Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Radiation Protection1. Epistemology of Radiation
2. International Paradigms
Radiation Protection1. Epistemology of Radiation
2. International Paradigms
WNU–Summer Institute 2012Christ Church Lecture Hall, University of Oxford, UK; August 2th, 2012
WNU–Summer Institute 2012Christ Church Lecture Hall, University of Oxford, UK; August 2th, 2012
Abel J. GonzálezVice-President of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
Representative to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)Member of the Commission of Safety Standards of the IAEA
Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear; Av. del Libertador 8250; (C1429BNP) Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina+54 11 6323 1758; (official) [email protected]; (private) [email protected]
Abel J. GonzálezViceVice--President of the International Commission on Radiological ProtecPresident of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) tion (ICRP)
Representative to the United Nations Scientific Committee on thRepresentative to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)e Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)Member of the Commission of Safety Standards of the IAEAMember of the Commission of Safety Standards of the IAEA
Autoridad Autoridad RegulatoriaRegulatoria NuclearNuclear; ; Av. del Libertador 8250; (Av. del Libertador 8250; (C1429BNP) Ciudad de Buenos AiresC1429BNP) Ciudad de Buenos Aires, , ArgentinaArgentina+54 11 6323 1758; +54 11 6323 1758; (official)(official) [email protected]; [email protected]; (private) [email protected](private) [email protected]
2
ContentContentFIRST PARTEpistemology:
Radiation Science and its Limitations Quantification Levels Effects
SECOND PARTProtection Paradigm
The International Radiation Protection System The International Organizations Radiation Protection Recommendations Global Regime
FIRST PARTEpistemology:
Radiation Science and its Limitations Quantification Levels Effects
SECOND PARTProtection Paradigm
The International Radiation Protection System The International Organizations Radiation Protection Recommendations Global Regime
3
FIRST PARTEpistemology:
Radiation Science and its Limitations
FIRST PARTEpistemology:
Radiation Science and its Limitations
26 July, 2012 3
44
(1)
Quantification
of Radiation Exposure
(1)
Quantification
of Radiation Exposure
WNU-Summer Institute
5
Radioactivesubstance
(radioactivitymeasured in Becquerels[or curie])
Radioactivesubstance
(radioactivitymeasured in Becquerels[or curie])
Radiation emitted(radiation fluence)Radiation emitted(radiation fluence)
Absorbed dose(incurred due to
radioactivity inside the body
or radiation fluencefrom outside
–measured in gray[or rad])
Absorbed dose(incurred due to
radioactivity inside the body
or radiation fluencefrom outside
–measured in gray[or rad])
Activity,A(bequerel or curie)
Absorbed dose, D(gray or rad)
Fluence,Φ
Absorbed dose, D(gray or rad)
Radiation weighting factor, wR
Equivalent dose, HT(sievert or rem)
Equivalent dose, HT(sievert or rem)
Tissue weighting factor), wT
Effective dose, E(sievert or rem)
99
Absorbed Dose(Gy)
Absorbed Dose(Gy)
wR wTEquivalent Dose (organ)
(Sv)
Equivalent Dose (organ)
(Sv)
ConversionFactor
(Sv Bq-1)
ConversionFactor
(Sv Bq-1)
Conversion Factor
(Sv cm2)
Conversion Factor
(Sv cm2)
EfectiveDose(Sv)
EfectiveDose(Sv)
Activity(Bq)
Activity(Bq)
Fluence(cm-2)
Fluence(cm-2)
(2)
International Estimates of Global
Radiation Exposure Levels
(2)
International Estimates of Global
Radiation Exposure Levels
11
Sources
Natural
Cosmic rays
Terrestrial
Inhalation
[radon]
Natural
Cosmic rays
Terrestrial
Inhalation
[radon]
Artificial
Medical
Military
Nuclear Power
Occupational
Accidents
Artificial
Medical
Military
Nuclear Power
Occupational
Accidents
12
annual dosemSv/year
~100
~ 10
~ 2.4
~ 1
Natural Background
TYPICALLY HIGHTYPICALLY HIGH
AVERAGE AVERAGE
MINIMUM MINIMUM
VERY HIGHVERY HIGHFew peopleIn few areas
Many peopleIn many areas
Majority of peoplearound the world
13OSU, Stillwater, OK, USA, February 2008
14
Source Global average dose Typical range(mSv per year) (mSv per year)
External exposure Cosmic rays 0.4 0.3 to 1.0 Terrestrial gamma rays 0.5 0.3 to 1.0
Internal exposure Inhalation (mainly radon) 1.3 0.2 to 10 Ingestion 0.3 0.2 to 1.0
Total 2.4 1 to 13
Source Global average dose Typical range(mSv per year) (mSv per year)
External exposure Cosmic rays 0.4 0.3 to 1.0 Terrestrial gamma rays 0.5 0.3 to 1.0
Internal exposure Inhalation (mainly radon) 1.3 0.2 to 10 Ingestion 0.3 0.2 to 1.0
Total 2.4 1 to 13
Exposure to natural sources
highest…up to above 100!highest…up to above 100!
Medical sources
16
13081308
332332
2020
482482
Radio-diagnostic proceduresAverage annual frequency per 1000
Radio-diagnostic proceduresAverage annual frequency per 1000
HighHealth-care
HighHealth-care
MediumHealth-care
MediumHealth-care
LowHealth-care
LowHealth-care
Global averageGlobal average
17
1.881.88
0.320.32
0.030.03
0.610.61
HighHealth-care
HighHealth-care
MediumHealth-care
MediumHealth-care
LowHealth-care
LowHealth-care
Global averageGlobal average
Annual average per-caput dose(in mSv)
18
CT scans by year in US (millions
18.3 19.521.0
22.625.1 26.3
30.6
34.9
39.6
45.4
50.1
53.9
57.6
62.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
No
. o
f p
roce
du
res
(mill
ion
s)
Annual growth of >10% per yea
Computerized tomography (CT)
Annual growth > 10%/yr
U.S. population < 1%/yr
procedures by year (millions)
20
Military activitiesMilitary activities
21
Nuclear weapons tests
Atmospheric testsUnderground tests
1945100
50
0
50
100
150
NU
MBE
R
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
22
Doses due to atmospheric nuclear testing
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Year
Annu
al e
ffect
ive
dose
(mSv
)
23
Civil nuclear power
24
Global average levels
Source: UNSCEAR 2000 Report
Nuclear power<0.01%
Chernobyl accident
<0.1%
Weapons fallout<0.2%
Natural sources
80%
Medical examinations
20%
25
Occupational exposures
26
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Nucle
ar in
dust
ry
Defen
ce
Medici
neCoa
l min
ing
Other
min
ing
Aircre
wOth
er w
orkp
laces
Ann
ual e
ffect
ive
dose
(mSv
)Man-made sources Natural sources
0 10 20 30
Millionsexposed
ArtificialNatural
27
Global annual per caput dose (mSv)
28
Annual per caput dose (mSv) for USA
29
In summary:Patients are
being exposed to increased
radiation levels
In summary:Patients are
being exposed to increased
radiation levels
30
(3)Recent Developments on the epistemology of
Radiation Health Effects(Method, validity and scope of the scientific knowledge
on the detrimental effects of radiation exposure)
(3)Recent Developments on the epistemology of
Radiation Health Effects(Method, validity and scope of the scientific knowledge
on the detrimental effects of radiation exposure)
30WNU-Summer Institute
3131WNU-Summer Institute
Chromosomes
DNA
26 July, 2012
3232WNU-Summer Institute26 July, 2012
3326 July, 2012
0.2 meters!
