of months, mostly by teleconference. It’s far too easy to forget to look after the tasks you were supposed to do between meetings. Even if you do, a lot of times the issues you’re dealing with require feedback from the general mem-bership, which causes further delays, often has a distressingly low response rate, and rarely results in any definitive consensus.

I could stop here and scare everyone off, but I won’t. These frustrations are pretty typical for any volunteer organization.

Why bother serving on the CRPA Board of Directors?

Lorsque Stéphane nous a demandé d’écrire de courts articles sur notre expérience à siéger au conseil de l’ACRP, j’ai pensé : « Oui, je peux très bien faire cela. » En fait, ce qui importe pour moi est non pas d’expliquer en quoi cela consiste, mais plutôt, pourquoi quelqu’un se donnerait la peine de siéger au conseil. C’est pourtant tout simple : Puisque je désire que l’ACRP s’amé-liore et prenne de l’ampleur, puisque j’en retire de nombreux avantages en tant qu’adhérent et puisque cela n’est possible que parce que des bénévoles essaient de faire avancer les dossiers, je me suis convaincu de sortir de mes pantoufles et de contribuer à l’essor de l’association. Parfois, les changements et améliorations se font attendre, mais rien n’est possible sans le concours de volontaires. Qui plus est, savoir que l’on a travaillé aux réa-lisations de l’ACRP est des plus grati-fiant. Et puis, les membres du conseil sont des gens FANTASTIQUES!

The important issue to me is not “what’s it like?” but rather “why bother?” The answer is pretty simple. I want the CRPA to exist and to grow and improve because I have found great value in being a member of CRPA. Before joining, I had already worked in radiation safety for over a decade, but in a relatively insular

environment. I had very little knowledge of the Canadian radiation protection com-munity at large, had rarely had any oppor-tunity to learn from others working in the same field or to present my own work, and basically didn’t know anyone involved in radiation safety other than my immediate co-workers back in Manitoba.

Joining CRPA was the single biggest factor in changing all of that for me. Simple things like reading the Bulletin and participating in the annual conference enabled me to network with and learn from a very knowledgeable, diverse, and remarkably likeable group of radiation safety professionals from across Canada. In addition, since moving over to work with the CNSC, I find CRPA to be an invaluable forum for discussing issues

I fi nd value in being part of CRPA and I want it to grow and improve, and since the only way that’s going to happen is if people volunteer to try and get things done,

I fi gured I’d better get off my fat, lazy butt and do my share.

Serving on the CRPA board —Both exciting and enjoyable

I served as a director and then as president of the association. My experience on the board was both exciting and enjoyable. We experienced a number of successes, but important issues remain.

If you want to see improvements for our association, offer your time and efforts as a board member.

Would I do it again? Yes, without hesitation!Ray Ilson receiving Founders’ Award from Stéphane Jean François.

Ray Ilson,Past President, CRPA

continued on page 31 . . .


Book Review / Critique de livre

Samuel Walker is the official historian of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He is the author or co-author of four previous books on the nuclear regulatory system in the United States: Containing the Atom—The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation, 1946-1962 (1984); Containing the Atom—Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1963-1971 (1992), Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation Protection in the Twentieth Century (2000), and Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (2004).

The Road to Yucca Mountain is a history of the political and regulatory aspects of the efforts to create a permanent disposal site for high-level radioactive waste. It focuses on the period from the end of World War II through the 1987 amend-ment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which resulted in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, being designated as the sole high-level nuclear waste repository in the United States. The author largely limits the scope of the book to issues related to the dis-posal of high-level civilian wastes and there are occasional references to the disposal of low and intermediate-level wastes and military wastes.

A relatively short first chapter covers the period from the end of World War II through the early sixties and describes the early efforts at disposal, including ocean dumping, and the declining confidence in the Atomic Energy Commission’s manage-ment of waste disposal. The second chap-ter looks at the controversies associated with the management of high-level waste at Hanford (Washington) and the national

review by Michael GreyCandesco Corporation, Burlington, ON

RésuméSamuel Walker est l’autorité officielle sur la United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) et l’auteur ou co-auteur de quatre autres livres por-tant sur le système de réglementation nucléaire aux États-Unis. The Road to Yucca Mountain documente la créa-tion d’un site permanent d’évacua-tion de déchets radioactifs au cours de la période située entre la fin de la deuxième guerre mondiale et l’amen-dement de la Nuclear Waste Policy Act en 1987, qui a eu pour résultat la désignation de Yucca Mountain au Nevada comme site d’évacuation uni-que aux États-Unis pour les déchets nucléaires à haut niveau d’activité. La faiblesse du livre est sa conclusion, où l’auteur décrit l’histoire complète du projet de Yucca Mountain de 1987 à 2009 en à peine deux pages.

Bien qu’il soit inévitable de mentionner certains enjeux techni-ques, il est évident que ceux-ci ne relèvent pas des champs d’expertise ou d’intérêt de l’auteur. Quoique The Road to Yucca Mountain ne soit pas une introduction technique au sujet de la gestion des déchets nucléaires à haut niveau d’activité, il s’agit tout de même d’un bon sommaire des controverses publiques et des faux-pas en réglementation qui ont affligé le programme américain. Il s’agit d’un précieux appel à la prudence, tandis que le programme canadien amorce l’étape suivante de son projet.

reactor Testing Station (Idaho) and the early efforts at establishing a national policy for high-level waste management. The third chapter, entitled “An ‘Atomic Garbage Dump’ for Kansas” is devoted to “Project Salt Vault” and the attempt to create a disposal facility in a salt mine near Lyon, Kansas, in the late sixties and early seventies. Chapter 4 looks at the activities during the final days of the Atomic Energy Commission which was replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Development and Research Administration in 1974. The next two chapters lie slightly off the main track of the book as they deal with low-level waste and transportation issues but the author returns to his main theme in the last chapter, “A Legislative Solution,” which looks at the events leading to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the 1987 amendments to that Act which designated Yucca Mountain as the sole repository for high-level civilian radioactive waste.

The Road to Yucca Mountain concen-trates on the legal, political, and regula-tory aspects of high-level radioactive waste disposal. Some mention of the techni-cal issues is unavoidable but these are obviously not the areas of the author’s

The Road to Yucca MountainThe Development of Radioactive Waste Policy in the United States

J. Samuel Walker(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009)



IntroductionCurrent human exploration of space has been taking place in the vicinity of the ISS (International Space Station) whose orbit is well below the relatively protective layers of the Van Allen Belts and the Earth’s magnetosphere. This means astronauts have been somewhat sheltered from the harshness of Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR). Brief excursions to the moon (beyond the Belts) have been of very short duration and the radiation effects, though cumulative, are not considered high enough to be problematic.

Space radiation is entirely different from the types of radiations we experi-ence on Earth, such as gamma rays and X-rays. It is comprised of atomic particles whose electrons have been stripped, thus ionizing the atom. These particles, when moving with tremendous veloc-ity (i.e. high energy), can severely affect human cells and DNA, leading to future health issues. Though these particles are relatively sparsely distributed, they have a cumulative effect over long duration and can overwhelm the astronauts’ immune systems and/or increase the latent risk for cancer, cataracts, and damage to the cen-tral nervous system. The main characteris-tics of GCR are summed up in Table 1.

RésuméL’humanité se laisse fasciner par les étoiles et les planètes, qui sont là depuis la nuit des temps. Aujourd’hui, nous pouvons explorer les planètes avec l’espoir de les exploi-ter et de les habiter. Notre prochain objectif consiste à se concentrer de plus en plus sur une planète avoisinante, Mars, qui se trouve à portée de notre technologie et de nos conceptions techniques actuelles. Mais les effets prolongés des rayonne-ments galactiques sur les équipages de l’espace restent à déterminer et constituent en fait le facteur restrictif. En effet, il a été reconnu au cours des premières expériences d’explora-tion spatiale que les rayonnements cosmiques galactiques (RCG) empê-cheraient les voyages de longue durée dans l’espace et que le suivi des doses d’exposition est primordial pour la sécurité de l’équipage et le succès des missions futures.

L’article ci-contre quantifie les types et niveaux de rayonnements susceptibles d’être croisés au cours de voyages de longue durée dans l’espace; évalue le risque biologique; considère les incertitudes; et revoit les contre-mesures ou solutions qu’il est possible d’étudier pour protéger les astronautes, dont les substances protectrices et radioprotectrices. Le besoin de mieux comprendre la pro-vocation du cancer par les RCG est aussi souligné.

Can Astronauts Survive

Radiation on Prolonged

Space Missions?by Nicholas Sion

Table 1: Main characteristics of space radiation

Solar Particle Events (SPE) Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR)

Composed largely of electrons, protons, and alpha particles of energies of tens to few hundreds MeV/n.

Composed of 85% protons, 14% helium alphas, and 1% heavy ions with very high energies, exceeding tens of GeV/nucleon.

Occurs at solar maximum. Onset, dura-tion, dose rate, and dose are presently unpredictable.

GCR gives steady radiation background and varies by a factor of 2 approx. over the 11-year sun cycle.

With adequate warning and access to shelter (>10 g/cm2 aluminum-equivalent), radiation hazard can be reduced to acceptable levels.

