PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

W K Sinclair

Publications and source records attributed to W K Sinclair.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1987

Failla memorial lecture. Risk, research, and radiation protection.

Radiation protection concerns the risk of stochastic late effects, especially cancer, and limits on radiation exposure both occupationally and for the public tend to be based on these risks. The risks are determined, mainly by expert committees, from the steadily growing information on exposed human populations, especially the survivors of the atomic bombs dropped in Japan in 1945. Risks of cancer estimated up to the early 1980s were in the range 1 to 5 X 10(-2)/Sv, but recent revisions in the dosimetry of the Japanese survivors and additional cycles of epidemiological information suggest values now probably at the high end of this range. These are likely to require an increase in the values used for radiation protection. A major problem with risk estimation is that data are available only for substantial doses and must be extrapolated down to the low-dose region of interest in radiation protection. Thus the shape of the dose-response curve is important, and here we must turn to laboratory research. Of importance are studies involving (1) dose rate, which affects the response to low-LET radiation and often to high-LET radiation as well; (2) radiation quality, since the shapes of the dose-response curves for high- and low-LET radiation differ and thus the RBE, the ratio between them, varies, reaching a maximum value RBEM at low doses; and (3) modifiers of the carcinogenic response, which either enhance or reduce the effect of a given dose. Radiation protection depends both on risk information, and especially also on comparisons with other occupational and public risks, and on research, not only for extrapolations of risk to low doses but also in areas where human information is lacking such as in the effects of radiation quality and in modifications of response.

Animals↗
PubMed1986

Radiation protection standards in space.

Radiation protection standards for the individual exposed to ionizing radiation in his/her daily work have evolved over more than 50 years since the first recommendations on limits by the NCRP and the ICRP. Initial standards were based on the absence of observable harm, notably skin erythema, but have since been modified as other concerns, such as leukemia and genetic effects, became more important. More recently, the general carcinogenic effect of radiation has become the principal concern at low doses. Genetic effects are also of concern in the younger individual. Modern radiation protection practices take both of these risks into account. Quantification of these risks improves as new information emerges. The study of the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs continues to yield new information and the recent revisions in the dosimetry are about to be completed. The special circumstances of space travel suggest approaches to limits not unlike those for radiation workers on the ground. One approach is to derive a career limit based on the risks of accident faced by many nonradiation workers in a lifetime. The career limit can be apportioned according to the type of mission. The NCRP is considering this and other approaches to the specification of radiation standards in space.

Adult↗
PubMed1984

Radiation risk estimation and its application to human beings in space.

The number of human beings likely to spend time in space will increase as time goes on. While exposures vary according to missions, orbits, shielding, etc., an average space radiation fluence (ignoring solar flares, radiation belts and anomalous regions in space) in locations close to earth is about 10 rad/year with a quality factor of about 5.5. The potential effects of exposure to these fluences include both non-stochastic effects and stochastic effects (cancer and genetic damage). Non-stochastic effects, damage to the lens of the eye, bone marrow or gonads, can be avoided by keeping radiation limits below threshold values. Stochastic effects imply risk at all levels. The magnitude of these risks has been discussed in a number of reports by the UNSCEAR Committee and the BEIR Committee in the USA during 1970-1980. The uncertainties associated with these risks and information which has become available since the last BEIR report is discussed. In considering reasonable limits for exposure in space, acceptable levels for stochastic risks must be based on appropriate comparisons. In view of the limited term of duty of most space workers, a lifetime limit may be appropriate. This lifetime limit might be comparable in terms of risks with limits for radiation workers on the ground but received at a higher annual rate for a shorter time. These and other approaches are expected to be considered by an NCRP Committee currently examining the problem of space radiation hazards.

Astronauts↗
PubMed1983

Radiation safety standards: space hazards vs. terrestrial hazards.

The standards currently recommended for use in space travel were perhaps the first risk derived recommendations for dose limitations developed for quasi-occupational circumstances. They were based on data, considerations, and philosophy existing prior to 1970 and considered carcinogenesis primarily. In the intervening twelve years, not only has radiation risk information improved markedly but considerations relating to risk in general have become better known. The earlier recommendations have been examined with respect to changes in risk estimation and it is noted that the same philosophy used today, would probably lead to different dose limitations. However, other philosophies might be used; in particular a comparison of risks between terrestrial occupational radiation circumstances and also with fatal accident rates in a range of industries can be made and might be used in a modified philosophy with respect to risks from carcinogenesis. Developments have also taken place with respect to the knowledge of the biological effects of HZE particles but whether these effects are limiting as compared with radiation induced carcinogenesis is not yet clear. More studies on the effects of HZE particles, now becoming available, are needed. It is recommended that an in depth reexamination be undertaken of the biological effectiveness of space radiations and the philosophy of dose limitations in comparison with other risks.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1981

Effects of low-level radiation and comparative risk.

At low doses of radiation to the whole body, the dose-effect relationship for human must usually be determined by extrapolation from human data at high doses. Reasons for above-linear, linear, or below-linear extrapolation from high doses to low doses are discussed. The linear extrapolation is most common, and probably leads to conservative estimates of risk. Risks from other carcinogens may be compared directly with radiation risk by using cancer incidence as the end point. However, lifeshortening is a more useful index of comparison in many other circumstances, and can be used to compare the time lost due to radiation-induced cancer with that due to accidental deaths and other lost industrial time. Risks for radiation workers exposed at current average occupational dose levels are shown to be comparable with those from other safe industries. Questions of acceptability and public perception of risk are briefly discussed.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1971

Ultraviolet light-induced division delayed in synchronized Chinese hamster cells.

The age-dependent, ultraviolet light (UVL) (254 nm)-induced division delay of surviving and nonsurviving Chinese hamster cells was studied. The response was examined after UVL exposures adjusted to yield approximately the same survival levels at different stages of the cell cycle, 60% or 30% survival. Cells irradiated in the middle of S suffered the longest division delay, and cells exposed in mitosis or in G(1) had about the same smaller delay in division. Cells irradiated in G(2), however, were not delayed at either survival level. It was further established, after exposures that yielded about 30% survivors at various stages of the cycle, that surviving cells had shorter delays than nonsurvivors. This difference was not observed for cells in G(2) at the time of exposure; i.e., neither surviving nor nonsurviving G(2) cells were delayed in division. The examination of mitotic index vs. time revealed that most cells reach mitosis, but all of the increase in the number of cells in the population can be accounted for by the increase of the viable cell fraction. These observations suggest strongly that nonsurviving cells, although present during most of the experiment, are stopped at mitosis and do not divide. Cells in mitosis at the time of irradiation complete their division, and in the same length of time as unirradiated controls. Division and mitotic delays after UVL are relatively much larger than after X-ray doses that reduce survival to about the same level.

Animals↗