2 nanometers
1400nanometers
Chromosomes
are a
condensed
packing of
DNA
Chromosomes
are a
condensed
packing of
DNA
343426 July, 2012
3535WNU-Summer Institute
The The EnciclopedyEnciclopedy of Lifeof LifeBases Bases LettersLetters
CodonsCodons Words Words
IntronsIntrons Interruptions Interruptions
ExonsExons ParagraphsParagraphs
Genes Genes ChaptersChapters
Chromosomes Chromosomes VolumesVolumes
26 July, 2012
36WNU-Summer Institute 36
Radiation harm to DNA
26 July, 2012
37WNU-Summer Institute26 July, 2012
Mutation!Mutation!
Many other
mutations occur due
to DNA miscopying,
thermal agitation, etc.
Usually they can be
correctly repaired by
copying the DNA
template.
Many other
mutations occur due
to DNA miscopying,
thermal agitation, etc.
Usually they can be
correctly repaired by
copying the DNA
template.
39WNU-Summer Institute26 July, 2012
4141WNU-Summer Institute
What is the
problem then?:
the chromosome is
a very complex
packing of DNA
What is the
problem then?:
the chromosome is
a very complex
packing of DNA
nucleosomesnucleosomesnucleosomes
26 July, 2012
42
10 nm
0.5 0.5 MevMev
2nm
43WNU-Summer Institute26 July, 2012
4444WNU-Summer Institute26 July, 2012
45WNU-Summer Institute 45
Chromosomes deletions
26 July, 2012
46WNU-Summer Institute 46
Chromosomes Translocations
26 July, 2012
4848WNU-Summer Institute
Chromosomal aberrations are easily identifiable in the microscope
Chromosomal aberrations are easily identifiable in the microscope26 July, 2012
4949WNU-Summer Institute
radiation hits a cell nucleus!
radiation hits a cell nucleus!
No changeNo change
DNA mutationDNA mutation
26 July, 2012
5050WNU-Summer Institute
Probability of mutationProbability of mutation
DoseDose
p = a D + b D2p = a D + b D2
p = a D p = a D
pD (a D + b D2) e-cDpD (a D + b D2) e-cD
26 July, 2012
5151WNU-Summer Institute
DNA mutation pD a D
DNA mutation pD a D 3)Cell survives
but mutated
Stochasticeffects
1) Mutation repaired
Deterministic Effects (>~1Sv)
No effects
2) Cell dies
26 July, 2012
52WNU-Summer Institute 52
Mutation repaired
Viable Cell
First possible outcome:mutation is repaired
26 July, 2012
53WNU-Summer Institute 53
Unviable Cell
Second possible outcome:cell killing (apoptosis)
26 July, 2012
54WNU-Summer Institute 54
Cell killingat around 1000mSv deterministic effects:burns, organ failure,
death!
Acute dose
Probability
> ~1000 mSv
100%
26 July, 2012
55
Radiation accidents involving masive cell killing are rare
Since 1944 there were around 400 accidents
worldwide.
Approximately 3000 persons were injured,
with 120 fatalities (including 28 Chernobyl
victims).
Since 1944 there were around 400 accidents
worldwide.
Approximately 3000 persons were injured,
with 120 fatalities (including 28 Chernobyl
victims).
56
57
58
59
60WNU-Summer Institute 60
Cell survives but mutated
Altered process
Third possible outcome:viable but mutated cell
26 July, 2012
61WNU-Summer Institute 61
Normal process
26 July, 2012
62WNU-Summer Institute 62
Altered process
26 July, 2012
WNU-Summer Institute 63
Cell survives but mutated
Stochastic effects
26 July, 2012
64WNU-Summer Institute 64
Stochastic effects
Cancer
Hereditable
Antenatal
Cancer
Hereditable
Antenatal
26 July, 2012
6565WNU-Summer Institute
CancerCancer
26 July, 2012
6666
Prevalent opinion onradiation-induced cancer
Radiation Radiation
mutates DNAmutates DNA
Failure to Failure to
repair DNA repair DNA
Viable cell withViable cell with
carcinogenescarcinogenes
TumourTumour
promotionpromotion
Malignant Malignant
conversion conversion
Metastasis of Metastasis of
malignancymalignancy
26 July, 2012
INMUNE SYSTEMINMUNE SYSTEM
67
6868WNU-Summer Institute
Estimates of the Risk of Cancer due to
Radiation Exposure
Estimates of the Risk of Cancer due to
Radiation Exposure
26 July, 2012
6969WNU-Summer Institute
Radioepidemiology
(Epidemia (Gk): prevalence of disease)(Epidemia (Gk): prevalence of disease)
26 July, 2012
7070WNU-Summer Institute
Control group“N” people“C” cancers“n” probability of ‘natural’ cancer
Control group““NN”” peoplepeople““CC”” cancerscancers““nn”” probability of probability of ‘‘naturalnatural’’ cancercancer
Exposed group“N” people“E” cancers“n” probability of ‘natural’cancer‘pD’ probability of ‘radiation’ cancer
Exposed group““NN”” peoplepeople““EE”” cancerscancers““nn”” probability of probability of ‘‘naturalnatural’’cancercancer‘‘ppDD’’ probability of probability of ‘‘radiationradiation’’ cancercancer
26 July, 2012
7171WNU-Summer Institute
E= n N
+ pd D N
Numberof
cancersin
exposedgroup
C=n N
Numberof
cancersin
controlgroup
C=n N
Numberof
cancersin
controlgroup
E-C
Difficult to assess!
26 July, 2012
7272WNU-Summer Institute
UNSCEAR has reviewed many many
epidemiological data on effects of radiation in
exposed populations
UNSCEAR has reviewed many many
epidemiological data on effects of radiation in
exposed populations
26 July, 2012
73WNU-Summer Institute 73
The radium dial painters,…
26 July, 2012
74WNU-Summer Institute 74
…the early x-rays doctors and patients……the early x-rays doctors and patients…
26 July, 2012
75WNU-Summer Institute 75
..the Mayak cohort of workers…
MAYAK
26 July, 2012
7676WNU-Summer Institute
..the survivors of Hiroshima y Nagasaki....the survivors of Hiroshima y Nagasaki..
26 July, 2012
7777WNU-Summer Institute
…all these victims of radiation exposure have
unwillingly contributed to the
UNSCEAR’s epidemiological assessments.
…all these victims of radiation exposure have
unwillingly contributed to the
UNSCEAR’s epidemiological assessments.
26 July, 2012
78WNU-Summer Institute 78
Slide 6
Cohort of Hiroshima & Nagasaki(LIFE SPAN STUDY, LSS)
Mt.HijiMt.Hiji
26 July, 2012
7979
Solid Cancer Mortality47 years of follow-up (1950-1997)
Exposed population: 9,335 (10,127) cancer deaths
Reference population: 8,895 (9,648) cancer deaths
~440 (479) cancers attributable to radiation (5%)
Exposed population: 9,335 (10,127) cancer deaths
Reference population: 8,895 (9,648) cancer deaths
~440 (479) cancers attributable to radiation (5%)
Preston et al, Radiat Res 160:381-407, 2003(updated figures)Preston et al, Radiat Res 160:381-407, 2003(updated figures)
26 July, 2012
80WNU-Summer Institute 80
Lifetime cancer mortality risk (after 1000 mSv acute dose)
~ 0.6-1.0%. for leukæmia
and
~4.3–7.2% for all solid cancers combined, (lower for men than for women)
Lifetime cancer mortality risk (after 1000 mSv acute dose)
~ 0.6-1.0%. for leukæmia
and
~4.3–7.2% for all solid cancers combined, (lower for men than for women)
Lifetime cancer risk estimates for those exposed as children might be a factor of 2 to 3 times higher than the estimates for a population exposed at all ages.
Lifetime cancer risk estimates for those exposed as children might be a factor of 2 to 3 times higher than the estimates for a population exposed at all ages.
