-
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022Japanese people experienced the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co. criticality accident, it was found that many human...
Japanese people experienced the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co. criticality accident, it was found that many human resources are needed to respond to residents' concerns about disaster exposure in the event of a radiation disaster. Medical radiologic technologists learn about radiation from the time of their training, and are engaged in routine radiographic work, examination explanations, medical exposure counseling, and radiation protection of staff. By learning about nuclear disasters and counseling, we believe they can address residents' concerns. In order to identify items needed for training, we examined the perceptions of medical radiologic technologists in the case of different specialties, modalities and radiation doses. In 2016, 5 years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, we conducted a survey of 57 medical radiologic technologists at two medical facilities with different specialties and work contents to investigate their attitudes toward radiation. 42 participants answered questions regarding sex, age group, presence of children, health effects of radiation exposure, radiation control, generation of X rays by diagnostic X ray equipment, and radiation related units. In a comparison of 38 items other than demographic data, 14 showed no significant differences and 24 showed significant differences. This study found that perceptions of radiation were different among radiology technologists at facilities with different specialties. The survey suggested the possibility of identifying needed training items and providing effective training.
Topics: Child; Humans; Radiation Protection; Radiation Exposure; Radiology; Fukushima Nuclear Accident; Radiation, Ionizing; Japan
PubMed: 36612833
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010497 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Sep 2019Fluoroscopy use during ERCP exposes patients and providers to deleterious effects of radiation. Formal training in fluoroscopy/radiation protection is not widely...
BACKGROUND
Fluoroscopy use during ERCP exposes patients and providers to deleterious effects of radiation. Formal training in fluoroscopy/radiation protection is not widely emphasized during therapeutic endoscopy training, and radiation use during GI endoscopy has not previously been characterized in the USA. In this study, we evaluated radiation training, fluoroscopy use patterns, and radiation protection practices among US therapeutic endoscopists.
METHODS
An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to US therapeutic endoscopists, and responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. State-specific requirements for fluoroscopy utilization were determined from state radiologic health branches.
RESULTS
A total of 159 endoscopists (response rate 67.8%) predominantly those working in university hospitals (69.2%) with > 5 years of experience performing ERCP (74.9%) completed the questionnaire. Although the majority of endoscopists (61.6%) reported that they personally controlled fluoroscopy during ERCP, most (56.6%) had not received training on operating their fluoroscopy system. Only a minority (18-31%) of all respondents reported consistently utilizing modifiable fluoroscopy system parameters that minimize patient radiation exposure (pulsed fluoroscopy, frame rate modification or collimation). Endoscopists appear to undertake adequate personal radiation protective measures although use of a dosimeter was not consistent in half of respondents. The majority of states (56.8%) do not have any stated requirement for certification of non-radiologist physicians who intend to operate fluoroscopy.
CONCLUSIONS
Most US gastroenterologists performing ERCP have not received formal training in operating their fluoroscopy system or in minimizing radiation exposure to themselves and to their patients. Such formal training should be included in all therapeutic endoscopy training programs, and fluoroscopy system-specific training should be offered at all hospitals.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Fluoroscopy; Humans; Legislation as Topic; Occupational Exposure; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Dosimeters; Radiation Exposure; Radiation Protection; Surveys and Questionnaires; United States
PubMed: 30911863
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05564-z -
RoFo : Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der... Apr 2022
Topics: Radiation Protection
PubMed: 35345041
DOI: 10.1055/a-1752-7099 -
RoFo : Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der... Apr 2022
Topics: Radiation Protection; Specialization
PubMed: 35345033
DOI: 10.1055/a-1752-7128 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Sep 2018
Topics: Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Radiation Protection; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 30282575
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0606b -
The British Journal of Radiology Sep 2022The Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 require employers to restrict radiation doses to their employees and the public to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable. This...
The Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 require employers to restrict radiation doses to their employees and the public to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable. This article looks at the boundary between what might be considered to be reasonable and unreasonable in protecting staff and the general public in the field of hospital-based diagnostic radiology. A simple test for locating this boundary based on a cost-benefit approach is devised and its use illustrated using hospital-based radiation protection examples. It is concluded that a cost-benefit calculation based on the legal definition of As Low As Reasonably Practicable may have some use in the support of radiation protection decision-making in the hospital environment, but only within the context of existing legal, practical and ethical considerations.
