PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “RADIATION PROTECTION”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

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

At least 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

153Sm-EDTMP radionuclide treatment of bony metastatic disease: a radiation protection evaluation.

The aims of the study were the identification and optimization of the radiation protection measures for in-patients who underwent palliative radionuclide therapy for bone metastases with 153Sm-EDTMP activities lower than 3 GBq. The suitability of the preventive procedures from the contamination of places and objects, and for the protection of the hospital staff, other patients and relatives from the danger of external radiation and internal contamination has been evaluated by carrying out a series of measurements both of superficial contamination inside the confinement room and of the dose near the treated patients. The results show that the contamination of the places and the objects close to treated patients is really low. The greatest risk of contamination depended on the management of the physiological waste that, therefore, should be collected and disposed as radioactive one. The measurements of external radiation show that nearby the confinement room the dose limit for public is not exceeded. The same is true for the dose limit of 3 mSv established for relatives who, when taking care treated patients, receive a dose lower than 20 microSv a patient. The fulfillment of the proposed radiation protection measures assures the containment of the risk of exposure and contamination for nursing and medical staff involved in radionuclide-based therapy.

Bone Neoplasms↗
PubMed2002

[Physical and technical quality assurance and radiation protection in transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy with 125-iodine seeds].

BACKGROUND: Early stage prostate cancer can be treated successfully by interstitial brachytherapy with 125-iodine seeds. A quality-assurance programme is presented that was designed for this purpose for internal clinical use. Furthermore the requirements of the new German Ordinance Governing Radiation Protection (StrlSchV) that came into force on August 1, 2001, are taken into account. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For the 125-iodine monotherapy of the prostate we used RAPID STRANDS (Amersham Health, Braunschweig, Germany). According to the guidelines of the new Ordinance Governing Radiation Protection, the determination of the body dose of the staff is made to rely on the new measurement quantities H(p) (10) and H(p) (0.07). The nominal air kerma rate of the seeds is measured with a calibrated well-chamber of the type HDR 1000 Plus and an electrometer of the type MAX 4000 (Standard Imaging Inc., USA). The ultrasound images of the prostate are produced by an ultrasound device of the type Falcon 2101 (B-K Medical, Denmark). For treatment planning the programme VariSeed (Varian, Darmstadt, Germany) was employed. Correct loading of the needles is controlled by autoradiography before implantation. After the implantation radiation-protection measurements in the operating room are carried out. RESULTS: As regards the personnel, for the depth personal dose equivalent Hp(10) and relating to two applications each, measurement values between 0 microSv and 14 microSv resulted. The control of the radiation exposure of the hands revealed superficial personal dose values H(p) (0.07) of up to 1 mSv. The nominal air kerma rates of the RAPID STRANDS were all lying within the 95% confidence interval guaranteed by the producer. The autoradiographs documented -- except for one case -- the correct loading of the needles. The interstitial transperineal prostate implantation of the 125-iodine seeds succeeded as planned with all patients. Until now no contamination of the operating room was detected by the radiation-protection measurements. CONCLUSION: The physical-technical quality assurance programme presented here covers the whole physical-technical range of the internal clinical quality assurance and could be integrated into the course of the treatment without any problems. It has th following advantages: The autoradiographic documentation of the correctly loaded needles serves as proof that the prerequisite for the production of the prescribed physical dose distribution is fulfilled. The internal clinical determination of the nominal air kerma rate is the basis for a correct dose application.

Brachytherapy↗
PubMed1992

Summary statements from the Third Conference on Radiation Protection and Dosimetry.

The Third Conference on Radiation Protection and Dosimetry was conducted in Orlando, FL, on 21-24 October 1991. At the end of the conference, each member of the Technical Program Committee summarized the events considered to be of particular importance. Subjects discussed included dosimetry accreditation programs, regulations, standards, compliance, advances in dosimeters and instrumentation, training, needs in metrology, and funding of dosimetry research. These statements have been collected and combined and are presented as a brief summary of the conference.

Radiation Protection↗
PubMed2004

Attitude of the Belgian dentist population towards radiation protection.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a survey of private dental offices in Belgium and gain insight in the knowledge and attitude of Belgian dentists towards quality care in radiography and radiation protection. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed among 700 Belgian dental offices, which were included based on demographic data and the use of intraoral radiographic equipment. RESULTS: The response rate was 71%. Implementation of standards for quality care and radiation protection was suboptimal. In most offices, exposure settings of the intraoral radiation tube were 65 kV/kVp to 70 kV/kVp and 10 mA to 12 mA, with an average exposure time of 0.45 s. No reduction of exposure time was noticed when using faster film types. About one-third of the responders worked with digital image receptors. Aiming devices and rectangular collimation were used in a minority of practices (40% and 6%, respectively). The distance of the dentist to the radiation tube during exposure was on average 2.2 m, although 8% of the dentists assisted in holding the image receptor inside the patient's mouth. One quarter of the dentists were standing behind a wall when taking radiographs. Lead aprons were worn more often by female dentists. Dose estimation revealed that male dentists received a significantly larger effective dose per year than female dentists (8.3 mSv vs 3.2 mSv). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of standards of quality care for radiography and radiation protection could be improved among Belgian dentists. An elaborate educational programme in dental radiography is a prerequisite. Furthermore, recommendations could help to attain a change in attitude towards the use of ionizing radiation in order to meet European guidelines.