26 July, 2012
UNSCEAR Estimates of NOMINAL Cancer Risk
8181WNU-Summer Institute
Hereditable EffectsHereditable Effects
26 July, 2012
82WNU-Summer Institute 82
Prevalent opinion on the induction of hereditable effects from radiation exposure
Radiation Radiation
Mutes the DNA Mutes the DNA
of a Germinal of a Germinal
CellCell
Failure to Failure to
RepairRepair
Viable Sperm Viable Sperm
or Ovum or Ovum
Containing Containing
Defective GenesDefective Genes
26 July, 2012
83WNU-Summer Institute 83
The risk is so low that the estimation has to be based on animal studies
The risk is so low that the estimation has to be based on animal studies
26 July, 2012
84WNU-Summer Institute 84
Hereditable Effects
Total risk to first generation following parental exposure:
~ 0.2% per Sv
>1/10 the risk of fatal carcinogenesis
constitutes 0.5% of baseline
Total risk to first generation following parental exposure:
~ 0.2% per Sv
>1/10 the risk of fatal carcinogenesis
constitutes 0.5% of baseline
26 July, 2012
8585WNU-Summer Institute
Antenatal EffectsAntenatal Effects
26 July, 2012
86WNU-Summer Institute 8626 July, 2012
WNU-Summer Institute 87
1000mSv1000mSv
26 July, 2012
= IQ= IQ
WNU-Summer Institute 88
Shift in the IQ curve:30 IQ units per 1000 mSv incurred during the 8-15 weeks
1000mSv1000mSv
26 July, 2012
= IQ= IQ
89
Latest newsLatest news
91
93
Summary
of the scientific knowledge
Summary
of the scientific knowledge
94
Dose (Sv)
Likelihoodof health effects
100%(certainty)
~0,1
Approx. lower bound
of pathological knowledge
~ 5%(UNSCEAR estimate)
~1 ~10
Tissue reactionsClinical diagnosis
(individual pathology)
Approx. lower bound of epidemiological
knowledge
Cytogenetic exposure indicators
radiation
syndromes
and death
~ 10%
~ 1%
General radiobiological information
Increase incidence of malignanciesStatistical estimates (epidemiology of populations)
Frequentist(Bernoullian)estimation
Frequentist(Bernoullian)estimation
Subjective(Bayesian)
estimation
Subjective(Bayesian)
estimation
Estimated likelihood of cancer
Estimated likelihood of cancer
95
Dose (Sv)
Likelihoodof health effects
100%(certainty)
~0,1
Approx. lower bound
of pathological knowledge
~ 5%(UNSCEAR estimate)
~1 ~10
Approx. lower bound of epidemiological
knowledge
Increased
syndromes
and death
~ 10%
~ 1%
TypicalB
ackground
Estimated likelihood of cancer
Estimated likelihood of cancer
Region of individualattribution of effects
Region of inference of radiation risks
Region of collective attribution of effects
96
Dose (Gy)
Likelihoodof health effects
100%(certainty)
~0,1
Approx. lower bound
of pathological knowledge
~ 5%(UNSCEAR estimate)
~1 ~10
Approx. lower bound of epidemiological
knowledge
Increased
syndromes
and death
~ 10%
~ 1%
TypicalB
ackground
Estimated likelihood of cancer
Estimated likelihood of cancer
Region of individualattribution of effects
Region of inference of radiation risks
Region of collective attribution of effects
97
Totalbackground incidence of effects
Background annual dose
(average 2.4, typical 10 mSv y-1)
Postulated likelihood of health effects
Dose
Radiation-unrelatedbackground
incidence
Presumedradiation-related
background incidence
Nominal incrementallikelihoodof health effects
Incremental dose
0.005%/mSv0.005%/mSv
9898WNU-Summer Institute
Take away pointsTake away points
26 July, 2012
Activity bequerel
Dose sievert (1 Sv = 1000 milliSieverts)
(mSv)
Background 2.4 mSv/y (up to above 100 mSv)
Medical
Nuclear
Activity Activity bequerelbequerel
Dose Dose sievertsievert (1 (1 SvSv = 1000 = 1000 milliSievertsmilliSieverts) )
((mSvmSv))
Background Background 2.4 2.4 mSv/ymSv/y ((up to above 100 up to above 100 mSvmSv))
Medical Medical
Nuclear Nuclear
26 July, 2012 WNU-Summer Institute 99
100
Probable observable increase in the incidence of cancer, if the exposed group is more than a few hundred
people
Nausea, vomiting possible, mild bone marrow
depression;subsequent additional
cancer risk of about 10%
Moderate dose:towards
1000 mSv (acute whole body dose)
Observable increase in theincidence of cancer
Certain nausea, likely bone marrow syndrome; high risk
of death from about 4000 mSv (without medical treatment).
Significant additional cancer risk!
High dose:above 1000 mSv (acute
whole body dose)
Possible observable increase in the incidence of cancer, if the exposed group is very
large (e.g., >100,000 people)
No acute effects; subsequent additional
cancer risk of less than 1%
Low dose:towards 100 mSv
No observable increase in the incidence of cancer, even
in a large exposed group
No acute effects;extremely small additional
cancer risk
Very low dose:about 10 mSv or less
Consequences for an exposed population
Effects on individualsDose
101101WNU-Summer Institute
… above the prevalent background dose,
an increment in dose
is assumed to result (for rad. prot. purposes)
in a proportional increment
in the probability of stochastic effects of
0.005% per mSv
… above the prevalent background dose,
an increment in dose
is assumed to result (for rad. prot. purposes)
in a proportional increment
in the probability of stochastic effects of
0.005% per mSv
26 July, 2012
102
Remember!
1. Radiation exposure at high acute levels, e.g. above several thousand of millisievertsis very dangerous.
2. Radiation exposure at low chronic levels, e.g. towards tens of millisieverts per year, presents an extremely low risk.
3. Radiation exposure at very low chronic levels, e.g. < 1 millisievert per year, is not an individual health issue.
1. Radiation exposure at high acute levels, e.g. above several thousand of millisievertsis very dangerous.
2. Radiation exposure at low chronic levels, e.g. towards tens of millisieverts per year, presents an extremely low risk.
3. Radiation exposure at very low chronic levels, e.g. < 1 millisievert per year, is not an individual health issue.
26 July, 2012 WNU-Summer Institute 102
103103WNU, ,
[email protected]@arn.gob.ar
+541163231758
Av. del Libertador 8250Buenos Aires
Argentina
Thank you!Thank you!
26 July, 2012
104
Additional information to the FIRST PART
Additional information to the FIRST PART
26 July, 2012 104
105105WNU-Summer Institute
The Health Effectsof Radiation
A close book?A close book?
26 July, 2012
106106WNU-Summer Institute
10-15s. 10-9s. 10-3s. 10 2 m. 100 years
PhysicsPhysicsandand
chemistrychemistryEpidemioEpidemio--
logylogyBiologyBiology
Time
ExposureExposureManifestationManifestation
ofof
effectseffects
Physiology?
The time scale of the phenomena limits knowledge.The time scale of the phenomena limits knowledge.26 July, 2012
107107WNU-Summer Institute26 July, 2012
108WNU-Summer Institute 108
New UNSCEAR’s assessments
Epidemiological evaluation of cardiovascular disease
Non-targeted and delayed effects of radiation exposure
Effects of ionizing radiation on the immune system
Epidemiological evaluation of cardiovascular disease
Non-targeted and delayed effects of radiation exposure
Effects of ionizing radiation on the immune system
26 July, 2012
109109WNU-Summer Institute
Cardiovascular diseasesCardiovascular diseases
26 July, 2012
110110WNU-Summer Institute
Chernobyl workers,
atomic bomb survivors, and
radiotherapy patients …
… seem to suffer a higher risk of
cardiovascular diseases.26 July, 2012
111111WNU-Summer Institute
‘Non-targeted’and
delayed effectsof radiation exposure
‘Non-targeted’and
delayed effectsof radiation exposure
26 July, 2012
112WNU-Summer Institute 112
Adaptive Response
+
Mutation
Mutations
Mutations
26 July, 2012
113WNU-Summer Institute 113
Adaptive responseconditioningconditioning
dosedose responseresponse
challengingchallengingdosedose
responseresponse
conditioningconditioningdosedose
challengingchallengingdosedose
responseresponse++
26 July, 2012
114WNU-Summer Institute 114
The role of apoptosis(cell killing by mutations)
If at low doses, apoptosis >> carcinogenesis...