Shielding is ineffective because ions penetrate hundreds of centimeters of material and produce secondary radiation, primarily X-rays and neutrons.

Biological effects are similar to X-ray or gamma rays.

Biological effects are poorly understood with large uncertainties in projections because there is no human data on which to base estimates.

Low LET radiation deposits energy in a uni-form pattern.

High LET radiation deposits energy in non-uniform pattern along its track.

Major research questions are predicting the onset and relevant characteristics of SPE, and the health risks due to the residual low dose rates, when protected by shielding.

Major research questions are understanding the mechanisms linking radiation exposure to health risk.


Data from outer space and from Mars are still spotty and have been gathered from the few successful probes sent there. Initially, computer models were relied on and then verified by data sent back by mis-sion probes.

How detrimental the GCR is to human tissue is the main thrust of current-day research since there is no human data. Some extrapolation has been done from the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) data gained from International Space Station (ISS). Table 2 shows the type of radiation encountered in LEO and the Linear Energy Transfer, which is the aver-age energy released or deposited per unit length of track.

1 Types of Radiation

Table 2 shows the types of radiation in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), at Solar Particle Events (SPE), and at Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR). The effect of Linear Energy Transfer (LET) is magnitudes higher at GCR than in the lower orbits.

LET is the energy deposited to the target per unit length of track. It is at the high energy, high atomic numbers [HZE] that most tissue damage occurs.

Following are some typical example numbers:1

• Z=1 proton at 250 MeV/n has an LET of ∼ 0.4 keV/μm

Table 2: Types of radiation, energy levels, and linear energy transfer (LET) (Derived from NCRP Report #142)

Radiation Type Energy Levels Location

Electrons in LEO 10 MeV Trapped in the outer Van Allen Belts

Protons in LEO 40 keV–500 MeV Protons >30 MeV trapped in the inner Van Allen Belts

Radiation Type Energy Levels LETkeV.µm-1

Location and/or Effects

Trapped electrons in LEO 0.5–6 MeV 0.2 Electrons >0.5 MeV can penetrate some parts of the EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity) suit

Trapped protons in LEO <10 MeV 5 Do not penetrate spacecraft nor EVA suits. Are of little concern.

Trapped solar protons and light nuclear particles

10–400 MeV 0.3–5 Penetrates EVA suits and spacecraft; produces low energy but highly ionizing target fragments. Will knock out the lighter particles (Z=1, Z=2) and neutrons.

Solar Particle Events (SPE)

Protons 100s of MeV Not yet Fluence >10 protons.cm-2.sr -1 .s-1

Heavy ions 10s–100s MeV quantifi ed Will penetrate space suit but not spacecraft.

GCR and high energy secondary fragments

>50 MeV/nucleon, and Z>1 with peaks of few 100s MeV

For Fe energy levels are 10–10+14 MeV

1–1,000 e.g. Fluence for Fe is 1/cm2

Stopped by Earth’s magnetosphere and Van Allen Belts.Can penetrate skin of current spacecraft and produce high and low energy charged particles. Can produce pions whose dose contribution is unknown.

Charged target fragments(secondary particles)

< 10 MeV/nucleon on average

2–1,200 Target fragments have short range and deposit large energies at location. If within human body, can produce substantial biological effects. Distribution falls to 1% of peak at 40 MeV.

Neutrons 0.1–500 MeV Not yet quantifi ed High-energy protons interact with heavier nuclei in shielding and in tissue to produce albedo neutrons that interact with atomic nuclei to produce ionizing secondary particles.About 50% of GCR neutrons H is from neutron >10 MeV, and 20% of total H aboard ISS is from neutrons >10 MeV

Reentrant electrons,and splash albedo electrons

1 MeV–>1GeV 0.2–3 Reentrant electrons are decay products of unstable nuclei produced by the trapped GCR ions.The splash albedo electrons are those scattered upwards by the interactions in the atmosphere.These electrons are boosted to higher levels to increase the dose by a factor of 10. Hence, trapped electron dose dominates where shielding is thin, whereas reentrant and splash electrons dominate when shielding is thickened !!!

• Z=2 helium alpha particle at 1.25 MeV/n has an LET 90 keV/μm

• Z=26 fast iron ion at 600 MeV/n has an LET of 200keV/μm

• Dose, fluence, and LET are interre-lated: Dose in cGy or rad = 1.602x10-7 x fluence (#/cm2) x LET (keV/μm)

2 Abundance of Particles in GCR and Their Dose

Figure 1 depicts the abundance of the contribution of typical particles found in GCR harmonized on a logarithmic scale and their dose, in Rem.


Prominently, the protons and the helium are in abun-dance and are major contribu-tors to dose, but iron is much lower in abundance yet is a major contributor as well.

3Radiation En Route and on Mars

On April 7, 2001, NASA launched the Odyssey space-craft (Figure 2) that carried on board an instrument dubbed MARIE (Martian Radiation Environment Experiment). MARIE is an instrument designed to measure protons and heavy ions in the energy range that is most harmful to humans. It transmitted radia-tion data while en route to and from Mars orbit until its com-puters were damaged by a solar particle event (SPE). The data it sent back is shown in Figure 3.

The daily averaged dose rate is in the vicinity of 25 mRad/day (250 μSv/day) with spikes due to SPE reaching 2866 mRad/day (28.66 mSv/day) at almost regular intervals between 50–70 days.

Data from MARIE also indi-cated a higher density of parti-cles while in orbit around Mars than while in transit through galactic space (Table 3).2

MARIE also detected back-scattered albedo neu-trons. These are created when neutrons are knocked from the nuclei during the interaction of high-energy cosmic rays and the Martian atmosphere.

The data indicate there is not much difference in the fluence whether in orbit or en route, except in terms of the >2 HZE particles (Martian orbit has less fluence).

There are astronauts in the lower Earth orbit aboard the International Space Station (ISS) who have stayed in orbit

Figure 1: Particle abundance and their dose found in galactic cosmic radiation (GCR), harmonized on a logarithmic scale and their dose, in Rem.

Figure 2: Mars Odyssey was equipped with MARIE, the Martian Radiation Environment Experiment, to study the radiation environ-ment on Mars. Odyssey was launched April 7, 2001, and was captured into orbit around Mars on October 24, 2001. MARIE trans-mitted radiation data while en route to and from Mars orbit until its computers were damaged by a solar particle event (SPE).

for six months. Their dose equivalent received over a 6-month period is shown in Figure 4. Aboard the ISS, astro-nauts would receive 0.48 mSv/day, while in Martian orbit they would receive 1.28 mSv/day, or ∼2.7 times more.

4 Comparisons

In certain circumstances, humans on Earth are subjected to higher doses of radiation than those received on Mars. These are shown in Tables 4 and 5.3, 4 In cases of severely injured trauma patients, for example, immediate diagnostic imaging is the basis of hospi-tals’ trauma units’ response, and heavier doses than the limits are incurred. As another example, dose from one thyroid scan is about 33 weeks on Mars surface, and one breast scan about 11–12 weeks.

Radiation doses from dif-ferent NASA programs — the shuttle, Apollo, Skylab, etc. — are shown in Table 6. They are reasonably high but the mission durations were far too brief to have detrimental effects.

Table 7 compares Earth and Mars and shows that the radiation received on Mars is about 91 times that on Earth, and that favourable accessibility to Mars is available about every two years.

5

How Much Dose Will an Astronaut Receive on a Mission to Mars?

If humans do reach Mars and habitation is to occur, then what radiation dose will astro-nauts endure?

The available data are col-lected from instruments sent to Mars and refer to actual radia-tion dose to which humans have not yet been subjected;

Figure 3: Daily average dose rate sent by MARIE (Martian Radiation Environment Experiment), March 13, 2002, to September 30, 2003.


Table 3: GCR fl uence in outer space summarized from the MARIE data provided by NASA.

Ion Energy

En Route to Mars

In Orbit around Mars

MeV (cm2-sr-s-MeV/n)-1

Proton Flux 45–75 2 x 10-5 ~ 2–4 x 10-5

75–105 7 x 10-5 ~ 7–9 x 10-5

Helium Flux 50–150 6 x 10-6 5–7 x 10-6

150–250 1.5 x 10-5 1–1.7 x 10-5

HZE >2 Flux

125–225 1–2 x 10-6 0.5x10-6 – 2x10-6

225–325 ~ 4 x 10-6 2–5 x10-6

Table 4: Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging in severely injured trauma patients (mSv) compared to other diagnostic testing scenarios

Type of Diagnostic Testing # of Patients Dose (mSv)

Total Effective Dose 10822.7

average dose to trauma patients

Thyroid 172 58.5

Red Marrow 108 18.5

Breast (females) 40 20.9

Table 5: Mean radiation dose in cardiac imaging

Procedure Effective Dose(mSv)

Risk(in order of magnitude)

Thorax radiography 0.02 Negligible (1:1,000,000)

Pelvic radiography 1 Minimal (1: 100,000)

PET scans – cardiac (drip/intravenous)

2–4 Very Low (1:10,000)

Diagnostic coronography(5–10 min.)

