DOCSLIB.ORG

Paper SELECTIVE SHIELDING of BONE MARROW

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Paper SELECTIVE SHIELDING of BONE MARROW Paper SELECTIVE SHIELDING OF BONE MARROW: AN APPROACH TO PROTECTING HUMANS FROM EXTERNAL GAMMA RADIATION Gideon Waterman,* Kenneth Kase,* Itzhak Orion,† Andrey Broisman,* and Oren Milstein* INTRODUCTION Abstract—The current feasibility of protecting emergency re- sponders through bone marrow selective shielding is highlighted THE BIOLOGICAL effects of ionizing radiation exposure are in the recent OECD/NEA report on severe accident management. categorized as stochastic or deterministic. Stochastic effects Until recently, there was no effective personal protection from externally penetrating gamma radiation. In Chernobyl, first- describe the probability of radiation-induced cancer and/or responders wore makeshift lead sheeting, whereas in Fukushima hereditary defects where increased exposure corresponds protective equipment from gamma radiation was not available. to a higher probability of the effects with some latent onset Older protective solutions that use thin layers of shielding over time. Deterministic effects are thought to occur beyond a large body surfaces are ineffective for energetic gamma radiation. Acute exposures may result in Acute Radiation Syndrome where certain dose threshold and increase in severity with increas- the survival-limiting factor up to 10 Gy uniform, homogeneous ing dose. Acute exposure can lead to Acute Radiation Syn- exposure is irreversible bone marrow damage. Protracted, lower drome (ARS). Usually, cells are able to repair the damage in exposures may result in malignancies of which bone marrow is cases where low doses are received. At higher levels of radi- especially susceptible, being compounded by leukemia’s short la- tency time. This highlights the importance of shielding bone mar- ation, apoptosis results, and cells that are lost as part of nor- row for preventing both deterministic and stochastic effects. Due mal tissue turnover are not replaced because of damage to to the extraordinary regenerative potential of hematopoietic stem the stem-cell compartment, leading to tissue failure (Stone cells, to effectively prevent the deterministic effects of bone mar- et al. 2003). Many casualties of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki row exposure, it is sufficient to protect only a small fraction of this tissue. This biological principle allows for a new class of equip- atomic bombs, and many of the firefighters who first re- ment providing unprecedented attenuation of radiation to select sponded to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, be- marrow-rich regions, deferring the hematopoietic sub-syndrome came ill with ARS (CDC 2012). The probability of survival of Acute Radiation Syndrome to much higher doses. As approxi- of those inflicted with ARS decreases with escalating radia- mately half of the body’s active bone marrow resides within the pelvis region, shielding this area holds great promise for tion dose. Most of the people who do not recover from ARS preventing the deterministic effects of bone marrow exposure will die within a few weeks to a few months after exposure, and concomitantly reducing stochastic effects. The efficacy of a with the primary cause of death being the destruction of the device that selectively shields this region and other radiosensitive body’s bone marrow (BM) (CDC 2012). This is exempli- organs in the abdominal area is shown here. Health Phys. 113(3):195–208; 2017 fied by the Chernobyl firefighters, the majority of whom re- ceived whole body doses between 0.8 and 10 Gy, and the Key words: accidents, nuclear; bone marrow; gamma radiation; shielding United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) final report on the disaster concluded that the underlying cause of death of all 28 fire- fighters who succumbed to ARS was from bone marrow failure (UNSCEAR 2000, 2008). BM is comprised of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), which are responsible for the constant renewal of blood cells *Department of Research & Development, StemRad, Ltd., 6 Raoul (Wang and Wagers 2011). Due to their high rate of prolifer- Wallenberg St. 1st Floor Tel Aviv 6971905, Israel; †Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. P.O.B. 653, ation, HSCs are especially vulnerable to ionizing radiation Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. but are endowed with remarkable regenerative potential The authors declare no conflicts of interest. For correspondence contact: Oren Milstein, Department of Research & (Dainiak 2002; Greenberger and Epperly 2009; Pearce et al. Development, StemRad, Ltd., 6 Raoul Wallenberg St., Tel Aviv 6971905, 1952; Valentine et al. 1952; Valentine and Pearce 1952). Ow- or email at Israel [email protected]. ing to their central role in blood production, lethal irradiation (Manuscript accepted 29 March 2017) 0017-9078/17/0 of HSCs leads to death from severe anemia, infection, and Copyright © 2017 Health Physics Society internal bleeding. This relationship between high doses of DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000688 radiation and HSC apoptosis has led to the use of HSC www.health-physics.com 195 Copyright © 2017 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. 