Topics: Humans; Radiation Protection; Radiography; Radiology
PubMed: 35867891
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220612 -
International Journal of Radiation... Jul 2019Almost since the earliest utilization of ionizing radiation, many within the radiation community have worked toward either preventing (i.e. protecting) normal tissues... (Review)
Review
Almost since the earliest utilization of ionizing radiation, many within the radiation community have worked toward either preventing (i.e. protecting) normal tissues from unwanted radiation injury or rescuing them from the downstream consequences of exposure. However, despite over a century of such investigations, only incremental gains have been made toward this goal and, with certainty, no outright panacea having been found. In celebration of the 60th anniversary of the and to chronicle the efforts that have been made to date, we undertook a non-rigorous survey of the articles published by normal tissue researchers in this area, using those that have appeared in the aforementioned journal as a road map. Three 'snapshots' of publications on normal tissue countermeasures were taken: the earliest (1959-1963) and most recent (2013-2018) 5-year of issues, as well as a 5-year intermediate span (1987-1991). Limiting the survey solely to articles appearing within likely reduced the number of translational studies interrogated given the basic science tenor of this particular publication. In addition, by taking 'snapshots' rather than considering the entire breadth of the journal's history in this field, important papers that were published during the interim periods were omitted, for which we apologize. Nonetheless, since the journal's inception, we observed that, during the chosen periods, the majority of studies undertaken in the field of normal tissue countermeasures, whether investigating radiation protectants, mitigators or treatments, have focused on agents that interfere with the physical, chemical and/or biological effects known to occur during the acute period following whole body/high single dose exposures. This relatively narrow approach to the reduction of normal tissue effects, especially those that can take months, if not years, to develop, seems to contradict our growing understanding of the progressive complexities of the microenvironmental disruption that follows the initial radiation injury. Given the analytical tools now at our disposal and the enormous benefits that may be reaped in terms of improving patient outcomes, as well as the potential for offering countermeasures to those affected by accidental or mass casualty exposures, it appears time to broaden our approaches to developing normal tissue countermeasures. We have no doubt that the contributors and readership of the will continue to contribute to this effort for the foreseeable future.
Topics: Animals; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Neoplasms; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Injuries; Radiation Protection; Radiation-Protective Agents; Radiobiology; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 30822213
DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1589654 -
Australian Dental Journal Sep 2016The purpose of this article was to review the literature and provide guidelines on the use of radiation protection for patients in the dental setting. There are limited... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this article was to review the literature and provide guidelines on the use of radiation protection for patients in the dental setting. There are limited published data on the effects of low radiation doses such as those used in dental radiology. Most of the evidence is subject to bias, with risk models extrapolated from higher dose models such as studies of the Hiroshima bomb survivors. However, the lack of evidence does not denote the absence of risk, as there is no established 'safe' level of radiation exposure. All imaging utilizing ionizing radiation carries a risk for the patient. Hence the patient benefits of imaging must outweigh the potential risk. All diagnostic imaging should adhere to three basic principles, these being justification, optimization and application of dose limits. This article discusses dose reduction techniques and shielding of sensitive organs, particularly the thyroid, during procedures such as intraoral imaging, orthopantomograms and imaging of the pregnant patient.
Topics: Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Protection; Radiography, Dental
PubMed: 26644147
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12389 -
The British Journal of Radiology Oct 2021Positron emission tomography (PET-CT) is an essential imaging modality for the management of various diseases. Increasing numbers of PET-CT examinations are carried out... (Review)
Review
Positron emission tomography (PET-CT) is an essential imaging modality for the management of various diseases. Increasing numbers of PET-CT examinations are carried out across the world and deliver benefits to patients; however, there are concerns about the cumulative radiation doses from these examinations in patients. Compared to the radiation exposure delivered by CT, there have been few reports on the frequency of patients with a cumulative effective radiation dose of ≥100 mSv from repeated PET-CT examinations. The emerging dose tracking system facilitates surveys on patient cumulative doses by PET-CT because it can easily wrap up exposure doses of PET radiopharmaceuticals and CT. Regardless of the use of a dose tracking system, implementation of justification for PET-CT examinations and utilisation of dose reduction measures are key issues in coping with the cumulative dose in patients. Despite all the advantages of PET/MRI such as eliminating radiation exposure from CT and providing good tissue contrast in MRI, it is expensive and cannot be introduced at every facility; thus, it is still necessary to utilise PET-CT with radiation reduction measures in most clinical situations.
Topics: Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Humans; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Radiation Dosage; Radiation Injuries; Radiation Monitoring; Radiation Protection; Radiopharmaceuticals; Retreatment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34111964
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210388 -
NTM Jun 2022After WWII, global concerns about the uses of nuclear energy and radiation sources in agriculture, medicine, and industry brought about calls for radiation protection....
After WWII, global concerns about the uses of nuclear energy and radiation sources in agriculture, medicine, and industry brought about calls for radiation protection. At the beginning of the 1960s radiation protection involved the identification and measurement of all sources of radiation to which a population was exposed, and the evaluation and assessment of populations in terms of the biological hazard their exposure posed. Mexico was not an exception to this international trend. This paper goes back to the origins of the first studies on the effects of radiation and on radioprotective compounds in the Genetics and Radiobiology Program of the National Commission of Nuclear Energy founded in 1960, at a time when the effects of radiation on living beings and radiation protection demanded the attention of highly localized groups of scientists and the creation of international as well as national institutions, and its connection to dosimetry and radiation protection until the 1990s. This historical reconstruction examines the circulation of knowledge, scientists, and their material and cognitive resources, to show that radiobiology, with dosimetry and radiation protection as cases in point, not only were carried out with high international standards in parallel with international agencies, but also reflected local material needs, including the standardization of new experimental techniques.
Topics: History, 20th Century; International Agencies; Mexico; Nuclear Energy; Radiation Protection; Radiobiology
PubMed: 35536307
DOI: 10.1007/s00048-022-00331-0