2–4 Very Low (1:10,000)

Coronary CT scans (prospec-tive gating)

3–4 Very Low (1:10,000)

Natural radioactivity in Switzerland (1y)

3 Very Low (1:10,000)

Myocardial scans – 90mTc 4–8 Very Low (1:10,000)

Coronary CT scans (retrospec-tive gating)

10–14 Low (1:1000)

Myocardial Scans – 201Tl 18–20 Low (1:1 000)

Figure 4: Comparison of dose equivalent between the Interna-tional Space Station (ISS) and Mars Orbit.

hence the maximum dose equivalent can only be esti-mates at this stage. These have been derived from: • GH(T) = 0.05+4(1-e-T/72)

in Sv;5 where GH(T) is the Dose Equivalent in Sv; T is the mission duration in months, e.g. to Mars.

Figure 5 suggests that to keep low dose equivalents,

the mission time should be reduced to a minimum. Since the orbital timing cannot be changed, then another approach must be considered, such as faster rocketry or improved countermeasures, i.e. multifaceted means of astro-naut protection.

Another calculation6 was made using the available data

Table 6: Comparative table of exposures*

Type of Exposure Dose Equivalent

Mission to Mars Around 200 Rem/mission [2 Sv) (best estimate)

Shuttle (average skin dose) ~ 0.433 Rem/mission (~4.33 mSv)

Shuttle (highest skin dose) 7.864 Rem/mission (78.64 mSv)

Apollo 14 (highest skin dose) 1.4 Rem/mission (14 mSv)

Skylab 4 (highest skin dose) 17.8 Rem/mission (178 mSv)

Airline fl ight crew 200 mrem/y (2 mSv/y)

Gas cooking range 0.02 mrem/y (0.2 µSv/y)

Dental prosthesis 0.02 mrem/y (0.2 µSv/y)

CT scan (chest) 700 mrem/event (7 mSv)(NASA claims 1 mSv space radiation ≡ 3 chest X–rays)

Barium enema 400 mrem/event (4 mSv)

Background radiation (Houston)

100 mrem/y (1 mSv/y)

* Courtesy NASA, Space Radiation Analysis Group, Johnson Space Center

and typical mission durations and assumed shielding. • Typical journey time = 536

days in transit + 439 days on Mars

• Mission time is then 975 days (approx. 2.67 years)

Lifetime extra risks are in the vicinity of 3.4% — 2.4% for males aged 55–64 years old and

16.7% for females aged 25–34 years old.

6 Radiation Limits

National Council for Radiation Protection (NCRP) Report #98 (1989) was revaluated using new data in NCRP Report #132 (2000) and sets limits on lifetime exposure


Figure 5: Maximum radiation dose (estimate) per mission duration in days.

that corresponds to a 5% risk. The aimed-for lifetime risk for astronauts is 3%.

7The Effects of Cosmic Galactic Radiation (GCR)

Table 1 lists the characteristics of GCR; we know GCR radia-tion has a greater detrimental effect on human tissue than the usual radiations we encoun-ter on Earth.

Iron-56 has been identified as the most potent contributor to cellular damage. Mice irradi-ated with 1 GeV/nucleon of Iron-56 particles showed acute myeloid leukemia and hepato-cellular carcinoma (forms of cancer).

Mice irradiated with heavy ions viz. C (energy 290 MeV/n) and Fe (energy 500 MeV/n) showed an inherited predisposi-tion to renal carcinomas.

7.1 Effects on DNA Ionizing radiation directly leads to single and double-strand breaks, and cluster breaks when hit by a high-energy HZE par-ticle, e.g. 56Fe. Many molecular bonds are broken in the tissue along the trajectory. Figure 6.

Though DNA is quite adept at repairing single-strand breaks by copying from the undam-aged strands as templates, the double-strand breaks, and the

cluster breaks in particular, cause complex biological dam-age. The cells’ ability to do the repair is impaired and DNA deletions may occur that may cause genetic aberrations and possible latent cancer. The damaged DNA also compro-mises cell reproduction.7

NASA estimates that up to 35% of DNA would be destroyed on a round-trip Mis-sion to Mars.

7.2 Effects on Chromosomes

There are 23 pairs of chromo-somes in each cell (one chro-mosome from each parent). They comprise a P arm and a Q arm and span millions of base pairs (the bonds joining the two helical strands). They contain about 3,000 genes per chromosome and are the build-ing blocks of DNA.

High-energy HZE par-ticles and a high LET causes fragmentation damage to chromosomes. Changes in the chromosome structure cause latent health and development problems and are associated with some cancers. • Deletions of the P arm are

identified in brain and kidney tumours.

• Duplications of the Q arm are associated with blood disorders with the possibil-ity of developing leukemia.

Figure 6: Radiation Damage to DNA

Normal DNAIrradiated DNA via water molecule & free radical

Irradiated DNA via X-Ray and by Heavy Ion

Table 7: Earth – Mars comparisons

Earth Mars

Sidereal Day 23.934 h 24.62 h

Background radiation dose (depending on altitude and location)

2.76 µSv/d[0.276 mR/day, or11.5 µR/h]1 mSv/y[19 µSv/wk][0.1 Rem/y]

~ 250 µSv/d[~25 mR/day, or1.04 mR/h]91 mSv/y[1.75 mSv/wk][9.1 Rems/y]

Radiation ratio Mars / Earth

Mars receives 91 times the radiation received by Earth

Orbit: distance from the Sun

149,600,000 km (92.96 million miles), almost circular

227,940,000 km (141.62 million miles), somewhat elliptical

Orbital velocity 29.87 km/s 24.19 km/s

Orbit period 365.256 days 686.98 days

Therefore: Hello Mars every 22.56 months = 22m 16d 9h 36 min


Chromosomal damage is being studied using mFISH (multicolour fluorescence in situ hydridazation) in bone marrow cells, and mBAND (multicolour banding in situ hybridization).8 Tests using mFISH indicated an increase of abnormal cells (4.3 x Cs-137 induced gamma rays) and chromosome breaks (4.2 x Cs-137 induced gamma rays).9 Longer-lived biomarkers for the high LET were identified using mBAND.8

Astronauts wear dosimeters and undergo bio-dosimetry eval-uation to detect chromosome damage in blood cells. Using a method derived to deter-mine the radiation dose after a prolonged flight, significant increases in aberrations were observed after long missions.10

7.3 Late Radiation Effects Late radiation effects appear several years after radiation exposure in space; hence the tendency is to send “older” astronauts into space. The expectation is that younger astronauts will live long enough for the symptoms to develop. An astronaut’s radiation history is also checked in the recruiting process.

7.3.1 CataractsAn increase in cataract risk has been observed in astro-nauts whose dose was >8 mSv compared to those with <8 mSv. Yet, even relatively low doses of GCR do increase the incidence of cataracts.11 These were observed in Russian cosmonauts who have spent prolonged periods of up to one year in the MIR station.

7.3.2 Genetic InstabilitySpace radiation tests on liv-ing cells showed enhanced genomic instability compared to control cells in that some 10–20 divisions later, and even up to 60 divisions later, the irradiated cells change direction to become cancer cells. Timing for cell division depends on the

organ and can be from a few hours to several days.12

7.3.3 Hereditary EffectsHereditary effects resulting from the inconsistent repair of cluster-damaged DNA are genetic deletions + chromo-some damage leading to pos-sible leukemia, brain, and/or kidney tumours.

8 Effects of Microgravity

The human body has adapted itself to Earth’s gravity; its biological structure and func-tion have developed to suit the earth’s environment. When outside this envelope, the body is disturbed. Following are some areas of concern.

8.1 Space Sickness or Space Adaptation Syndrome

Or in other words motion sick-ness. About 40% of astronauts who have ventured into space have endured this and for-tunately the symptoms wear off after 2–3 days as the body adapts to weightlessness.

8.2 Blood Circulation Circulation is affected when there is no gravity to balance the pumping force of the heart, hence the tendency toward “puffy faces” and “chicken legs” in space flights.13 Fortunately these effects are reversible. Other symptoms are nasal congestion and headaches, and swollen eyes: intraocular pres-sure was noticeable in Korea’s first astronaut.14

Table 8: Career whole-body dose equivalent (Sv-Eq) limits based on a lifetime excess risk of 3%*

Age in Years

25 35 45 55

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

NCRP Report# 98 1.5 1.0 2.5 1.75 3.25 2.50 4.0 3.0

NCRP Report # 132 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.5 0.9 3.0 1.7

* Data From National Council for Radiation Protection (NCRP) Reports #98 and #132

Normal chromosomeDamaged chromosome in a post fl ight sample

Figure 7: Fragmentation Damage to Chromosomes by Galactic Radiation

Figure 8: Earth’s gravity pulls everything down, so our lower torso and legs carry our body weight. In space, because of micrograv-ity, astronauts fl oat and their legs are largely unused. The resulting muscular atrophy makes affected limbs look skinnier. Microgravity can also be insuffi cient to offset the pumping of the heart, resulting in a tendency toward puffy faces. These effects are reversible.

8.3 Balance and Orientation Balance and orientation are disturbed when the body lacks its normal points of reference. In space, the brain is receiving infor-mation via visual cues only, the eyes. Vestibular cues are no longer coming from sensors detecting liquid movement in the ear canals. Balance and orientation are much curtailed.