196 Health Physics September 2017, Volume 113, Number 3 transplantation as a life-saving intervention in cases of acute BM is contained within the lumbar vertebrae and the pelvic exposure (Alpen and Baum 1958; Chertkov et al. 1971; region (ICRP 2002). This high concentration of BM makes Department of Homeland Security 2006; MacVittie 1997; the pelvic region an ideal area to shield for preventing the Thomas et al. 1982). serious hematopoietic effects of radiation exposure. The recovery value of bone marrow is demonstrable in Stem-cell rich tissues like active BM are also more sen- medical practice, where thousands of individuals have un- sitive to the stochastic effects (i.e., cancer) of radiation ex- dergone supra-lethal Total Body Irradiation (TBI) for pur- posure. The high amount of BM in the pelvic region, poses of cancer therapy and were rescued by well-matched combined with the presence of the sensitive gastrointestinal BM transplantation (Goldman et al. 1986; Thomas et al. system and female gonads in this same area of the body, al- 1982). Indeed, life-threatening damage may be reversed by lows for the possibility of significantly reducing stochastic BM transplantation in individuals receiving doses of radia- effects of radiation by limiting radiation exposure to this vi- tion of up to 10 Gy (Weinstock et al. 2008). At doses > 10 Gy, tal area. Thus, shielding this region holds great promise for damage to gastrointestinal (GI) tissue may become a limit- both acute and protracted exposures. ing factor in survival (CDC 2012; Barnett et al. 2006). Re- Older protective solutions that use thin layers of markably, in the common procedure of BM transplantation, shielding material over large surfaces of the body create a the number of HSCs extracted from a single active BM site burden on the wearer; yet at the same time, they are inef- containing less than 5% of the donor’s BM tissue is suffi- fective at blocking energetic gamma radiation. A 2015 Organi- cient to support the complete reconstitution of the HSC sation for Economic Co-operation and Development–Nuclear compartment in a lethally irradiated recipient (Thomas Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) report, Occupational Radia- et al. 1975a and b). This capacity of BM to expand and re- tion Protection in Severe Accident Management, states that, plenish is due to the high regenerative potential of the HSCs “While whole body shielding is inherently heavy, partial it harbors. body shielding is lighter in weight and selectively shields However, allogeneic HSC transplantation has many tissues of increased radiosensitivity (i.e., bone marrow) challenges, especially in large-scale accidents. If mismatched with substantial amounts of shielding material to protect he- bone marrow transplantation is attempted, graft rejection is matopoietic functions; therefore, potentially preventing the likely to ensue (Beatty et al. 1985). There is also a high like- acute health effects of exposure to gamma radiation (i.e., lihood of Graft vs. Host Disease (GVHD) (Beatty et al. Acute Radiation Syndrome—ARS)” (OECD/NEA 2015). 1985), an often-fatal condition resulting from an assault of Thus, a specialized radiation shielding device for the the donor immune cells embedded in the graft on the recip- protection of active BM concentrations against gamma radi- ient’s bodily tissues. Unfortunately, matched donors are a ation is presented here for the first time. This belt-like selec- scarcity due to the tremendous polymorphism in the human tive shielding device focuses on the protection of BM that is leukocyte antigen locus (Hansen et al. 2008). Moreover, present in the pelvis and hip bones, protecting the medullary transplantation must take place in the immediate days fol- volume from which BM is commonly extracted for trans- lowing exposure to radiation, further increasing the chal- plantation (i.e., the iliac bones) (Thomas et al. 1975a and lenge in locating a matched donor. In the event of a b) while