..then.. hormesis!
If at low doses, If at low doses, apoptosis >> carcinogenesis......
..then.. ..then.. hormesishormesis!!
26 July, 2012
115115115WNU-Summer InstituteWNU-Summer Institute
ApoptosisApoptosis
Dose rateDose rate
Mutation RateMutation Rate
ApoptosisApoptosis
CarcinogenesisCarcinogenesis
hormesishormesis
26 July, 201226 July, 2012
116WNU-Summer Institute 116
Genomic instability …Genomic instability …
… or … increased rate of acquisition of
alterations in the genome.
… or … increased rate of acquisition of
alterations in the genome.
26 July, 2012
Basic paradigms of radiobiology
Effects occur in cells whosenucleus crossed by radiation
Damage fixed in DNA of irradiated cell, if not lethal, transmitted to descendant
MicronucleusMicronucleus
Mitotic failure: aneuploid
Mitotic failure: aneuploid
MutationMutation Chromosomalaberration
Chromosomalaberration
Cellular death
Cellular death
Challenge to the paradigm
Genomic instabilityGenomic instability
119119WNU-Summer Institute26 July, 2012
120120
Bystander effects
The so-called “bystander” effect is the ability of irradiated
cells to convey damage to neighbouring cells
not directly irradiated.
The so-called “bystander” effect is the ability of irradiated
cells to convey damage to neighbouring cells
not directly irradiated.
26 July, 2012
121121
“Bystander” effect
26 July, 2012
122
Signals via intercellular unions(Azamm 2001)
Signals via intercellular unions(Azamm 2001)
Signals via medium/plasmaSignals via medium/plasma
ROSNitric oxideCytokinesTGF
(Lehnert 1997)
ROSNitric oxideCytokinesTGF
(Lehnert 1997)
26 July, 2012
123WNU-Summer Institute 123
Clastogenic plasma factors
There is a large body of evidence that blood plasma from
irradiated animals and humans can contain so-called
“clastogenic plasma factors” capable of inducing
chromosomal damage in unexposed cells.
There is a large body of evidence that blood plasma from
irradiated animals and humans can contain so-called
“clastogenic plasma factors” capable of inducing
chromosomal damage in unexposed cells.
26 July, 2012
124124WNU-Summer Institute26 July, 2012
125WNU-Summer Institute 125
Abscopal effects
An abscopal effect is said to occur if there is a significant
response in a tissue that is physically separate from the
region of the body exposed to radiation.
An abscopal effect is said to occur if there is a significant
response in a tissue that is physically separate from the
region of the body exposed to radiation.
Human & Experimental Toxicology, Volume 23, Issue 2, 1 February 2004, ArnoldHuman & Experimental Toxicology, Volume 23, Issue 2, 1 February 2004, Arnold
26 July, 2012
126126WNU-Summer Institute
Irradiation ofan organ
Irradiation ofan organ
Effects in another organ
26 July, 2012
127127WNU-Summer Institute
Effects of ionizing radiation on the
immune system
Effects of ionizing radiation on the
immune system
26 July, 2012
128WNU-Summer Institute 128
Infections
Cancer
Immune
system
Does radiation exposure affect the immune system?
26 July, 2012
129
SECOND PART
Protection Paradigm:
The International Radiation Protection System
SECOND PART
Protection Paradigm:
The International Radiation Protection System
26 July, 2012 129
13026 July, 2012 130
(1)
The International Organizations
(1)
The International Organizations
WNU-Summer Institute
13126 July, 2012 131
Epistemology of radiationMethod, validity and scope of the scientific
knowledge on radiation
Radiation Protection ParadigmConceptual model for keeping people protected
Global Radiation Safety RegimeEstablishing international safety standards and
providing for their global application
13226 July, 2012 132
UNSCEARUNSCEAR
WNU-Summer Institute
133133
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)
Established by the UN General Assembly in 1955 Assess levels & effects of ionizing radiation Reports findings to Assembly Scientists from 21 UN Member States Other States provide relevant data Holds annual sessions in Vienna UNEP arranges secretariat and provides support
Established by the UN General Assembly in 1955 Assess levels & effects of ionizing radiation Reports findings to Assembly Scientists from 21 UN Member States Other States provide relevant data Holds annual sessions in Vienna UNEP arranges secretariat and provides support
134134
Member States on UNSCEAR
Argentina Brazil Mexico Peru Australia China India Indonesia Japan Korea Pakistan Canada USA
Argentina Brazil Mexico Peru Australia China India Indonesia Japan Korea Pakistan Canada USA
Egypt Sudan Belgium Belarus Finland France Germany Poland Russia Slovakia Spain Sweden UK Ukraine
Egypt Sudan Belgium Belarus Finland France Germany Poland Russia Slovakia Spain Sweden UK Ukraine
135
WNU-Summer InstituteWNU-Summer Institute 135135
The latest UNSCEAR reportsThe latest UNSCEAR reports
SourcesSources EfectsEfects HereditableHereditable
26 July, 201226 July, 2012
UNSCEAR 2000 Report (sources): http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
UNSCEAR 2000 Report (effects): http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_2.html
UNSCEAR 2001Report (hereditary): http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2001.html
UNSCEAR 2006 Report (new): http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2006_1.html
UNSCEAR 2000 Report (sources): http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
UNSCEAR 2000 Report (effects): http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_2.html
UNSCEAR 2001Report (hereditary): http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2001.html
UNSCEAR 2006 Report (new): http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2006_1.html
NewNew
13726 July, 2012 137
ICRPICRP
WNU-Summer Institute
13826 July, 2012 138
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
WNU-Summer Institute
Registered charity established to advance
radiological protection for the public benefit
by providing recommendations and guidance.
Registered charity established to advance
radiological protection for the public benefit
by providing recommendations and guidance.