8.4 Muscular Atrophy Muscles atrophy as the bones weaken due to mineral loss viz. calcium, potassium, and sodium. Bone degradation in the lower limbs can be as high as 10%. These changes can be mitigated by medication and by vigorous exercise while on board.15

8.5 Vertebrae Separation,or Relaxation

Vertebral relaxation occurs as a result of microgravity and the spine elongates by up to 7 cm. This is also reversible when back on Earth. Ongoing space agencies research programs hope to reduce or even elimi-nate these undesirable effects.

Figure 9: Vertebral relaxation in space occurs as a result of microgravity and the spine elongates by up to 7 cm. This is reversible back on earth.

9 Uncertainties

A number of uncertainties surrounding radiation exposure on prolonged space missions still exist.

9.1 Heavy HZE ParticlesWe need to develop a greater understand-ing of the effects of the heavy HZE par-ticles on tissue and on organs. In particu-lar, Iron-56 has been identified as the most potent contributor to cellular damage. Mice irradiated with 1 GeV/nucleon of Iron-56 particles showed acute myeloid leukemia and hepatocellular carcinoma (forms of cancer).16 Irradiation with heavy ions viz. C (energy 290 MeV/n) and Fe (energy 500 MeV/n) showed an inherited predisposition to renal carcinomas.17

9.2 Q-FactorThe Q-Factor is a LET-dependent factor, a multiplier of the absorbed dose to derive the dose equivalent. There is still consider-able uncertainty regarding HZE and its

distribution over LET. Hence, discussions of risk remain estimates.

9.3 Excess Relative Risk (ERR)ERR is an expression of excess risk relative to the baseline risks from X-rays and gamma rays as they exist on Earth. However, our understanding of ERR in relation to thermal and fast neutrons gen-erated within the cabin and from albedo neutrons found on the Mars surface has not been quantified.

9.4 Defi ning Sv/MeV If we could define or to ascertain the dose equivalent per units of particle energy, it would enable the normalization of particle energies.

10 Countermeasures

To reduce the uncertainties, the National Council for Radiation Protection has pub-lished NCRP #153,18 a report outlining topics for further research and for space missions beyond low Earth orbit.

Figure 10: Galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) dose at 5 cm depth tested for better shielding on Mars missions

10.1 Optimizing the Shielding NASA states that shielding that is up to 35% effective in protecting the astronauts against galactic particles is a viable com-promise between unacceptable concentra-tions from secondary radiation caused by neutron accumulations inside the cabin on the one hand and excess weight and logistical constraints on the other. There are also logistic and weight constraints in providing complete shielding.

Research on materials showed that polyethylene, and lithium hydride, i.e. materials with a high Hydrogen content, produce far less secondary radiation, viz.

neutrons. Ongoing experiments are in progress to establish the effectiveness of these materials against HZE particles.

10.2 Nutrition and Immune-Enhancing Drugs

A countermeasure to the cytotoxicity induced by an HZE particle and the oxida-tive stress in a cell is selenomethionine.19,20 Another study evaluated the Bowman-Birk Inhibitor Concentrate (BBIC), a derivative from soy beans, and it is effective in pro-viding protection against space-radiation-induced cytotoxicity.

10.3 On-Board Bio-DosimetryAstronauts are encouraged to undergo on-board bio-dosimetry evaluations to detect for chromosome damage in blood cells.

10.4 Exposure Surveillance Exposure surveillance is implemented and monitored during the mission. Active monitoring on board reduces the radia-tion received by locating the best-shielded locations.21 All astronauts wear dosimeters.

10.5 Monitoring the Mission Time The duration of a mission must be monitored viz-a-viz the radiation received by each astronaut. Accounting for the astronaut’s previous dose history will be a more accurate method of assessing the life-time dose.

10.6 Creating a Biological Risk Factor

Creating a biological risk factor is advo-cated as a means of predicting, or assess-ing risk, by non-invasive methods where metabolic changes can be sampled during the mission. However, a biological risk fac-tor might be affected by microgravity since things like lymphocyte locomotion and proliferation rates, which are integral to the immune response, are compromised.

10.7 A Better Understanding of the Induction of Cancer

The goal here is to ascertain when a cell mutates and at what dose level, and then to devise the means to find its counter-measures. A tall order indeed.

11 Risk

To reduce the risk, radiation doses are chosen to reduce the long-term effects on


the mission astronauts. These effects may manifest themselves only several years after the mission has been completed. Hence the principle of ALARA is imple-mented to ensure astronauts do not even approach these limits.22

Using earlier assessment from BEIR lll, based on low levels of gamma radia-tion, e.g. <0.1 Sv, and low LET, the effect induces an increase of cancer risk of 1 per 8 million per 10 μSv. This means that

Figure 11: Evolution of risk for Mars exploration. NASA hopes risk reductions are achievable in periodic breakthroughs where uncertainties can be halved.

for astronauts subjected to 0.80 Sv on a Martian mission, the risk increase is 1%, or 1 fatal cancer per 100 astronauts.23 This result is an extrapolation of using the low LET to apply as the high LET. There is an uncertainty here since no human biologi-cal data is available at the high LET.

NASA hopes risk reductions are achiev-able in breakthroughs where the uncertain-ties can be halved in, say, 5-year intervals.22

NASA’s Ongoing Program

Since Mars and Earth are at their closest proximity every two years, that dictates the frequency of the probes. A Test Bed Lander is scheduled for 2011, and a Sample Return probe for 2013.

Parting ShotHow about using stem cells to regenerate the DNA and the dying cells that result from radiation? Stem cells are susceptible to radiation as well, leaving the counter-measure of storing the stem cells on Earth, and using them on the astronauts upon their return.

AcknowledgementNumerous figures and information have been obtained from NASA databases and archives courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech.

Endnotes1. Nelson, Gregory A. Fundamental

Space Radiobiology. Gravitational and Space Biology Bulletin, June 2003, 16(2), pp. 29–36.

2. Lee K., Andersen V., Pinsky L. et al. Cosmic Ray Flux Measurements made by MARIE in Mars Orbit. 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference (2003), pp. 1769–1772.

3. Tien, H.C., Tremblay, L.N., Brenneman F., et al. Radiation Exposure From Diagnostic Imag-ing in Severely Injured Trauma Patients. J. Trauma, 2007, 62(1), pp 151–155.

4. Monney, P., Prior, J.O., Rizzo, E., Locca, D., Bischof, D.A., Qanadli, S., & Jeanrenaud, X., of CHUV Lausanne. Cardiac Imaging: Specific Clinical Role of Newly developed Non-Invasive Tech-niques. University of Lausanne. 2008, 4(159), pp. 1304–10.

5. Pissarenko, N.F. Radiation Situa-tion Determining the Possibility of a Manned Flight to Mars and Back. Advanced Space Research, 1992, 12(No.2–3), pp. 435–439.

6. Friedberg, W., Copeland, K., Duke, F.E. et al. Health Aspects of Radiation Exposure on a

Simulated Mission to Mars. Radio-activity in the Environment, 2005, 7, pp. 894–901.

7. Hellweg, C.E. & Baumstark-Kahn, C. Getting Ready for the Manned Mission to Mars: The Astronauts’ Risk From Space Radiation. Naturwissenschaften, 2007, 94, pp. 517–526.

8. USRA – Universities Space Research Association, High Energy Space Research.

9. Rithidech, K.N., L. Honikel, E.B. Whorton. mFISH analysis of chro-mosomal damage in bone marrow cells collected from CBA/CaJ mice following whole body exposure to heavy ions (56Fe ions), Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 2007 46(2), pp. 137-45.

10. George, K., Durante M., Wu, H., Willingham, V., Badhwar, G., & Cucinotta, F.A. Chromosome Aberrations in the Blood Lym-phocytes of Astronauts after Space Flight. Radiation Research, 2001, 156, pp. 731–738.

11. Cucinotta, F., Manuel, F.K. et al. Space Radiation and Cataracts in Astronauts. Radiation Research, 2001, 156, pp. 460–466.

12. Space Research, Office of Bio-logical and Physical Research Vol.1 No.1, Fall 2001. NASA.

13. Canadian Space Agency. Space Travel and the Effects of Weightless-ness on the Human Body. Informa-tion Sheet.

14. Chung, K., An, C., & Huh, K. The Effect of Diurnal Variation of Intraocular Pressure. Aerospace Medical Center, ROKAF, Cheong-won-Gun, Chung Buk, Korea.

15. Yumoto, K., Globus, R. et al. Short Term Effects of Whole-Body Exposure to 56Fe Ions in Combina-tion With Musculoskeletal Disuse on Bone Cells. Radiation Research, 0033–7587/10. 2010 Radiation Research Society.

16. Weill, M.M., Bedford, J.S., Biele-feldt-Ohmann, H. et al. Incidence of Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Mice Irradiated with 1GeV/nucleon 56Fe Ions. Radiation Research, 2009, 172(2), pp. 213–219.

17. Nakadai, T., Nojima K., Kobayashi I., et al. HZE Radiation Effects for Hereditary Renal Carcinomas. International Space Radiation Laboratory NIRS, Chiba, Japan.