allowing relatively unhindered movement by the catastrophe with a large number of victims, the time-frame wearer. In order to optimize the use of shielding materials imposed is not likely to enable isolation of matched donors. toward the protection of active BM, the shielding uniquely In contrast to mature blood cells, which are dispersed brings into account the natural shielding properties of hu- throughout the body, HSCs are confined to the bones, man tissue, with thickness being inversely related to the allowing for effective targeted shielding. This has been con- thickness and radiation attenuation of the underlying tissue firmed in several animal models, where sparing the HSC- at each point surrounding the area being protected. This se- rich area of a subject receiving otherwise full-body irradia- lective shielding device is patent-pending under application tion is sufficient to support hematopoietic functions and number US 13/676,995, Radiation protection device and allow survival (Cole et al. 1967; Bertho et al. 2005a and b; methods (Milstein et al. 2012). The findings resulting from Jacobson et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Radiation Risk Assessment
    PS008-1 RISK ASSESSMENT POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY* Adopted: July 1993 Revised: April 1995 Contact: Brett Burk Executive Secretary Health Physics Society Telephone: 703-790-1745 Fax: 703-790-2672 Email: [email protected] http://www.hps.org Risk assessment is the process of describing and characterizing the nature and magnitude of a particular risk and includes gathering, assembling, and analyzing information on the risk. Risk assessment is a foundation of risk management and risk communication. In order to effectively manage risks and to communicate risks to the public, a clear understanding of the nature and magnitude of the risk at relevant exposure levels is necessary. The Health Physics Society has become increasingly concerned with the erratic application of risk assessment in the establishment of radiation protection regulations. These regulations are inconsistent, poorly coordinated among federal agencies, and inadequately communicated to the public. Examples of problem areas include (1) 100- to 1,000-fold discrepancies in permissible exposure levels among various regulations, all allegedly based on the same scientific risk-assessment data, and (2) proposed expenditures of billions of federal and private dollars to clean up radioactively contaminated federal and commercial sites without careful consideration of the actual public health benefits to be achieved. The Health Physics Society recognizes that there are many questions and uncertainties associated with the risk-assessment process and that data may be incomplete or missing. Accordingly, limitations in risk assessment must be fully recognized and made explicit in establishing regulations for the protection of the public health. The Health Physics Society supports risk assessments that are consistent, of high technical quality, unbiased, and based on sound, objective science.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Risk in Perspective
    PS010-1 RADIATION RISK IN PERSPECTIVE POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY* PHYSICS SOCIETY Adopted: January 1996 Revised: August 2004 Contact: Richard J. Burk, Jr. Executive Secretary Health Physics Society Telephone: 703-790-1745 Fax: 703-790-2672 Email: [email protected] http://www.hps.org In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem1 in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem above that received from natural sources. Doses from natural background radiation in the United States average about 0.3 rem per year. A dose of 5 rem will be accumulated in the first 17 years of life and about 25 rem in a lifetime of 80 years. Estimation of health risk associated with radiation doses that are of similar magnitude as those received from natural sources should be strictly qualitative and encompass a range of hypothetical health outcomes, including the possibility of no adverse health effects at such low levels. There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high-dose exposures. However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent. In part because of the insurmountable intrinsic and methodological difficulties in determining if the health effects that are demonstrated at high radiation doses are also present at low doses, current radiation protection standards and practices are based on the premise that any radiation dose, no matter how small, may result in detrimental health effects, such as cancer and hereditary genetic damage.
