The potential use of Chernobyl fallout data to test and evaluate the predictions of environmental radiological assessment models
C.R. RichmondF.O. HoffmanB.G. BlaylockKeith F. EckermanP.A. LesslieCharles W. MillerY.C. NgJohn E. Till
7
Citation
16
Reference
10
Related Paper
Abstract:
The objectives of the Model Validation Committee were to collaborate with US and foreign scientists to collect, manage, and evaluate data for identifying critical research issues and data needs to support an integrated assessment of the Chernobyl nuclear accident; test environmental transport, human dosimetric, and health effects models against measured data to determine their efficacy in guiding decisions on protective actions and in estimating exposures to populations and individuals following a nuclear accident; and apply Chernobyl data to quantifications of key processes governing the environmental transport, fate and effects of radionuclides and other trace substances. 55 refs.Keywords:
Environmental data
This book chapter review injury from exposure to radiation and the radiological disaster management of exposed persons. The chapter describes the disaster categories involving radioactive materials, various radiological exposure scenarios, the personnel resources involved in a radiological disaster response, the phases of a radiological disaster, and the tools required for managing radiological disasters. The chapter then discusses pre-disaster, event response, and post-disaster event considerations related to radiological disasters.
Triage
Radiological Imaging
Cite
Citations (0)
The escalating number of radiodiagnostic investigations has, as a consequence, an increase in medical irradiation of patients and of cost of radiological services. Radiologists in USA and UK have since early 1970 questioned the efficacy of various radiological investigations and produced substantial evidence that more rational approaches are necessary. WHO initiated, in 1977, a programme in this direction which has issued four technical reports which give practical recommendations on how to rationalise the use of radiological examinations. Three main directions are considered: (1) Abandonment of routine radiological examinations, as procedures with no clinical or epidemiologic significance and which represent a waste of resources and patient dose. (2) Patient selection for various radiological investigations based on clinical criteria (high, intermediate, low yield). Selected patients have an increased prevalence of the given disease and the predictive value of radiological investigation is much higher. (3) Use of diagnostic algorithms with higher cost/efficiency and risk/benefit ratios, improving the outcome of radiological examinations.
Abandonment (legal)
Cite
Citations (0)
In the event of a significant radiological release in a major urban area where a large number of people reside, it is inevitable that radiological screening and dose assessment must be conducted. Lives may be saved if an emergency response plan and radiological screening method are established for use in such cases. Thousands to tens of thousands of people might present themselves with some levels of external contamination and/or the potential for internal contamination. Each of these individuals will require varying degrees of radiological screening, and those with a high likelihood of internal and/or external contamination will require radiological assessment to determine the need for medical attention and decontamination. This sort of radiological assessment typically requires skilled health physicists, but there are insufficient numbers of health physicists in any city to perform this function for large populations, especially since many (e.g., those at medical facilities) are likely to be engaged at their designated institutions. The aim of this paper is therefore to develop and describe the technical basis for a novel, scoring-based methodology that can be used by non-health physicists for performing radiological assessment during such radiological events.
radioactive contamination
Internal dose
Cite
Citations (10)
Cite
Citations (93)
This report responds to a widely perceived need for professional advice on radiological protection measures to be undertaken in the event of a radiological attack. The report, which is mainly concerned with possible attacks involving 'radioactive dispersion devices', re-affirms the applicability of existing ICRP recommendations to such situations, should they ever occur. Many aspects of the emergency scenarios expected to arise in the event of a radiological attack may be similar to those that experience has shown can arise from radiological accidents, but there may also be important differences. For instance, a radiological attack would probably be targeted at a public area, possibly in an urban environment, where the presence of radiation is not anticipated and the dispersion conditions commonly assumed for a nuclear or radiological emergency, such as at a nuclear installation, may not be applicable. First responders to a radiological attack and other rescuers need to be adequately trained and to have the proper equipment for identifying radiation and radioactive contamination, and specialists in radiological protection must be available to provide advice. It may be prudent to assume that radiological, chemical, and/or biological agents are involved in an attack until it is proven otherwise. This calls for an 'all-hazard' approach to the response. In the aftermath of an attack, the main aim of radiological protection must be to prevent the occurrence of acute health effects attributable to radiation exposure (termed 'deterministic' effects) and to restrict the likelihood of late health effects (termed 'stochastic' effects) such as cancers and some hereditable diseases. A supplementary aim is to minimise environmental contamination from radioactive residues and the subsequent general disruption