18. National Council for Radiation Protection. Information Needed To

Make Radiation Protection Recom-mendation For Space Missions Beyond Low Earth Orbits. NCRP #153 (2006). Bethesda, Maryland.

19. Kennedy, A.R., Zhou, Z., Dona-hue, J.J., & Ware, J.H. Protection against Adverse Effects induced by Space Radiation by the Bowman-Birk Inhibitor and Antioxidants. Radiation Research, 2006, 166(2, August). pp. 327–332.

20. Kennedy, A.R., Ware, J.H. et al. Selenomethionine Protects Against Adverse Biological Effects Induced by Radiation. Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 2004, 36(2), pp. 259–266.

21. NASA Facts, Johnson Space Cen-ter. Understanding Space Radiation. FS-2002-10-080-JSC, Oct. 2002.

22. National Academy of Sciences, USA. Managing Space Risks in the New Era of Space Exploration, Committee on the Evaluation of Radiation Shielding for Space Exploration. Pre-publication copy. ISBN: 0-309-11384-9, 2008, 108 pages.

23. Sion N. Radiation Protection For Astronauts on Prolonged Space Missions. Proceedings of IRPA12, Full Papers, Topic lll 5.4 RP in Flights and Space, Paper # 0281.


Health Physics Corner

This issue’s question

A technician took a sample of mod-erator water for analysis, and put it in his pocket. The water had very little in the way of radionuclides, except for tritium: it was 444 GBq / kg water. If the vial broke and 10 ml of the 20 ml contents were absorbed through his skin, how much dose would he be expected to eventually receive, assum-ing no intervention, e.g. no increased fluid intake? What actions should a health physicist take on discovering this uptake?

Have fun! Remember, this column’s for you. Send your answers and suggestions for future issues to the CRPA Secretariat or [email protected].

by Emélie Lamothe, Health Physics Specialist

Answer

Hi and welcome back. Have you wrestled with last issue’s question? I have, and for better or worse, here is my personal take on the situation.

Monitoring exposure of on-site visitors: Whose responsibility is it?

The following is based on my understand-ing of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its Regulations. I invite our CNSC members to correct me if I am wrong.

The situation is quite straightforward for workers at a given site: the licensee is responsible for ascertaining and recording dose to the nuclear energy workers and, by extension, to other monitored personnel at their site.

Last Issue’s Question

A CNSC inspector is coming to your site. Whose Thermo Luminescent Dosimeter (TLD) should the inspec-tor wear?

The issue becomes murky when a mon-itored person is monitored by different licensees at different sites, as is the case for a CNSC inspector. The question then becomes, who is responsible for monitor-ing? And, if you push this a bit further, who reports the dose to the National Dose Registry (NDR) and to which site does the dose need to be attributed?

The CNSC is responsible for maintain-ing the dose records for their inspectors. Further, the CNSC is responsible for designating inspectors as nuclear energy workers, for providing training, and for providing dosimetry (i.e. a TLD). There is no expectation that the licensee will provide monitoring for inspectors. The licensee must ensure the inspector is wearing a TLD while on site, must provide a TLD if required, and must report the resulting dose to the CNSC.

Question du dernier numéro

Un inspecteur de la CCSN vient évaluer votre site. À qui appartient le dosimètre thermoluminescent (DTL) que l’inspecteur devra porter?

par Emélie Lamothe, spécialiste en radioprotection

Réponse

Bonjour et bienvenue à nouveau. La question du dernier numéro représentait-elle un défi pour vous? Pour ma part, elle m’a bien fait réfléchir dans tous les sens. Vous trouverez ci-dessous mon opinion personnelle à cet égard.

À qui revient la responsabilité du contrôle de l’exposition des visiteurs sur place?

travailleurs en énergie nucléaire et, par extension, par les autres membres du personnel suivis sur le site de travail, puis d’enregistrer lesdites doses.

La question s’embrouille lorsqu’une personne est suivie par plusieurs déten-teurs de permis sur différents sites, comme c’est le cas pour un inspecteur de la CCSN, par exemple. La question devient

L’opinion suivante est basée sur ma compréhension de la Loi sur la sûreté et la réglementation nucléaires et de ses Règlements. J’invite nos membres de la CCSN à me corriger si j’ai tort.

La situation est une évidence pour les travailleurs d’un site donné : le déten-teur de permis est responsable d’assurer le contrôle des doses reçues par les

Licensees can request that the inspec-tor also wear their company’s TLD while at site. In this case, the dose to this badge is solely attributed to the activities performed by the inspector while on the licensee’s site and is reported directly to the CNSC and not to NDR. The inspec-tor’s personal TLD continues to reflect occupational exposure for inclusion into NDR by the CNSC’s licensed dosimetry service provider.

alors : « À qui revient la responsabilité du suivi? » Et pour pousser la chose un peu plus loin : « Qui est responsable de rapporter la dose au Fichier dosimétrique national (FDN) et à quel site doit-on attri-buer la dose? »

La CCSN est responsable de main-tenir à jour les dossiers de dosimétrie pour ses inspecteurs. Elle est en outre responsable de désigner les inspecteurs


Question du présent numéro

Un technicien prend un échantillon de 20 ml d’eau virole pour ana-lyse et le place dans sa poche. L’eau a une teneur très faible en radio-nucléides, sauf en tritium : celui-ci a une concentration de 444 GBq / kg d’eau. Si le flacon se brise et que 10 ml du contenu est absorbé par la peau du technicien, quelle est la dose qu’il aura éventuellement reçue, en tenant pour acquis qu’il n’y a aucune intervention (par exemple aucune augmentation de la consommation de liquides par le technicien)? Quelles actions un spécialiste de la radioprotection devrait-il entreprendre suite à la découverte de cette absorption?

Amusez-vous! Souvenez-vous que cette rubrique s’adresse à vous! Envoyez vos réponses et vos suggestions pour les prochains numéros au secrétariat de l’ACRP ou encore faites-les-moi parvenir par courriel à l’adresse [email protected].

Coin des spécialiste en radioprotection

comme travailleurs en énergie nucléaire, de leur donner la formation nécessaire et de leur fournir un DTL. Il n’y a aucune attente précisant si le détenteur de permis doit assurer un suivi aux inspecteurs; il est toutefois responsa-ble de s’assurer que l’inspecteur porte un DTL lors de sa présence au site, de lui fournir un DTL au besoin et de rapporter la dose résultante à la CCSN.

Les détenteurs de permis peuvent demander que l’inspecteur porte aussi le DTL de leur entreprise lors de sa présence au site de travail. Dans ce cas, la dose de ce dosimètre est attribuée uniquement aux activités effectuées par l’inspecteur lors de sa présence au site et est rapportée directement à la CCSN, et non au FDN. Le DTL personnel de l’inspecteur continue de refléter l’exposition en milieu de travail et ses résultats sont ajoutés au FDN par le fournisseur autorisé de services de dosimétrie de la CCSN.

expertise or interest. There are a few minor technical errors in the text, such as a sentence on page 113 which reads “Radioactive waste experts were more concerned about the long-range risk of other transuranics, especially techne-tium-99” (italics added). These errors tended to stand out but they did not adversely impact the author’s message.

The major weakness of the book is its ending. The main story ends with the passage of the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, after which the author relates the entire history of the Yucca Mountain project (1987–2009) in two pages. This short section has the feel of an afterthought and it might better have been relegated to an after word.

The Road to Yucca Mountain is not a technical introduction to the subject of high-level waste management, but it is a good summary of the political con-troversies and regulatory missteps that have plagued the American program, and it is a valuable cautionary tale as the Canadian program moves into its next phase.

The Road to Yucca Mountain (. . . continued from page 17)


Submission Procedures

Authors submitting manuscripts for consideration are asked to follow these guidelines.

1. Submit manuscripts (in English or French) electronically as attachments (in Microsoft Word®).

2. Include the title of the paper, author(s) name(s) and affi liation(s), and email address to which correspondence should be sent.

3. Include an abstract of no more than 200 words and a biographical note of not more than 50 words for the author and any co-authors.

4. Submission of a manuscript implies that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere. Once accepted for publication in the Bulletin, consent from the editor must be obtained before a manuscript, or any part of it, may be published elsewhere in the same form.

5. Authors are invited to submit manuscripts at any time during the year to

Editor (c/o CRPA Secretariat)

ph: 613-253-3779email: [email protected]

Deadlines

Materials must be received by the editor no later than the following dates:

Number 1 .....................January 15Number 2 .....................April 15Number 3 .....................July 15Number 4 .....................October 15

Advertising

While advertisements are sought after and accepted to offset the production costs of the Bulletin, the newsletter is published primarily for, and on behalf of, CRPA / ACRP members. Therefore inclusion of advertisements is entirely at the discretion of the association. CRPA / ACRP reserves the right to reject, omit, or cancel any advertisements that are not in keeping with the professional nature of the Bulletin or in any other way inappropriate for our members.

Advertorials

Advertorials are a new advertising feature for the Bulletin and are available at the same rate as display advertising. If a client requires assis-tance with writing, editing, or production of their advertorial, these services can be negotiated with the production company responsible for produc-ing the Bulletin. For more information, contact Michelle Boulton at [email protected].