    [Show full text]
  • HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY POLICY on EXPENDITURE of FUNDS for IONIZING RADIATION HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES Approved by the Board of Directors: November 1998
    HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY Specialists in Radiation Safety HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY POLICY ON EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR IONIZING RADIATION HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES Approved by the Board of Directors: November 1998 PREMISE: 1. Funding resources for studying the health effects of human exposure to ionizing radiation are limited. 2. The number of research and study activities related to studying and understanding the health effects of ionizing radiation exceeds the funding resources available. 3. The highest priority of funding work on ionizing radiation health effects should be work with a reasonable likelihood of defining, or significantly increasing the understanding of, the carcinogenic response in the range of occupational and public exposures. 4. A second priority of funding work on ionizing radiation health effects should be work assisting in the establishment of reasonable protection criteria which do not result in an inappropriate expenditure of public funds for purported protection. This is necessary for the period in which there is a lack of definitive knowledge or understanding of the dose response. 5. Epidemiological studies alone will not provide definitive evidence of the existence or non-existence of carcinogenic effects due to low dose or low dose-rate radiation. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Do not fund epidemiological studies of exposed populations which have low statistical power and are unable to detect health effects with a reasonable statistical confidence (e.g., 90% or higher) based on the current risk estimates. 2. Do not fund epidemiological studies on populations for which there is insufficient data to properly control for known confounding factors, such as smoking history, exposure to other carcinogens, genetic pre-disposition, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Fact Sheet
    Fact Sheet Adopted: December 2018 Health Physics Society Specialists in Radiation Safety 1 Uranium What is uranium? Uranium is a naturally occurring metallic element that has been present in the Earth’s crust since formation of the planet. Like many other minerals, uranium was deposited on land by volcanic action, dissolved by rainfall, and in some places, carried into underground formations. In some cases, geochemical conditions resulted in its concentration into “ore bodies.” Uranium is a common element in Earth’s crust (soil, rock) and in seawater and groundwater. Uranium has 92 protons in its nucleus. The isotope2 238U has 146 neutrons, for a total atomic weight of approximately 238, making it the highest atomic weight of any naturally occurring element. It is not the most dense of elements, but its density is almost twice that of lead. Uranium is radioactive and in nature has three primary isotopes with different numbers of neutrons. Natural uranium, 238U, constitutes over 99% of the total mass or weight, with 0.72% 235U, and a very small amount of 234U. An unstable nucleus that emits some form of radiation is defined as radioactive. The emitted radiation is called radioactivity, which in this case is ionizing radiation—meaning it can interact with other atoms to create charged atoms known as ions. Uranium emits alpha particles, which are ejected from the nucleus of the unstable uranium atom. When an atom emits radiation such as alpha or beta particles or photons such as x rays or gamma rays, the material is said to be undergoing radioactive decay (also called radioactive transformation).
    [Show full text]
  • HPS Publications Style Guide
    Health Physics Society Publications Style Guide January 2019 Table of Contents I. General Guidelines for HPS Documents and Web Pages ................................................... 2 A. Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 2 B. Capitalization ............................................................................................................. 3 C. Format ........................................................................................................................ 3 D. Internet ....................................................................................................................... 4 E. Numbers, Units, and Symbols ................................................................................... 4 1. Numbers ............................................................................................................... 4 2. Units of measure .................................................................................................. 5 3. Symbols................................................................................................................ 6 F. Punctuation ................................................................................................................ 6 G. Radionuclides and Elements ...................................................................................... 8 H. References, Citations, Resources, Footnotes, and Press Releases ............................. 8 1. References