139
First ICRP meeting 1928First ICRP meeting 1928
140
141
14226 July, 2012 142
IAEAIAEA
WNU-Summer Institute
14326 July, 2012 143
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
WNU-Summer Institute
14426 July, 2012 144
The IAEA is the only organ within the UN system with specific statutory responsibilities
on radiation protection and safety
The IAEA is the only organ within the UN system with specific statutory responsibilities
on radiation protection and safetyWNU-Summer Institute
14526 July, 2012 145
to establishstandards
to establishstandards
to provide for their applicationto provide for
their application
to service international conventionsto service international conventions
IAEAstatutory safety functions
IAEAstatutory safety functions
146
IAEA Safety Standardshttp://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/
IAEA Safety Standardshttp://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/
147
International Labour Organisation
148
Radiation Protection Convention No. 115(1960) Date of entry into force: 17.6.1962
48 ratifications Argentina 15.6.1978 Azerbaijan 19.5.1992 Barbados 8.5.1967 Belarus 26.2.1968 Belgium2.7.1965 Beliz 15.12.1983 Brazil 5.9.1966 Chile 14.10.1994 Czech Rep. 1.1.1993 Denmark 7.2.1974 Djibouti 3.8.1978 Ecuador 9.3.1970 Egypt 18.3.1964 Finland 16.10.1978 France 18.11.1971 Germany 26.9.1973
Argentina 15.6.1978 Azerbaijan 19.5.1992 Barbados 8.5.1967 Belarus 26.2.1968 Belgium2.7.1965 Beliz 15.12.1983 Brazil 5.9.1966 Chile 14.10.1994 Czech Rep. 1.1.1993 Denmark 7.2.1974 Djibouti 3.8.1978 Ecuador 9.3.1970 Egypt 18.3.1964 Finland 16.10.1978 France 18.11.1971 Germany 26.9.1973
Ghana 7.11.1961 Greece 4.6.1982 Guinea 12.12.1966 Guyana 8.6.1966 Hungary 8.6.1968 India 17.11.1975 Iraq 26.10.1962 Italy 5.5.1971 Japan 31.7.1973 Kyrgyzstan 31.3.1992 Latvia 8.3.1993 Lebanon 6.12.1977 Luxembourg 8.4.2008 Mexico 19.10.1983 Netherlands 29.11.1966 Nicaragua 1.10.1981
Ghana 7.11.1961 Greece 4.6.1982 Guinea 12.12.1966 Guyana 8.6.1966 Hungary 8.6.1968 India 17.11.1975 Iraq 26.10.1962 Italy 5.5.1971 Japan 31.7.1973 Kyrgyzstan 31.3.1992 Latvia 8.3.1993 Lebanon 6.12.1977 Luxembourg 8.4.2008 Mexico 19.10.1983 Netherlands 29.11.1966 Nicaragua 1.10.1981
Norway 17.6.1961 Paraguay 10.7.1967 Poland 23.12.1964 Portugal 17.3.1994 Russian Fed. 22.9.1967 Slovakia 1.1.1993 Spain 17.7.1962 Sri Lanka 18.6.1986 Sweden 12.4.1961 Switzerland 29.5.1963 Syrian A. R. 15.1.1964 Tajikistan 26.11.1993 Turkey 15.11.1968 Ukraine 19.6.1968 U.K. 9.3.1962 Uruguay 22.9.1992
Norway 17.6.1961 Paraguay 10.7.1967 Poland 23.12.1964 Portugal 17.3.1994 Russian Fed. 22.9.1967 Slovakia 1.1.1993 Spain 17.7.1962 Sri Lanka 18.6.1986 Sweden 12.4.1961 Switzerland 29.5.1963 Syrian A. R. 15.1.1964 Tajikistan 26.11.1993 Turkey 15.11.1968 Ukraine 19.6.1968 U.K. 9.3.1962 Uruguay 22.9.1992
149
(2)The International Radiation
Protection Recommendations
The conceptual model for keeping people safe from radiation exposure
(2)The International Radiation
Protection Recommendations
The conceptual model for keeping people safe from radiation exposure
26 July, 2012 149
150
In paradigm choice there is no standard higher
than the assent of the relevant community
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 93 (1960).
In paradigm choice there is no standard higher
than the assent of the relevant community
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 93 (1960).
151
Totalbackground incidence of effects
Background annual dose
(average 2.4, typical 10 mSv y-1)
Postulated likelihood of health effects
Dose
Radiation-unrelatedbackground
incidence
Presumedradiation-related
background incidence
Nominal incrementallikelihoodof health effects
Incremental dose
0.005%/mSv0.005%/mSv
152
ICRP had to introduce the concept of
‘detriment-adjusted’
‘nominal’ risk coefficients
ICRP had to introduce the concept of
‘detriment-adjusted’
‘nominal’ risk coefficients
153
Detriment-adjusted Nominal Risk Coefficients
Risk Coefficient: A numeral, expressed in % Sv-1, which –multiplied by dose– quantifies the plausibility of harm.
Nominal: The stated numeral does not necessarily correspond to its real value: it relates to hypothetical (no real) people who are averaged over age and sex.
Detriment-adjusted: The numeral is multidimensional, expressing plausible expectation of harm, and includinginter alia the weighted plausibility of fatal and non-fatal harm, and life-lost should the harm actually occur.
Risk Coefficient: A numeral, expressed in % Sv-1, which –multiplied by dose– quantifies the plausibility of harm.
Nominal: The stated numeral does not necessarily correspond to its real value: it relates to hypothetical (no real) people who are averaged over age and sex.
Detriment-adjusted: The numeral is multidimensional, expressing plausible expectation of harm, and includinginter alia the weighted plausibility of fatal and non-fatal harm, and life-lost should the harm actually occur.
154
4.20.14.1Adult
5.70.25.5Whole
TotalHereditableCancer &
leukæmia
Nominal Population
Detriment-adjusted nominal risk coefficients[% Sv-1]
Rounded value used in RP standards~5%Sv-1Rounded value used in RP standards~5%Sv-1
155
Protection basic dogma
Time
Shielding
Distance
……..but…..it depend on the situation!
Time
Shielding
Distance
……..but…..it depend on the situation!
156
Time?
?
?
The principles of
radiological protection
The principles of
radiological protection
The principles of radiological protectionThe principles of radiological protection
• The Principle of Justification
• The Principle of Optimization of Protection
• The Principle of Dose Limits
• The Principle of Protection of Future
Generations and the Environment
• The Principle of Justification
• The Principle of Optimization of Protection
• The Principle of Dose Limits
• The Principle of Protection of Future
Generations and the Environment
The Principle of JustificationThe Principle of Justification
• Any decision that alters the radiation exposure
situation should do more good than harm.
• Any decision that alters the radiation exposure
situation should do more good than harm.
Justification
Good > bad
Electricity) (good)
Is the installation justied?good > bad?
radioactive discharges(bad)
Was evacuation justified?Was evacuation justified?
Justification!
The Principle of Optimization of ProtectionThe Principle of Optimization of Protection
• Best protection under the
prevailing circumstances (The likelihood of incurring exposure, the number of
people exposed, and the magnitude of their individual
doses should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable,
taking into account economic and societal factors.)
• Best protection under the
prevailing circumstances (The likelihood of incurring exposure, the number of
people exposed, and the magnitude of their individual
doses should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable,
taking into account economic and societal factors.)
167
DetrimentSocial cost
Detriment +Social cost
RP levelRP levelOptimalOptimal
The Principle of Dose LimitationThe Principle of Dose Limitation
• The total dose to any individual should not
exceed appropriate limits, constraints or
reference levels.
• The total dose to any individual should not
exceed appropriate limits, constraints or
reference levels.
26 July, 2012 169
Naturalbackground
radiation
ExpectedExpectedadditional additional
dose dose
Activity introducedActivity introduced
RestrictionsRestrictions: dose limits and constraints: dose limits and constraints
17026 July, 2012 170Wastes
Hospitals
IndustryTransport
Mining
Nuclear power
Industry
Dose limit
17126 July, 2012 171
Source constraint
172
26 July, 2012
172
Averteble
dose
Averteble
dose
Referencelevel
Extant
dose
WNU-Summer Institute
173
The principle of protection of future generations and the environment
The principle of protection of future generations and the environment
Future generations must be protected against radiation.
The environment must also be protected in order to:
maintain biological diversity,
ensure the conservation of species, and
protect the health and status of natural habitats, communities,
and ecosystems
Future generations must be protected against radiation.
The environment must also be protected in order to:
maintain biological diversity,
ensure the conservation of species, and
protect the health and status of natural habitats, communities,
and ecosystems
How to protect the future?How to protect the future?
17526 July, 2012 175
Doses after 1 year of operation
D
t1st year 2ndyear 3rd year …. … …. nth year
17626 July, 2012 176
Doses after 2 years of operation
D
t1st year 2ndyear 3rd year …. … …. nth year
2ndyear3rdyear
4thyear …. … ….
17726 July, 2012 177
Doses after 3 years of operation
D
t1st year 2ndyear 3rd year …. … …. nth year
2ndyear3rdyear
4thyear …. … ….
3rd year
4th year5th year
….…
178
CONTROL
EQUILIBRIUM: BUILDEQUILIBRIUM: BUILD--UPUP
Types of exposure situationsTypes of exposure situations
Types of exposure situationsTypes of exposure situations
• Planned exposure situations
• Emergency exposure situations
• Existing exposure situations
• Planned exposure situations
• Emergency exposure situations
• Existing exposure situations
Planned exposure situations,Planned exposure situations,
are situations involving the planned
introduction and operation of sources.