Publishing Offi ce

For rates, technical specifi cations, deadlines, and any information about advertising, contact the publishing offi ce.

Michelle Communications

Ph: (306) 343-8519Email: [email protected]

idées, notre talent compense le manque de ressources; il suffit d’y mettre le temps. Votre CA a d’ailleurs revu le processus de nomination des membres aux élections et il a étudié la possibilité de tenir des élec-tions électroniques. À vous de jouer. Et le premier geste est de se présenter au sein des comités de l’ACRP ou simplement de vous faire entendre auprès de votre CA. Les plus discrets proposeront des projets mobilisateurs, les plus enthousiastes se présenteront aux élections, mais il faut vaincre cette apathie que je qualifiais gen-timent d’inertie lors de mon mandat à la présidence. Il faut bouger, et les élections sont un bon départ.

Heureusement, j’ai le Bulletin pour canaliser ma fougue. Et ce Bulletin est soutenu par des membres comme vous qui contribuent à ajouter de la valeur pour le membre de l’ACRP. Nous commençons à être victimes de notre succès, la banque d’articles commence à s’étoffer. Ce mois-ci, j’ai le plaisir d’accueillir Nick Sion qui nous propose un article sur la radioprotec-tion dans l’espace. Nick avait présenté ce sujet sidéral à Edmonton en 2010. Nous vous proposons comme motivateur un directeur qui n’a pas la langue dans sa poche, Jeff Sandeman, qui nous révèle les raisons qui l’ont poussé à joindre le CA de l’ACRP. Cette édition électorale est bien sûr assaisonnée à la sauce de nos collabo-rateurs habituels.

J’espère qu’après la lecture de ce Bulletin, vous aurez l’envie farouche de nous faire part de vos commentaires ou de votre opinion, de proposer un membre de l’ACRP au CA ou bien de vous proposer vous-même. Allez, vous pouvez faire la différence comme plusieurs bénévoles de l’ACRP l’ont fait avant vous. Mais tout commence par un vote.

Bonne lecture !

Stéphane Rédacteur en chef, Bulletin de l’ACRP

resources—that’s too easy. We can do a lot with concepts and ideas; our talent can make up for our lack of resources—it’s simply a matter of putting the time into it. Your Board of Directos has further-more reviewed the process of nominating members for elections and studied the possibility of holding elections electroni-cally. The ball is in your court. And the first thing to do is join a CRPA committee or simply voice your opinion to the Board of Directors. The more discreet among you may propose projects for mobiliza-tion while the more outgoing may stand for election—but most importantly, we must overcome this apathy, which I kindly called “inertia” during my mandate as President. We need to get things moving, and elections are a good place to start.

Fortunately, I have the Bulletin through which to channel my fervour. And remember that the Bulletin is supported by members like you, who help add value for the CRPA membership. In fact, we are becoming the victims of our own success; the bank of articles is starting to overflow. This month, I am pleased to welcome Nick Sion, whose article deals with radia-tion safety in space. Nick presented this celestial subject in Edmonton in 2010. We also have a stirring piece by Jeff Sande-man—not usually one to mince his words—explaining what spurred him to join the CRPA’s Board of Directors. Of course, this electoral edition is also peppered with the thoughts and views of our regular contributors.

My hope is that reading the Bulletin will give you the unquenchable desire to share your comments or opinions with us, to nominate a CRPA member for the Board of Directors or even to step forward as a candidate yourself. Go on—you can make a difference just as many CRPA volunteers have done before you. But it all begins with a vote.

Happy reading!

StéphaneEditor-in-chief, CRPA Bulletin

Message du rédacteur en chef / Editor’s Note

. . . suite de la page 9 / continued from page 9


Processus de soumission

Les auteurs désirant soumettre des manuscrits pour considération sont priés de suivre ces lignes directrices.

1. Soumettre les manuscrits (en anglais ou en français) par attachement électronique (sous format Microsoft Word®).

2. Inclure le titre de la communication, le(s) nom(s) et l’affi liation de l’(des) auteur(s) et l’adresse courriel à laquelle la correspondance devrait être envoyée.

3. Inclure un résumé d’un maximum de 200 mots et une note biographique d’un maximum de 50 mots pour l’auteur et tout co-auteur, s’il y a lieu.

4. La soumission d’un manuscrit implique qu’il n’est pas considéré ailleurs pour publication. Une fois sa publication acceptée dans le Bul-letin, il est essentiel d’obtenir le consentement du rédacteur en chef avant qu’un manuscrit, ou toute partie d’un manuscrit, puisse être publié ailleurs sous le même format.

5. Les auteurs sont invités à soumettre des ma-nuscrits à tout moment au cours de l’année à

Rédacteur en chef (secrétariat de l’ACRP)Tél : (613) 253-3779Courriel : [email protected]

Dates limites

Le matériel doit être reçu par le rédacteur en chef au plus tard par les dates suivantes :

Numéro 1 .....................15 janvierNuméro 2 .....................15 avrilNuméro 3 .....................15 juilletNuméro 4 .....................15 octobre

Publicités

Bien que les publicités soient recherchées et acceptées pour contrer les coûts de production du Bulletin, la lettre est d’abord publiée pour et au nom des membres de l’ACRP. Ainsi, le fait d’inclure des annonces demeure entièrement à la discrétion de l’association. L’ACRP se réserve le privilège de refuser, omettre ou annuler toute publicité qui ne serait pas pertinente à la nature professionnelle du Bulletin ou qui serait d’une manière quelconque inappropriée pour nos membres.

Articles publicitaires

Les articles publicitaires sont une nouvelle option de publicité dans le Bulletin et sont disponibles au même taux que les publicités par annonce. Si un client a besoin d’appui avec la rédaction, l’édi-tion ou la production de son article publicitaire, ces services peuvent être négociés auprès de l’entreprise responsable de la production du Bul-letin. Pour plus d’information, contactez Michelle Boulton à [email protected].

Bureau de publication

Pour les taux, les spécifi cations techniques, les échéanciers et toute autre information au sujet de la publicité, contactez le bureau de publication.

Michelle CommunicationsTél : (306) 343-8519Courriel : [email protected]

des Canadiens et de l’environnement ». Étant donné que le comité organisateur local est composé de membres chevronnés de l’ACRP, il n’est pas surprenant que les meilleurs spécialistes mondiaux tels que Dre Claire Cousins (présidente de la Com-mission internationale de protection radio-logique), Dr Norman Genter (président du Comité scientifique des Nations Unies sur les effets du rayonnement atomique), Dr Ken Kase (président de l’Association internationale de radioprotection) et Dr Sigurour Magnusson (président du comité des normes radiologiques de l’Agence international de l’énergie atomique, chef de la direction de l’Icelandic Radiation Safety Authority, et Chef du Nordic Radiation Protection Society), soient inclus sur la liste des conférenciers. Donc, si vous n’avez pas déjà réservé vos billets d’avion et votre chambre d’hôtel, je vous suggère de le faire rapidement. De plus, nous sommes presque tous intimidés par ces grands spécialistes, nous demandant « que puis-je dire après eux? » Si tel est le cas, rappelez-vous que c’est notre congrès annuel et que c’est un moment pour nous d’apprendre. Apprendre de nos conférenciers, mais également d’apprendre les uns des autres à mieux résoudre nos problèmes quotidiens. Alors, n’hésitez pas à vous inscrire au congrès et à faire parvenir vos résumés de présentation sur un sujet que vous jugez pertinent pour vos collègues.

Sandu Sonoc Président, ACRP

formed of CRPA’s best, it is no surprise that the list of invited speakers includes some of the top specialists in the world: Dr. Claire Cousins (Chair of the Inter-national Commission on Radiological Protection), Dr. Norman Genter (Chair of the United Nations Scientific Commit-tee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), Dr. Ken Kase (International Radiation Protection Association President), and Dr. Sigurour Magnusson (Chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency Radiation Standards Committee, CEO of the Icelandic Radiation Safety Authority, and Head of the Nordic Radiation Protec-tion Society). If you have not booked your plane tickets and hotel rooms already, I suggest you do so soon. And something else—almost all of us are intimidated by these big names and we may think, “what can I say after them?” Well, remember that this is our annual conference and it is the place and time where all of us learn—learn from our invited guest speakers but also learn from one another how to better solve our day-to-day problems. So do not hesitate to register for the conference and to send your abstract on a topic that you think will be useful to your colleagues.

Sandu Sonoc President, CRPA

Message du Président / President’s Message

. . . suite de la page 7 / continued from page 7

with colleagues outside of the normal regulator-licensee relationship.

So what? Well, since I find value in being part of CRPA and I want it to grow and improve, and since the only way that’s going to happen is if people volunteer to try and get things done, I figured I’d better get off my fat, lazy butt and do my share. Changes and improvements may come pretty slowly at times, but they won’t get done at all if nobody tries. And when those changes do come about, it’s rewarding.

At the cost of a few hours a month, and a couple of Saturdays each year given

up for meetings (travel expenses and such are covered by the association), it’s definitely worth it. Plus, there is one other saving grace. The people are GREAT! Every person I’ve met on the board gives a damn. We don’t always (ever?) agree, but every person cares about CRPA and wants to see it grow and improve. At the end of the day, that is what counts. Oh . . . and it looks good on a resume, too!