Adult↗
PubMed1979

Inexpensive radiation protective glasses.

Using the services of a local optical supply house, fabrication and testing of eyeglasses of a high lead content that could be used to protect the eye from the hazards of radiation were evaluated. Two separate types of eyeglasses were manufactured (a prototype followed by a second pair), and these were tested against a commercially available pair of radiation protective glasses. The protection offered by the locally manufactured pair of glasses exceeded the commercial pair and the cost savings are significant.

Eye Protective Devices↗
PubMed2004

Heavy ion radiobiology for hadrontherapy and space radiation protection.

Research in the field of biological effects of heavy charged particles is needed for both heavy-ion therapy (hadrontherapy) and protection from the exposure to galactic cosmic radiation in long-term manned space missions. Although the exposure conditions (e.g. high- vs. low-dose rate) and relevant endpoints (e.g. cell killing vs. neoplastic transformation) are different in the two fields, it is clear that a substantial overlap exists in several research topics. Three such topics are discussed in this short review: individual radiosensitivity, mixed radiation fields, and late stochastic effects of heavy ions. In addition, researchers involved either in experimental studies on space radiation protection or heavy-ion therapy will basically use the same accelerator facilities. It seems to be important that novel accelerator facilities planned (or under construction) for heavy-ion therapy reserve a substantial amount of beamtime to basic studies of heavy-ion radiobiology and its applications in space radiation research.

Heavy Ion Radiotherapy↗
PubMed1995

Evaluation of tungsten and lead surgical gloves for radiation protection.

We present experimental results on the radiation protection offered by some types of gloves commercialized for use in operating rooms where x rays are used and in interventional radiology rooms. Some gloves with lead as the attenuating element and others containing tungsten were evaluated. The composition of some gloves was determined by x-ray fluorescence analysis. Attenuations for direct beam and for scattered radiation were obtained with different quality x-ray beams. The results obtained are compared with data supplied by the manufacturers. We have also simulated numerically the attenuation of x-ray spectra of different kVp and filtrations to establish the possible advantages of tungsten as an attenuating element. It is concluded that the use of tungsten as an attenuating element is clearly more advantageous than lead in the whole range of energies used in diagnostic radiology since gloves with tungsten offer the same protection while also allowing much better tactile perception than gloves with lead.

Biophysical Phenomena↗
PubMed1996

Ten principles and ten commandments of radiation protection.

For decades, the phrase "time, distance, and shielding" has been presented as summarizing the "basics" of radiation protection. Indeed, for protection from external radiation sources, these three principles are probably the most important ones on which a worker can make decision and take actions. however, these principles do not address protection against intakes of radioactive materials or "ontakes" (skin contamination), other risk-limiting measures, or other important protective measures taken by governments, public health agencies, regulators, and institutional programs (measures such as performance standards, health education, facility engineering requirements, and administrative procedures), I have identified ten principles and ten accompanying commandments of radiation protection: time, distance, dispersal, source reduction, source barrier, personal barrier, decorporation, effect mitigation, optimal technology, and limitation of other exposures. Corresponding non-technical forms of the commandments are hurry (but don't be hasty); stay away from it; disperse it and dilute it; use as little as possible; keep it in; keep it out; get it out or off of you (after intake or skin contamination); limit the damage; choose the best technology (perhaps a non-radiation technology); and don't compound risks (don't smoke). Technical versions of the commandments are also provided using the verbs "optimize," "maximize," or"minimize." Not all commandments can be applied at the same time, and application may be different for workers and members of the public. Advantages, disadvantages, and implementation of these principles and commandments are discussed, and numerous examples provided. The application of the principles and commandments must be based on knowledge of the radiological conditions to be managed.

Health Physics↗
PubMed1994

Review article: radiation protection in dental radiology.

Dental radiology represents the most frequent diagnostic radiological investigation in the industrialized world, with over 16 million examinations performed annually in England and Wales alone. Although individual doses and risks are low in dental radiography, the collective dose is not inconsiderable and many examinations are performed in younger age groups. Radiation protection of patients in dental radiology is achieved in three ways: by appropriate selection criteria for patients and equipment, methods of dose limitation and quality assurance procedures. There is a lack of agreed radiographic selection criteria to guide British dentists and this may lead to overuse of certain techniques, principally panoramic radiography. In intraoral radiography the use of fast (E-speed) film and rectangular collimation offer dose reductions of approximately 50% and 60%, respectively. Constant potential X-ray units and rare-earth filtration permit further reductions. In panoramic and cephalometric radiography, improved collimation offers a simple means of dose limitation, while doses can be reduced by up to one-eighth by combining the use of constant potential X-ray units, rare-earth intensifying screens and rare-earth filtration. Lead protection of the abdomen has little relevance to radiation protection; however, thyroid shielding has some value. Concern has been expressed about the poor diagnostic quality of radiographs taken in the general dental services. Consequently a quality assurance programme plays an essential part in dental radiation protection by improving diagnostic yield and limiting repeat examinations.