(…previously categorised as practices.)
are situations involving the planned
introduction and operation of sources.
(…previously categorised as practices.)
18226 July, 2012 182
Natural background
Effective Effective dosedose
PracticePractice
Regulatory controlRegulatory control
Planned exposure situationPlanned exposure situation
Emergency exposure situations,Emergency exposure situations,
• are unexpected situations such as those
that may occur during the operation of a
planned situation, or from a malicious act.
• are unexpected situations such as those
that may occur during the operation of a
planned situation, or from a malicious act.
Existing exposure situations,Existing exposure situations,
• are exposure situations that already exist
when a decision on control has to be taken,
such as those caused by natural background
radiation.
• are exposure situations that already exist
when a decision on control has to be taken,
such as those caused by natural background
radiation.
18526 July, 2012 185
Avertable
dose
Avertable
dose
Regulatory ambition
Extant
dose
Emergency exposure situations
2009 WNU-Summer Institute
Existing exposure situations
Existing exposure situations
18626 July, 2012 186
3 systemshomogeneous, coherent and consistent….but distinct
Patients
Occupational
Public
Patients
Occupational
Public
WNU-Summer Institute
18726 July, 2012 187
Source constraint
Doses to be constrained arethose committed in a year
rather than those incurred in a year!
Doses to be constrained arethose committed in a year
rather than those incurred in a year!
18826 July, 2012 188
Patients(The exposure is voluntary, beneficial for the individual exposed and measurable)(The exposure is voluntary, beneficial for the individual exposed and measurable)
• Radiodiagnosis
• Radiotherapy
• Radiodiagnosis
• Radiotherapy
WNU-Summer Institute
189
Doses in mSvDoses in mSv
100 100
~~ 10 10
~~ 11
TYPICALLY HIGHTYPICALLY HIGH
TYPICALTYPICAL
MINIMALMINIMAL
HIGHHIGHFluoroscopFluoroscopyy
Vertebral Vertebral
TTooraxrax
Guidance for the Guidance for the protection of protection of patients in patients in
radioradio--diagnosisdiagnosis
190
TRAINING..!!TRAINING..!!
19326 July, 2012 193
Occupational exposure:
ALL exposure of workers incurred in the course of
their work.
Occupational exposure:
ALL exposure of exposure of workers incurred workers incurred in the course of in the course of
their work.their work.
Workers(voluntary and individually monitored exposure)
Monitored workerMonitored worker
WNU-Summer Institute
19426 July, 2012 194
Maximum Maximum (except life saving)(except life saving)
mSv in a year
1000
500
100
50
20
OccupationalDose
Restrictions
OccupationalDose
Restrictions
OptimizationOptimizationofof
ProtectionProtection
Annual dose limitAnnual dose limit
Average dose limitAverage dose limit
EEvery effort novery effort nott to to exceedexceed itit
RREESSCCUUEE
All reasonable All reasonable efforteffortssnonot to t to exceedexceed itit
NNOORRMMAALL
19526 July, 2012 195
The female worker:
protecting the
unborn and
the infant
The female worker:
protecting the
unborn and
the infantWNU-Summer Institute
19626 July, 2012 196
Members of the Public(involuntary no-individually monitored exposure)
19726 July, 2012 197
Members of the Public(involuntary no-individually monitored exposure)
Planned exposure situations
(Practices) restrict
the expectedadditional doses
belowindividual dose limitsand source constraints
Planned exposure situations
(Practices) restrict
the expectedadditional doses
belowindividual dose limitsand source constraints
Existing & emergency exposure situations
(Interventions) reducethe extant
avertable dosesbelow
reference levels
Existing & emergency exposure situations
(Interventions) reducethe extant
avertable dosesbelow
reference levels
(planned)‘Practices’
(planned)‘Practices’
19926 July, 2012 199
Naturalbackground
radiation
ExpectedExpectedadditional additional
dose dose
Activity introducedActivity introduced
(planned) ‘Practices’
RestrictionsRestrictions: dose limits and constraints: dose limits and constraints
20026 July, 2012 200Wastes
Hospitals
IndustryTransport
Mining
Nuclear power
Industry
Dose limit
20126 July, 2012 201
Source constraint
WNU-Summer Institute
Doses to be constrained arethose committed in a year
rather than those incurred in a year!
Doses to be constrained arethose committed in a year
rather than those incurred in a year!
202
mSv in a year
1
0.01
1
0.01
Restrictions on the dose
attributable to practices
(additional annual dose)
Restrictions on the dose
attributable to practices
(additional annual dose)
Optimization of protection
Optimization of protection
Source constraintSource constraint
Regulatory limitRegulatory limit
Regulatory exemptionRegulatory exemptionWNU-Summer Institute
203
‘Interventions’(in existing and emergency situations)
‘Interventions’(in existing and emergency situations)
20426 July, 2012 204
AvertableDose
Howmuch?
AvertableDose
HowHowmuch?much?
Referencelevel
Extant Dose
Should Should it be it be
reduced?reduced?
‘Interventions’(in existing and emergency situations)
WNU-Summer Institute
205
INTERVENTIONINTERVENTIONALMOST ALWAYS ALMOST ALWAYS
JUSTIFIABLE JUSTIFIABLE
mSv in a year100
10
1
CRITERIA FOR INTERVENING (Extant Annual Dose)
CRITERIA FOR INTERVENING (Extant Annual Dose)
INTERVENTIONINTERVENTIONIS NOT LIKELY TO BE IS NOT LIKELY TO BE
JUSTIFIABLEJUSTIFIABLE
INTERVENTIONINTERVENTIONMAY BEMAY BE
JUSTIFIABLEJUSTIFIABLE
WNU-Summer Institute
206
Simplified summary of dose
restrictionsand reference
levels(in mSv in a year)
Simplified summary of dose
restrictionsand reference
levels(in mSv in a year)
NO INDIVIDUAL/SOCIETAL BENEFIT ABOVE THIS Emergency workers Emergency workers Evacuation/relocation in emergenciesEvacuation/relocation in emergencies High levels of existing controllable exposuresHigh levels of existing controllable exposures Information, training, monitoringInformation, training, monitoring
DIRECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT TO THE INDIVIDUALOccupational exposureSheltering, stable iodine, in emergenciesExisting exposures such as radon Comforters and carers to patients Information, training, monitoring or assessment
SOCIETAL, BUT NO INDIVIDUAL DIRECT BENEFITNormal situations No information or training, No individual dose assessment
Exclusion, exemption, clearance
100100
2020
11
0.010.01
207
The use of a reference
level in an existing
exposure situation and
the evolution of the
distribution of
individual doses with
time as a result of the
optimization process
The use of a reference
level in an existing
exposure situation and
the evolution of the
distribution of
individual doses with
time as a result of the
optimization process
20826 July, 2012 208
In paradigm choice there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community
DecisionDecision--aiding Processaiding Processbased on radiation protection consideration
DecisionDecision--making Processmaking Process
involving relevant ‘stakeholders’
searching for their informed consent
209
(4)
The International
Regime
(4)
The International
Regime
26 July, 2012 209WNU-Summer Institute
21026 July, 2012 210
The IAEA is the only organ within the UN system with specific statutory responsibilities
on radiation protection and safety
The IAEA is the only organ within the UN system with specific statutory responsibilities
on radiation protection and safetyWNU-Summer Institute
21126 July, 2012 211
“For their efforts
[i] to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and
[ii] to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is
used in the safest possible way“
“For their efforts
[i] to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and
[ii] to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is
used in the safest possible way“
The Nobel Peace Prize2005
TheThe NobelNobel PeacePeace PrizePrize20052005
WNU-Summer Institute
21226 July, 2012 212
to establishstandards
to establishstandards
to provide for their applicationto provide for
their application
to service international conventionsto service international conventions
IAEAstatutory safety functions
IAEAstatutory safety functions
WNU-Summer Institute
213
Legally Binding
ConventionsLegally Binding
Conventions
214
Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident
215
Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency
216
Convention on Nuclear Safety
217
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the
Safety of Radioactive Waste Management
218
Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
21926 July, 2012 219
International
Radiation Safety
Standards
International
Radiation Safety
Standards
WNU-Summer Institute
22026 July, 2012 220
Commissionon Safety Standards
(CSS)
Nuclear Safety StandardsCommittee(NUSSC)
Radiation Safety StandardsCommittee(RASSC)
Waste Safety StandardsCommittee(WASSC)
Transport Safety StandardsCommittee(TRANSSC)
Expert Groups Expert Groups Expert Groups Expert Groups
IAEA Board of Governors
22126 July, 2012 221
Long experience
1962: first
international
standards.