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives SP001-1
    Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives SP001-1 Published by Health Physics Society 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd. Suite 402 McLean, VA 22101 Disclaimer Statements and opinions expressed in publications of the Health Physics Society or in presentations given during its regular meetings are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Health Physics Society, the editors, or the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. The editor(s), publisher, and Society disclaim any responsibility or liability for such material and do not guarantee, warrant, or endorse any product or service mentioned. Official positions of the Society are established only by its Board of Directors. Copyright © 2017 by the Health Physics Society All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America SP001-1, revised 2017 Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives Table of Contents Foreword……………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 2 A Primer on Ionizing Radiation……………………………………………………………………………... 6 Growing Importance of Nuclear Technology in Medicine……………………………………….. 16 Distinguishing Risk: Use and Overuse of Radiation in Medicine………………………………. 22 Nuclear Energy: The Environmental Context…………………………………………………………. 27 Nuclear Power in the United States: Safety, Emergency Response Planning, and Continuous Learning…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33 Radiation Risk: Used Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Disposal………………………... 42 Radiation Risk: Communicating to the Public………………………………………………………… 45 After Fukushima: Implications for Public Policy and Communications……………………. 51 Appendix 1: Radiation Units and Measurements……………………………………………………. 57 Appendix 2: Half-Life of Some Radionuclides…………………………………………………………. 58 Bernard L.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Physics Society 51St Annual Meeting
    CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES TRIP REPORT SUBJECT: Health Physics Society 51" Annual Meeting Project No. 20.6002.01.372 and 20.6002.01.01 1 AI No. 20.6002.01.372.602 DATWPLACE: June 25-29,2006 Providence, Rhode Island AUTHOR(S): James Durham and Ali Simpkins Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) DISTRIBUTION: DHLWRS RES G EDENW RA SwRl D. DeMarco S. Bush-Goddard W. Patrick Record Copy B, IQS V. Whipple H. Karagiannis 6. Sagar S. Kim GED Directors W. Reamer MSlB GED Managers L. Kokajko P. LaPlante E. Collins S. Sherbini R. Janetzke A. Campbell 0. Pensado K. Stablein J. Mancillas M. Bailey R. Benke J. Guttmann J. Durham W. Smith L. Howard T. McCartin 0. Osidele J. Rubenstone A. Simpkins K. Compton R. Nes M. Waters 0. Povetko B. Hill L. Gutierrez M. Shah J. Chen D. Brooks CENTER FOR NUCLEAR WASTE REGULATORY ANALYSES TRIP REPORT SUBJECT: Health Physics Society 51" Annual Meeting Project Nos. 20.6002.01.372 and 20.6002.01.01 1 AI No. 20.6002.01.372.602 DATWPLACE: June 25-29,2006 Providence, Rhode Island AUTHOR(S): James Durham and Ali Simpkins Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) PERSONS PRESENT: J. Durham, A. Simpkins, and over 1,000 other attendees from around the world. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF TRIP: The Health Physics Society Annual Meeting is a premier forum that allows health physicists from around the world to interact and present their technical work. The format of this year's meeting included a plenary session followed by individual sessions to present work in different areas of health physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Radioactivity
    Health Physics Society Public Education Committee Fact Sheet MEASURING RADIOACTIVITY Because ionizing radiation cannot be detected with our human senses, we use various types of instruments and radiation detectors to measure the amount of radiation present. We usually measure both the amount of radioactivity in a radioisotope source, and the ionizing radiation field density being emitted by the source. We define radioactivity as the number of atoms which decay (disintegrate) in a radioisotope sample in a given period of time. The base unit is the Becquerel (Bq) or one disintegration per second (dps). This number is very small and therefore, not very useful. For this reason we use the Curie (Ci) which is 37 billion Bq. Because we often use very large or very small numbers when discussing radioactivity, we use a series o f prefixes which express multiples of 1000. The following table shows some of these prefixes: milli (m) = 1/1,000 kilo (k) = times 1,000 micro (u) = 1/1,000,000 mega (M) = times 1,000,000 nano (n) 1/1,000,000,000 giga (G) times 1,000,000,000 Pico (P) 1/1,000,000,000,000 tera (T) times 1,000,000,000,000 Using the table, a mCi = 1/1000 of a Curie and a GBq 1,000,000,000 Becquerels. To put this in perspective, a normal home smoke detector contains a small sealed source of about 10 uCi (370,000 Bq) of radioactivity. Ionizing radiation fields are expressed in units of Roentgens (R) which is equivalent to the number of atoms of a gas which are ionized.