My two cents’ worth.

Jeff Sandeman Director, CRPA

Why bother serving on the CRPA Board?. . . continued from page 16


Coming Events / Réunions à venir• 44th Health Physics Society Mid-Year

Topical Meeting on Radiation Measurements February 6–9, 2011, Charleston, SC For more information, visit www.hps.org/meetings/meeting27.html.

• International Laser Safety ConferenceMarch 14–17, 2011, San Jose, CA For more information, visit www.laserinstitute.org/conferences/ilsc/conference.

• 2011 CRPA Conference May 8–12, 2011, Ottawa, ON For more information, visit the website at www.crpa-acrp.com.

• 56th annual meeting of the Health Physics Society Jun 26–30, 2011, Palm Beach, FL For more information, visit www.hps.org/meetings/meeting28.html.

• Living with Radiation—Engaging with Society, IRPA 13 May 13–18, 2012,Glasgow, Scotland For more information, visit www.irpa13glasgow.com.

What's Up?

Quoi de neuf?

Do you know of an upcoming event that might be of interest to your fellow CRPA members? Send the event information to [email protected] and we can include it in the next issue of the Bulletin.

SPEAK OUT

Connaissez-vous une activité qui pourrait intéresser vos collègues del'ACRP? Faites-en parvenir les renseigne-ments relatifs à l'adresse [email protected] et nous pour-rons en faire la promotion dans lasection "Réunions à venir" du Bulletin.

ALARA ConsultantsAllan Seitz9556-27 Ave.Edmonton, AB T6N 1B2tel: 780-944-2557fax: 780-944-2558www.alaraconsultants.com

Atomix Nuclear ServicesBruce ConningUnit 1, 250 Thompson DriveCambridge, OntarioCanada N1T 2E3tel: 519-624-7233fax: 519-624-6853www. atomixnuclear.com

BC Centre for Disease ControlTerry SpockMain Floor, 655 12th Ave WVancouver, BC V5Z 4R4p: 604-707-2442f: 604-707-2441www.bccdc.ca

Bubble Technology Industries Inc.Dr. Robert Noulty31278 Highway 17Chalk River, ON KOJ 1J0tel: 613-589-2456fax: 613-589-2763www.bubbletech.ca

Canadian Association of Medical Radiation TechnologistsMark Given Suite 1000, 85 Albert StreetOttawa, ON K1P 6A4tel: 613-234-0012fax: 613-234-1097www.camrt.ca

Canberra Co.Jim OutosWest - 50B Caldari RoadConcord, ON L4K 4N8tel: 905-660-5373fax: 905-660-9693www.canberra.com

Danatec Educational ServicesWarren Bailey201, 11450 29th St. SECalgary, AB T2Z 3V5Phone:[email protected]

DURRIDGE Company, Inc.Derek Lane-Smith7 Railroad Avenue, Suite DBedford, MA USA 01730tel: 781-687-9556fax: 781-687-0955www.durridge.com

Energy Solutions CanadaRon LeblondHead Offi ce190 Wilkinson Rd., Unit #2Brampton, ON L6T 4W3tel: 800-665-7736fax: 905-450-8523www.monserco.com

CRPA Corporate Members /ACRP Membres corporatifs

F & J Specialty ProductsF. M. Gavila404 Cypress Rd.Ocala, FL USA 34472tel: 352-680-1177fax: 352-680-1454www.fjspecialty.com

Gamble TechnologiesJanice Langaigne6535 Millcreek Drive, Unit 58Mississauga, ON L5N 2M2tel: 905-812-9200 or 800-268-2735fax: 905-812-9203www.gtl.ca

Mirion TechnologiesLouis Biacchi2652 McGaw AvenueIrvine, CA USA 92614tel: 888-419-10000 or 949-419-1000, ext 2316fax: 949-296-1130www.mirion.com

Harpell Associates Inc.1272 Speers Road, Unit 2Oakville, ON L6L 2X4tel: 905-825-2588 800-387-7168fax: 905-825-0234www.harpellassociates.com

Hopewell Designs, Inc.Joy Garrett5940 Gateway DriveAlpharetta, GA USA 30004tel: 770-667-5770fax: 770-667-7539www.hopewelldesigns.com

J L Shepherd & AssociatesMary Shepherd1010 Arroyo AvenueSan Fernando, CA USA 91340-1822tel: 818-898-2361fax: 818-361-8095www.jlshepherd.com

Landauer, Inc2 Science RoadGlenwood, IL USA 60425tel: 708-755-7000fax: 708-755-7011www.landauerinc.com

Lou Champagne Systems Inc.Lou ChampagneUnit 6B,1195 North Service Rd. W.Oakville, ON L6M 2W2tel: 905-338-1176fax: 905-338-6426www.louchampagnesystemsinc.com

Marshield—Division of Mars Metal Co.David Holden4140 Morris DriveBurlington, ON L7L 5L6tel: 800-381-5335fax: 905-637-8841www.marshield.comwww.marsmetal.com

National Dosimetry Services Radiation Protection BureauDan Karov775 Brookfi eld Road, 6301DOttawa, ON K1A 1C1tel: 800-261-6689fax: 613-957-8698 800-252-6272www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/nds

Radiation Measurement SystemsErnie Franzese81 Romeo CrescentWoodbridge, ON L4L 7A2tel: 905-856-5950fax: 905-851-7473email: [email protected]

Ray-Bar EngineeringVince WohlerPO Box 415697 Foothill BoulevardAzusa, CA USA 91702tel: 626-969-1818fax: 626-969-6510www.raybar.com

Stuart Hunt and AssociatesTrevor Beniston20 Rayborn CrescentSt. Albert, AB T8N 4B1tel: 780-458-0291 or 800-661-4591fax: 780-459-0746www.stuarthunt.com

Technical Management ServicesRobin RivardPO Box 226New Hartford, CT USA 06057tel: 860-738-2440fax: 860-738-9322www.tmscourses.com

Uni-Vert TechWilly Rhein3737 Notre-Dame OuestMontreal, QQ H4C 1P8tel: 514-573-2858fax: 514-937-9440www3.sympatico.ca/rad.tech/english.html

CRPA membership is divided into fi ve categories: full members (includes retired members), associate and stu-dent members, honourary members, and corporate members. Application forms are available on the CRPA website (www.crpa-acrp.ca) or from the secretariat ([email protected]).

Les membres de l’ACRP sont clas-sés selon cinq catégories: membres à part entière (y compris les membres retraités), membres associés et étudiants, membres honoraires, et membres corporatifs. Les formulaires de demande d’adhésion peuvent être obtenus sur le site Web (www.crpa-acrp.ca) ou auprès du secrétariat ([email protected]).


ContributorsChris Clement, a certified health physicist, has worked in radiation safety since the 1980s, first on environmental restoration projects, then with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, where he was the director of radiation protection when he left in 2008. He is currently the scientific secretary of the Interna-tional Commission on Radiological Protection.

Chris Clement, expert de radio-physique médicale sanitaire agréé, travaille en radioprotection depuis les années 1980, d’abord dans des projets de restauration environne-mentale, puis avec la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire, où il portait le chapeau de directeur de la radioprotection à son départ en 2008. Aujourd’hui, il occupe le poste de secrétaire scientifique de la Com-mission internationale de protection radiologique (CIPR).

Michael Grey is a senior analyst with Candesco Corporation in Toronto, Ontario, and past-president of CRPA.

Michael Grey est analyste principal chez Candesco Corporation de Toronto, Ontario, et ancien prési-dent de l’ACRP.

Emélie Lamothe is a health physicist and member of CRPA. In her profes-sional life, she has worked in the fields of research and development, dosimetry, QA, health and safety, and emergency preparedness.

Emélie Lamothe est spécialiste de radioprotection et membre de l’ACRP. Au cours de sa carrière, elle a travaillé dans les domaines de la recherche et du développement, de la dosimétrie, de l’assurance qualité, de la santé et sécurité en milieu de travail et de la protection civile.

Brent Preston currently holds the position of manager at the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada National Laboratories, Saskatoon, Saskatch-ewan. He provides scientific oversight for operations at the National Laboratories including radiation protection, radiation measurement, and radon dosimetry systems. Brent holds a BSc (Hons) in physics from the University of Winnipeg and a MSc in theoretical physics from the University of Guelph.

Brent Preston est gérant des labora-toires nationaux de l’Institut de radio-protection du Canada à Saskatoon, en Saskatchewan. Dans son article, il fournit un aperçu scientifique des

opérations des laboratoires nationaux, y compris des systèmes de radioprotec-tion, des mesures de rayonnement et de la dosimétrie de radon. Il détient un baccalauréat en sciences avec dis-tinction en physique de l’université de Winnipeg et une maîtrise en sciences (physique théorique) de l’Université de Guelph.

Jeff Sandeman began working in the field of radiation protection at CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB) in 1983. He initially specialized in non-ionizing radiation as part of the Radiation Protection Division at the clinic, which provides province-wide services under contract with the provincial government. He spent the next 20 years at CCMB, during which time he had the opportunity to dabble in a broad spectrum of radiation protection applications, including diagnostic x-rays, nuclear medicine, and radiotherapy. He was RSO for the centre for several years before heading off to Ottawa in 2003 to work for the Accelerators and Class II Facilities Division of the CNSC. He is currently finishing his second term as a director on CRPA board.