Filtration↗
PubMed2003

Standardization of occupational dose to patient DAP enables reliable assessment of radiation-protection devices in invasive cardiology.

PURPOSE: With the aim of assessing the effectiveness of radiation-protection devices in invasive cardiology, the goal of this study was to validate relative parameters for operator occupational exposure, standardized to the patient's primary dose. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One of these parameters was the local dose, measured in air at the operator's position per dose area product (DAP), applied to a male anthropomorphic Alderson-Rando phantom for simulation of coronary angiography. The second parameter was personal occupational dose to the operator per DAP, measured by thermoluminescence dosimeter stripes during 121 procedures in routine clinical work. RESULTS: The local and personal doses per unit DAP - using typical 0.5-mm lead overcouch and undercouch protection - were comparable (left eye 180 vs. 360, thyroid 260 vs. 260, left shoulder 280 vs. 150, chest 400 vs. 500, hands 400 vs. 550, waist 900 vs. 400 nSv/Gy x cm (2)). The results, however, were far lower than typically reported values. Our findings therefore disclose a typically inadequate use or acceptance by individual operators of available table-attached lead protection devices, and of ceiling-attached lead-glass screens. The additional use of individual 1.0-mm lead-equivalent garments reduced local doses to levels between 1. 10 %. CONCLUSIONS: DAP-standardized dose parameters - determined experimentally (phantom measurements), or in routine clinical work - are not appreciably influenced by the equipment age and type, or by the image-intensifier entrance dose rate of the respective catheterization system. They are consequently best suited for obtaining eloquent comparisons of various radiation-protection devices, and for reliable estimation of local scatter radiation exposure by simple documentation of intervention DAP.

Computer Simulation↗
PubMed1992

Recent estimates of cancer risk from low-LET ionizing radiation and radiation protection limits.

Estimates of the risk of cancer induction, formerly about 1%/Sv, formed the basis of ICRP radiation protection limits in 1977. They have now increased to about 4-5%/Sv for low doses. These increases are based mainly on new data for the Japanese survivors of the A-bombs of 1945. They result from the accumulation of 11 years more of data on solid tumors, the revisions in the dosimetry of those exposed and improvement in statistical methods and projections. The application of a dose rate effectiveness factor between effects at high dose rate and those at low dose and dose rate is also an important consideration. Not only has the total risk changed but also the distribution of risk among organs. Thus the effective dose equivalent may require modification. These changes are modifying ICRP and NCRP thinking about recommendations on protection limits, especially for radiation workers.

Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation↗
PubMed2001

Dose quantities in radiation protection and dosemeter calibration.

Dosimetric concepts and the definition of dose quantities for use in radiation protection were defined by the ICRP and the ICRU. Three types of quantities are of relevance for radiation protection purposes: basic physical quantities, protection quantities, and operational quantities. The physical quantities are universally accepted for the characterisation of radiation fields. These are defined in any point of the field, and the units are directly obtained by primary standards. The protection quantities form the basis for dose limitation. These quantities are not directly measurable. A set of measurable operational quantities provides, in general, a conservative estimate of the protection quantities. These operational quantities are recommended in routine monitoring of occupational exposure. The relation between these different types of quantities is discussed. In addition, the calibration procedure for dosemeters in terms of the operational quantities, including the use of calibration phantoms, is summarised.

Calibration↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Current epidemiological evidence regarding the health effects of low-dose ionizing radiation. Implications for radiation protection, public health and forensic medicine].

The health effects of low-dose ionizing radiation have been widely studied, but remain uncertain. Up-to-date knowledge about epidemiologic evidence for potential human health effects of low dose ionizing radiation is important for revising national radiation protection legislation. This review, conducted by a multidisciplinary research team of the Italian Institute of Social Medicine, evaluates epidemiologic studies published since July 2003. After careful selection, a total of 302 studies were reviewed. Greater emphasis was given to papers that analyzed data using standardized incidence and mortality ratios and to studies regarding occupational exposures in all workers, healthcare workers and aircrew members. Nevertheless, studies regarding A-bomb survivors of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Chernobyl cleanup workers, patients exposed for medical reasons, and workers in nuclear plants were also included. Given the limitations of epidemiological studies and excluding the cosmic rays context, which requires further research, the authors conclude that harmful effects from exposures to ionizing radiation at doses lower than 100 mSv cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, if any harmful health effects do exist, they are certainly very small. The implications for radiation protection, public health and forensic medicine are discussed.

Humans↗