    [Show full text]
  • HPS Publications Style Guide
    Health Physics Society Publications Style Guide February 2020 Table of Contents I. General Guidelines for HPS Documents and Web Pages ................................................... 2 A. Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 2 B. Capitalization ............................................................................................................................... 3 C. Format .......................................................................................................................................... 3 D. Internet ......................................................................................................................................... 4 E. Nuclides and Elements .............................................................................................................. 4 F. Numbers, Units, and Symbols ................................................................................................... 5 1. Numbers ............................................................................................................................. 5 2. Units of measure ............................................................................................................... 6 3. Symbols ............................................................................................................................. 6 G. Punctuation ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Radiation Fact Sheet
    Fact Sheet Adopted: January 2010 Health Physics Society Specialists in Radiation Safety Environmental Radiation Linnea E. Wahl, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory The background level of radiation in the natural environment surrounds us at all times—it is ubiquitous. Since the Earth formed and life developed, background radiation* has been our constant companion. Sources of Background Radiation by space radiation are called cosmogenic radionuclides. Background radiation (which scientists call “ubiquitous They include tritium (hydrogen-3), beryllium-7, carbon- background radiation”) is emitted from both natural 14, and sodium-22. and human-made radioactive chemicals (radionuclides). Some naturally occurring radionuclides are found in the Terrestrial Radiation earth beneath our feet, while others are produced in the Radiation that originates on Earth is called terrestrial atmosphere by radiation from space. Human-made radi- radiation. Primordial radionuclides (radioactive chemi- onuclides have entered the environment from activities cals that were present when the Earth formed about 4.5 such as medical procedures that use radionuclides to billion years ago) are found around the globe in igneous image the body and electricity generation that uses radi- and sedimentary rock. From rocks, these radionuclides oactive uranium as fuel. migrate into soil, water, and even air. Human activities such as uranium mining have also redistributed these Humans are continuously irradiated by sources outside radionuclides. Primordial radionuclides include the se- and inside their bodies. Outside sources include space ries of radionuclides produced when uranium and tho- radiation and terrestrial radiation. Inside sources include rium decay, as well as potassium-40 and rubidium-87. the radionuclides that enter our bodies in the food and water people ingest and the air they breathe.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Meeting Program
    Fifty-Second Annual Meeting Program Meeting the Needs of the Nation for Radiation Protection April 11–12, 2016 Hyatt Regency Bethesda One Bethesda Metro Center 7400 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 Front cover: Membership of the U.S. Health Physics Society, 1993 to 2015 [NCRP Statement No. 12, Where are the Radiation Professionals (WARP)?, issued December 17, 2015]. Statement No. 12 is available for free at http://ncrpon- line.org/wp-content/themes/ncrp/PDFs/Statement_12.pdf. NCRP Mission: To support radiation protection by providing independent scientific analysis, information and recommendations that represent the consensus of leading scientists. NCRP Resource Development Committee is launching a series of efforts to increase the financial stability of NCRP. The first effort is to request Council members and friends who shop online at Amazon to make a simple (no cost) modification. Simply register at AmazonSmile (https://smile.amazon.com/), and the AmazonSmile Foundation will donate 0.5 % of the purchase price to NCRP at no charge to you! It’s easy! Follow the directions and be sure to select the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure- ments (from the pull down list or searchable request) as the 501(c)(3) public charitable organization to receive the Amazon contribution for each purchase. Donations are anonymous. However, we would like to recognize your support and if you notify NCRP ([email protected]) we will add your name to the NCRP list of AmazonSmile contributors. Introduction Meeting the Needs of the Nation for Radiation Protection Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) In June 2013, NCRP hosted a Workshop to address the consideration of the inexorable effects of population question of “where are the radiation professionals?” This demographics on the future radiological workforce.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Physics Society Factsheet
    HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY Specialists in Radiation Safety Web: http://www.hps.org 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Suite 402 Email: [email protected] McLean, VA 22101 Fax: 703-790-2672 Phone: 703-790-1745 The Health Physics Society, formed in 1956, is a scientific organization of professionals who specialize in radiation safety. Its mission is excellence in the science and practice of radiation safety. Today its nearly 5,000 members represent all scientific and technical areas related to radiation safety including academia, government, medicine, research and development, analytical services, consulting, and industry in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Society is chartered in the United States as an independent nonprofit scientific organization, and, as such, is not affiliated with any government or industrial organization or private entity. Its headquarters are in McLean, Virginia. The Society is dedicated to the development, dissemination, and application of scientific and practical knowledge regarding radiation safety and control. Expertise of the members of the Health Physics Society: Members of the Health Physics Society work in a variety of professional areas including research, industry, education, environmental protection, governmental activities, regulation, enforcement, and medicine. Research - Health physics researchers investigate principles by which radiation interacts with matter and living systems. The field also involves study of environmental transport of radioactivity and the effects of radiation on biological organisms. Research is used in many ways, ranging from designing radiation detection instrumentation to health risk assessments necessary for establishing radiation protection standards. Industry - Applied health physicists draw on their technical knowledge to advise, recommend, and implement methods and appropriate equipment for use in industrial work involving radionuclides and radiation.
    [Show full text]