Long experience
1962: first
international
standards.
22226 July, 2012 222
A large corpus of
International
Safety Standards
is available
A large corpus of
International
Safety Standards
is available
22326 July, 2012 223
Safety Standards Hierarchy
Safety GuidesSafety Guides
Safety RequirementsSafety Requirements
Safety FundamentalsSafety Fundamentals
WNU-Summer Institute
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1273c_web.pdf
225
Safety Principles 1: Responsibility for safety 2: Role of government 3: Leadership and management for safety 4: Justification of facilities and activities 5: Optimization of protection 6: Limitation of risks to individuals 7: Protection of present and future generations 8: Prevention of accidents 9: Emergency preparedness and response 10: Protective actions to reduce existing or
unregulated radiation risks
1: Responsibility for safety 2: Role of government 3: Leadership and management for safety 4: Justification of facilities and activities 5: Optimization of protection 6: Limitation of risks to individuals 7: Protection of present and future generations 8: Prevention of accidents 9: Emergency preparedness and response 10: Protective actions to reduce existing or
unregulated radiation risks
26 July, 2012 227
22826 July, 2012 228
rendering APPRAISAL SERVICES
coordinating RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
fostering INFORMATION EXCHANGE
providing TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Provisionsfor the
application of the
standards:IAEA
mechanisms
promoting EDUCATION & TRAINING
22926 July, 2012 229
Example on how the system for
establishing standards works:Example on how the system for
establishing standards works:
The Regulations for Safe TransportThe Regulations for Safe Transport
WNU-Summer Institute
230230WNU-Summer Institute
23126 July, 2012 231
to Geneva
WNU-Summer Institute
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
Take away points
1. Additional doses to members of the public should not exceed 1 millisievert in a year
2. Total doses to workers should not exceed 20 millisievert in a year, except for emergency workers () and pregnant workers ()
3. Existing doses to members of the public of several tens of millisieverts, e.g. following an accident, will justify intervention with special protective measures, but if the doses are around 1 millisievert intervention may not be justifiable.
1.1. Additional doses to members of the public Additional doses to members of the public should not exceed should not exceed 1 millisievert in a year
2.2. Total doses to workers should not exceed Total doses to workers should not exceed 20 millisievert in a year, except for , except for emergency workers (emergency workers () and pregnant workers () and pregnant workers ())
3.3. Existing doses to members of the public of Existing doses to members of the public of several tens of millisieverts, e.g. following an , e.g. following an accident, will justify intervention with special accident, will justify intervention with special protective measures, but if the doses are around protective measures, but if the doses are around 1 1 millisievertmillisievert intervention may not be justifiable.intervention may not be justifiable.
26 July, 2012 WNU-Summer Institute
239
Take away points
1. There is a growing international safety regime
2. Obey the international conventions
3. Comply with the international requirements
4. Follow the international guides
5. Use the IAEA application mechanisms
1.1. There is a growing international safety regimeThere is a growing international safety regime
2.2. Obey the international conventionsObey the international conventions
3.3. Comply with the international requirementsComply with the international requirements
4.4. Follow the international guidesFollow the international guides
5.5. Use the IAEA application mechanismsUse the IAEA application mechanisms
26 July, 2012 WNU-Summer Institute239
Download into your computer
the file
González_Reading Material
Download into your computer
the file
González_Reading Material
241WNU, ,
[email protected]@arn.gob.ar
+541163231758
Av. del Libertador 8250Buenos Aires
Argentina
Thank you!Thank you!
26 July, 2012
242
Additional information to the SECOND PART
Additional information to the SECOND PART
26 July, 2012 242
243
Epilogue
Policy Implications:
plausibility of effects at low dosesversus
their attributability
Policy Implications:Policy Implications:
plausibility of effects at low dosesversus
their attributability
26 July, 2012 243WNU-Summer InstituteS
Policy Implications on effects at low doses :The effects are
probable and, therefore,plausible
but, they are notprovable!
Policy Implications Policy Implications on effects at low doses ::The effects areThe effects are
probable and, therefore,plausible
but, they are notprovable!
26 July, 2012 244S
Low-dose effects cannot be attributed
to radiation exposure!
Low-dose effects cannot be attributed
to radiation exposure!
245WNU, , 2008
Dose (mSv)
Likelihood of Health Effect
Certainty(100%)
epidemiology pathology
Limit of epidemiology
Limit of epidemiology
Limit ofpathologyLimit of
pathology
26 July, 2012
246WNU, , 2008
Dose (mSv)
Certainty(100%)
Epidemiology Pathology
PlausiblePlausible Collective estimate
Collective estimate
Individual diagnosisIndividual diagnosis
26 July, 2012
Likelihood of Health Effect
247
Dose (mSv)
Certainty(100%)
Epidemiology Pathology
No attribution
No attribution
Collective attributionCollective attribution
Individual attributionIndividual attribution
26 July, 2012
Likelihood of Health Effect
248
Dealing with uncertainties
Is it plausible that there is a risk at low doses?
Dealing with uncertainties
Is it plausible that there is a risk at low doses?
PlausibilityApparently reasonable or probable,
without necessarily being so.from L. plausibilis, from plaus-, plaudere ‘applaud’.
PlausibilityApparently reasonable or probable,
without necessarily being so.from L. plausibilis, from plaus-, plaudere ‘applaud’.
26 July, 2012 248WNU-Summer Institute
249249WNU-Summer Institute
ICRP Publication 99
Low - Dose Extrapolation
of Radiation Related
Cancer Risk
2006
ICRP Publication 99
Low - Dose Extrapolation
of Radiation Related
Cancer Risk
2006
26 July, 2012
Charles E Land; Uncertainty, lowCharles E Land; Uncertainty, low--dose extrapolation and the threshold hypothesis; dose extrapolation and the threshold hypothesis; J. J. RadiolRadiol. Prot. . Prot. 22 22 (2002) 1(2002) 1––77
250WNU-Summer Institute250
Nominal statistical uncertainty distribution for excess lifetimerisk of solid cancer mortality among atomic-bomb survivors
Confidence limits 7.5–12.5% Sv-1
26 July, 2012
251WNU-Summer Institute251
Uncertainty distribution for excess lifetime risk(taking into account extrapolation to another population)
confidence limits 1.2–8.8% Sv-1
approximately approximately loglog--normal normal
15 M a y , 2004 IR P A11: S ie vert L ecture 134
1 .0 -
0 .8 -
0 .6 -
0 .4 -
0 .2 -
‘2
‘4
‘6
‘8
‘10
‘12
‘14
R isk (% )/S v
C u m u la tivep ro b ab ility
95 % u p per lim it
5%
26 July, 2012
252252WNU-Summer Institute
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
‘2
‘4
‘6
‘8
‘10
‘12
‘14
Risk (%)/Sv
Cumulativeprobability
95% upper limit
5%
Assuming a 20%
probability of threshold8.8%/Sv
26 July, 2012
253253WNU-Summer Institute
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
‘2
‘4
‘6
‘8
‘10
‘12
‘14
Risk (%)/Sv
Cumulativeprobability
95% upper limit
5%
Assuming a 50%
probability of threshold
7%/Sv
8.8%/Sv
26 July, 2012
254254WNU-Summer Institute
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
‘2
‘4
‘6
‘8
‘10
‘12
‘14
Risk (%)/Sv
Cumulativeprobability
95% upper limit
5%
Assuming a 80%
probability of threshold
5%/Sv
8.8%/Sv
26 July, 2012
255WNU-Summer Institute255
… Namely …
…ICRP considers that due to the
uncertainties in the radiation risk estimates,
it should presume a nominal radiation risk at low
doses and recommends to limit such nominal risk
with radiation protection measures.