En 1983, Jeff Sandeman débute sa carrière en radioprotection au centre CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB). Sa spécialisation porte alors sur le rayonnement non ionisant à l’unité de radioprotection du centre, qui fournit des services cliniques partout dans la province, par engagement contractuel avec le gouvernement provincial. Au cours des 20 années qui suivent, Jeff Sandeman explore une vaste gamme d’applications en radioprotection, y compris en radio-diagnostic, en médecine nucléaire et en radiothérapie. Toujours au centre, il occupe le poste de responsable

de la radioprotection pendant plu-sieurs années avant de se rendre à Ottawa, en 2003, pour travailler dans la division des accélérateurs et des installations de catégorie II. Il termine actuellement son deuxième mandat comme membre du conseil de l’ACRP.

After a year of living the working life at the Ottawa Hospital, Leah Shupar-ski is back at school, working on her MSc at McMaster University in health and radiation physics. If you see her looking distracted or confused, don’t worry! She’s just not used to coming home from school to find a pile of schoolwork waiting for her.

Après avoir travaillé pendant une année à l’Hôpital d’Ottawa, Leah Shuparski est de retour sur les bancs d’école pour sa maîtrise en santé et en physique des rayonnements à l’Université McMaster. Si vous l’aper-cevez et qu’elle semble distraite ou confuse, ne vous inquiétez pas! Elle n’est tout simplement pas habituée de revenir à la maison après les clas-ses… pour mieux s’attaquer à la pile de travaux de recherche qui l’attend.

Nicholas Sion is a graduate of London University, United Kingdom,



La date-limite pour soumettre les formulaires de nomination pour les récompenses de l’ACRP approche rapidement. Les for-mulaires et la documentation de soutien sont requis en 6 mars 2011. Les lauréats seront annoncés à la conférence annuelle à Ottawa, en mai 2011.

Le prix des fondateurs est présentée pour des contribu-tions exceptionnelles vers l’amélioration de l’Association. Les récipients de ce prix doivent avoir volontairement effectué des activités dans un ou plusieurs des secteurs suivants: améliorez la réputation de l’association nationalement et internationale-ment; encouragez la participation aux activités d’association; avancez le rôle et la statût de l’Association comme organisation importante en radioprotection; ou favorisez les mérites des membres dans l’Association à d’autres qui peut contribuer à, ou bénéfi cier des activités de l’Association en gardant ses objectifs.

Le prix d’accomplissement distinguée est présentée pour des contributions exceptionnelles dans le domaine de la radioprotection. Les récipiendaires de ce prix doivent avoir reçu la reconnaissance de ses pairs au niveau national ou internatio-nal pour des accomplissements majeurs à la connaissance, la pratique ou l’avancement de la profession de radioprotection.

Le prix de service méritoire est présentée pour des ser-vices importants rendus soit à l’Association ou à la communauté de la radioprotection en général.

Nominations et documentaion de soutienTous membres ou anciens membres de l’ACRP, à l’exception des membres actuels du conseil d’administration, sont éligibles pour ces prix.

Deux membres de l’Association peuvent nommer un individu donné. Un court résumé biographique doit être fourni sur la carrière du candidat et des raisons pour lesquelles le candidat est nommé. Des rapports, des références etc., devraient être soumis comme matériel de support pour la nomination du can-didat en conformité avec les objectifs du prix.

The nomination deadline for the 2011 CRPA Awards is fast approaching. Forms and supporting documen-tation are due March 6, 2011. Award winners will be announced at this year’s conference in Ottawa in May 2011.

The Founders’ Award is presented for outstand-ing contributions toward enhancing CRPA’s reputation nationally and internationally, encouraging participa-tion in CRPA activities, advancing CRPA’s role and stature in the fi eld of radiation protection, or promot-ing the merits of CRPA membership.

The Distinguished Achievement Award is presented for outstanding contributions in the fi eld of radiation protection. Recipients of this award must have received recognition from peers either nationally or internationally for accomplishments of major signifi -cance to the knowledge, practice, or advancement of the radiation protection profession.

The Meritorious Service Award is presented for signifi cant service provided either to CRPA or to the radiation protection community in general.

Nominations & Supporting DocumentationAny current or past CRPA member, except current members of the CRPA Board of Directors, is eligible for any of these awards. Award nominations must be signed by two CRPA members. Please provide the following:

• a short biographical resume of the candidate’s career

• reasons for the nomination• a synopsis of their reports, references etc.,

relevant to the objectives of the award

2011 CRPA AwardsRécompenses de l’ACRP 2011

Forms are available from the website (www.crpa-acrp.ca, under Awards) or by contacting the Secretariat at [email protected].

Les formulaires de nomination sont disponibles sur le site Web (www.crpa-acrp.ca, sous Récompenses) ou veuillez contacter le secrétariat à [email protected].


Readers’ CornerReaders’ Corner is where you get to share your ideas and opinions or to comment on something we have published in the Bulletin. We ask that you try to keep your letters to no more than 500 words. Please include your name and affi liation with your letter. Anonymous let-ters will not be published. Letters commenting on another author’s work will be sent to the author with a request for a reply. If possible, the comment and the reply will be published together.

Please send your letters to the CRPA Secretariat:

[email protected]

Coin des lecteursLe Coin des lecteurs vous permet de partager vos idées, d’émettre votre opinion ou encore de don-ner votre commentaire au sujet d’une publication antérieure du Bulletin. Nous vous demandons de limiter votre correspondance à moins de 500 mots et d’y inclure votre nom et affi liation, puisque nous ne publierons pas les lettres anonymes. Les commentaires s’adressant à un auteur en par-ticulier seront envoyés à celui-ci, accompagnés d’une demande de réponse. Si cela est possible, nous publierons le commentaire et sa réponse ensemble.

Prière d’envoyer vos lettres au Secrétariat de l’ACRP:

[email protected]

CRPA members are drawn from all areas of radiation protection, including hospitals, universities, the nuclear power industry, and all levels of government. Membership is divided into fi ve categories: full members (includes retired members), associate and student members, honourary members, and corporate members.

Application forms are available on the CRPA website (www.crpa-acrp.ca) or from the secretariat ([email protected]).

Les membres de l’ACRP proviennent de tous les horizons de la radioprotection, y compris les hôpitaux, les universités, l’industrie nucléaire génératrice d’électricité et tous les niveaux du gouvernement. Les membres sont classés selon cinq catégo-ries: membres à part entière (y compris les membres retraités), membres associés et étudiants, membres honoraires, et mem-bres corporatifs.

Les formulaires de demande d’adhésion peuvent être obtenus sur le site Web (www.crpa-acrp.ca) ou auprès du secréta-riat ([email protected]).

Thinking of writing the CRPA(R) exam? This is a reminder that the deadline to submit applications for 2011 CRPA Registration Exam is April 7, 2011.

This year, there will only be one exam location, at the CRPA Conference in Ottawa on Sunday, May 8, 2011.

Application forms for recognition and registration are available online at:

http://www.crpa-acrp.ca/en/page.php?9

Envisagez-vous d’écrire l’examen ACRP(R) ?Ceci est un rappel aux membres que la date limite pour soumettre une demande d’examen d’enregistrement est le 7 avril 2011.

Cette année, il ne sera possible de passer l’examen d’enregistre-ment qu’à un seul endroit, soit sur les lieux du congrès 2010 de l’ACRP, à Ottawa, le dimanche 8 mai 2011.

Les formulaires de demande de reconnaissance et d’enregistre-ment sont disponibles sur Internet, à l’adresse suivante :

http://www.crpa-acrp.ca/fr/page.php?12

Contributors. . . continued from page 33

and did his postgraduate studies at Birming-ham University, United Kingdom. He was employed at Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for about 28 years designing radiation monitoring instrumentation and reactor control. His discriminating tritium monitor, stack monitor, and C-14 monitor designs are operational at OPG and at Bruce Power. Sion was also a consultant at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) for two and a half years on the MDS Nordion Medical Isotope Reactor (MMIR), MAPLE project.

Nicholas Sion est diplômé de l’Université de Londres, au Royaume-Uni, et a terminé ses études supérieures à l’Université de Birmingham, au Royaume-Uni. Il a œuvré auprès de Ontario Power Generation (OPG) pendant environ 28 ans dans la conception d’instruments de surveillance des rayonne-ments et dans le contrôle de réacteurs. Ses conceptions discriminantes d’appareils de surveillance du tritium, de surveillance de faisceau, de surveillance du C-14 sont à l’oeuvre chez l’OPG et chez Bruce Power. Sion a aussi joué le rôle de conseiller auprès de Énergie atomique du Canada limitée (EACL) pendant deux ans et demie sur le projet MAPLE de MDS Nordion destiné à la production d’isotopes à des fins médicales (MMIR).

Documents

Canadian Radiation Protection Association Association ... · Canadian Radiation Protection Association Association canadienne de radioprotection Vol 31 No 4 Winter / Hiver 2011 Canadian