…ICRP considers that due to the
uncertainties in the radiation risk estimates,uncertainties in the radiation risk estimates,
it should presume a nominal radiation risk at low
doses and recommends to limit such nominal risk
with radiation protection measures.26 July, 2012
Policy Implications:
plausibility of effects at low dosesversus
their attributability
Policy Implications:Policy Implications:
plausibility of effects at low dosesversus
their attributability
26 July, 2012 256WNU-Summer InstituteS
257WNU-Summer Institute 257
Likelihood of radiation health effects
Doses Doses
Likelihood
Certainty(100%)
0.005%/mSv for cancer0.0002%/mSv for hereditable
0.005%/mSv for cancer0.0002%/mSv for hereditable
Uncertainty!Uncertainty!
26 July, 2012
258
AttributabilityAttributability
Attribute: regard something as being caused by.
from L. attribut- ‘allotted’: both from attribuere, from ad- ‘to’ + tribuere
‘assign’.
Attribute: regard something as being caused by.
from L. attribut- ‘allotted’: both from attribuere, from ad- ‘to’ + tribuere
‘assign’.
26 July, 2012 258WNU-Summer Institute
259259WNU-Summer Institute
Epistemological limits in radioepidemiologyEpistemological limits in radioepidemiology
26 July, 2012
260260WNU-Summer Institute
Control group“N” people“C” cancers“n” probability of ‘natural’ cancer
Control group““NN”” peoplepeople““CC”” cancerscancers““nn”” probability of probability of ‘‘naturalnatural’’ cancercancer
Exposed group“N” people“E” cancers“n” probability of ‘natural’cancer‘pD’ probability of ‘radiation’ cancer
Exposed group““NN”” peoplepeople““EE”” cancerscancers““nn”” probability of probability of ‘‘naturalnatural’’cancercancer‘‘ppDD’’ probability of probability of ‘‘radiationradiation’’ cancercancer
26 July, 2012
261261WNU-Summer Institute
E= n N
+ pd D N
Numberof
cancersin
exposedgroup
C=n N
Numberof
cancersin
controlgroup
C=n N
Numberof
cancersin
controlgroup
E-C
Difficult to detect!
26 July, 2012
262WNU-Summer Institute262
Limitation of knowledge in epidemiology
The standard deviation is
= 2 n N + pd D N If the excess cancers are to be detected with a statistical
confidence of 95%
E – C > 2
The standard deviation is
= 2 n N + pd D N If the excess cancers are to be detected with a statistical
confidence of 95%
E – C > 2
26 July, 2012
263WNU-Summer Institute263
Epidemiological limit
Operating algebraically and as n >> pd D,
N > constant / D2
which is the equation giving the number of people, N, needed for detecting excess cancers at dose D.
Operating algebraically and as n >> pd D,
N > constant / D2
which is the equation giving the number of people, N, needed for detecting excess cancers at dose D.
(Constant = 8 n / pd2)
26 July, 2012
264264WNU, ,
10 2
10 1
10-0
10-1 10 2 10 4 10 6 10 8
Dose (Dose (mSvmSv))
PeoplePeople
knowledgeknowledge
unprovableunprovable
1 1 mSvmSv10 9 p.
SOLID CANCERS
26 July, 2012
265265WNU, ,
10 2
10 1
10-0
10-1 10 2 10 4 10 6 10 8
Dose (Dose (mSvmSv))
PeoplePeople
~1 ~1 mSvmSv
HEREDITABLE EFFECTS
~10~1012 12 people!people!
knowledge(very limited)
knowledge(very limited)
unprovableunprovable
26 July, 2012
C H E R N O B Y LC H E R N O B Y L
267
268
Radiation Doses
Average over 10 years 8 mSv
For life 13 mSv
Average over 10 years 8 mSv
For life 13 mSv
269
annual dosemSv/year
~100
~ 10
~ 2.4
~ 1
Natural Background
TYPICALLY HIGHTYPICALLY HIGH
AVERAGE AVERAGE
MINIMUM MINIMUM
VERY HIGHVERY HIGHFew peopleIn few areas
Many peopleIn many areas
Majority of peoplearound the world
Chernobyl for life Chernobyl for life
270270WNU, ,
10 2
10 1
10-0
10-1 10 2 10 4 10 6 10 8
Dose (Dose (mSvmSv))
PeoplePeople
SOLID CANCERS in Chernobyl(except thyroid cancers in children)
Chernobyl doses Chernobyl doses ~10 ~10 mSvmSv
Chernobyl residents residents in strict control areas in strict control areas
~300 000~300 000
knowledgeknowledgeunprovableunprovable
26 July, 2012
272272WNU, ,
10 2
10 1
10-0
10-1 10 2 10 4 10 6 10 8
Dose (Dose (mSvmSv))
ChildrenChildren
Thyroid Cancer
knowledge(very expanded)knowledge
(very expanded)
unprovableunprovable
26 July, 2012
273
274WNU, , 274
Thyroid cancer in children in Belarus
Thyro id cancer in ch ild ren in B elarusThyro id cancer in ch ild ren in B elarusThyroid ca ncer in children in Be la rus
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Num
ber o
f cas
es
Total
0-4
5-9
10-14
26 July, 2012
275
The ‘liquidators’“ЛIКВIДАТОРИ”
The ‘liquidators’“ЛIКВIДАТОРИ”
278278WNU, ,
10 2
10 1
10-0
10-1 10 2 10 4 10 6 10 8
Dose (Dose (mSvmSv))
PeoplePeople
LiquidatorsLiquidators’’ av.doses av.doses ~10 ~10 mSvmSv
Chernobyl liquidators liquidators ~160 000~160 000
DETECTABILITY OF LEUKÆMIAS
knowledgeknowledge
unprovableunprovable
26 July, 2012
279WNU, ,
Dose (mSv)
Likelihood of Health Effect
Certainty(100%)
epidemiology pathology
Limit of epidemiology
Limit of epidemiology
Limit ofpathologyLimit of
pathology
26 July, 2012
280WNU, ,
Dose (mSv)
Certainty(100%)
epidemiology pathology
PlausiblePlausible Collective estimate
Collective estimate
Individual diagnosisIndividual diagnosis
26 July, 2012
Likelihood of Health Effect
281WNU, ,
Dose (mSv)
Certainty(100%)
epidemiology pathology
No attribution
No attribution
Collective attributionCollective attribution
Individual attributionIndividual attribution
26 July, 2012
Likelihood of Health Effect
282
Take away points
1. It is plausible that radiation exposure at low
doses be detrimental to public health and,
therefore: people shall be protected against
radiation exposure at any dose however small.
2. It is impossible and therefore incorrect to
attribute health effects to low-dose radiation
exposure situations.
1. It is plausible that radiation exposure at low
doses be detrimental to public health and,
therefore: people shall be protected against
radiation exposure at any dose however small.
2. It is impossible and therefore incorrect to
attribute health effects to low-dose radiation
exposure situations.26 July, 2012 WNU, ,
283WNU, ,
[email protected]@arn.gob.ar
+541163231758
Av. del Libertador 8250Buenos Aires
Argentina
Thank you!Thank you!
26 July, 2012