of daily life. The report notes that action taken to avert exposures is a much more effective protective measure than protective measure the provision of medical treatment after exposure has occurred. Responders involved in recovery, remediation and eventual restoration should be subject to the usual international standards for occupational radiological protection, which are based on ICRP recommendations, including the relevant requirements for occupational dose limitation established in such standards. These restrictions may be relaxed for informed volunteers undertaking urgent rescue operations, and they are not applicable for voluntary life-saving actions. However, specific protection measures are recommended for female workers who may be pregnant or nursing an infant. The immediate countermeasures to protect the public in the rescue phase are primarily caring for people with traumatic injuries and controlling access. Subsequent actions include respiratory protection, personal decontamination, sheltering, iodine prophylaxis (if radio-iodines are involved), and temporary evacuation. In the recovery phase, the relocation and resettlement of people may be needed in extreme cases. This phase may require remedial action, including cleanup, management of the resulting radioactive waste, management of any human remains containing significant amounts of radioactive substances, and dealing with remaining radioactive residues. The guidance given in relation to public protection is based solely on radiological protection considerations and should be seen as a decision-aiding tool to prepare for the aftermath of a radiological attack. It is expected to serve as input to a final decision-making process that may include other societal concerns, consideration of lessons learned in the past (especially these involving the public perception of the risks posed by radioactive contamination) and the participation of interested parties. A radiological attack could also be the cause of radioactive contamination of water, food, and other widely consumed commodities. This possible outcome is considered unlikely to lead to significant internal contamination of a large number of people owing to the large amounts of radioactive material that would be required to cause high levels of contamination of water, food, and other commodities. Nonetheless, the report recommends radiological criteria for restricting the use of commodities under such circumstances. The report concludes by re-iterating that the response to radiological attacks should be planned beforehand following the customary processes for optimisation of radiological protection recommended by ICRP, and that optimised measures should be prepared in advance. Such plans should result in a systematic approach that can be modified if necessary to take into account the prevailing conditions and to invoke actions as warranted by the circumstances. Many potential scenarios clearly cannot induce immediate severe radiation injuries. Therefore, in order to prevent over-reaction, response measures prepared in advance should reflect the real expected gravity of the various possible scenarios.
Radiation monitoring
Cite
Citations (66)
Cite
Citations (1)
This document devises a method of comparing radiological and non-radiological hazard control levels. Such a comparison will be useful in determining the design control features for facilities that handle radioactive mixed waste. The design control features of interest are those that assure the protection of workers and the environment from unsafe airborne levels of radiological or non-radiological hazards.
Cite
Citations (0)
Objective: To discuss the radiological assessor’s tasks and responsibility when the radiological emergency and accident occurred. Methods: According to the technical reports from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and specific circumstances in China, it analyzed the task and responsibility which radiological assessor should take. Results: It defined the tasks and responsibility of radiological assessor. Conclusion: Radiological assessor will carry out their task and responsibility well in practice to reduce the damage to personnel and environmental in radiological accident.
Accident (philosophy)
Accident and emergency
Atomic Energy
Cite
Citations (0)
The escalating number of radiodiagnostic investigations has, as a consequence, an increase in medical irradiation of patients and of cost of radiological services. Radiologists in USA and UK have since early 1970 questioned the efficacy of various radiological investigations and produced substantial evidence that more rational approaches are necessary. WHO initiated, in 1977, a programme in this direction which has issued four technical reports which give practical recommendations on how to rationalise the use of radiological examinations. Three main directions are considered: (1) Abandonment of routine radiological examinations, as procedures with no clinical or epidemiologic significance and which represent a waste of resources and patient dose. (2) Patient selection for various radiological investigations based on clinical criteria (high, intermediate, low yield). Selected patients have an increased prevalence of the given disease and the predictive value of radiological investigation is much higher. (3) Use of diagnostic algorithms with higher cost/efficiency and risk/benefit ratios, improving the outcome of radiological examinations.
Abandonment (legal)
Cite
Citations (0)
The Society for Radiological Protection was created in 1963 at a time when the structure of radiological protection in the United Kingdom was already well established. From its creation 40 years ago to the present, most of the features of British radiological protection stem from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. This review of the development of radiological protection has been produced to celebrate the 40 years of the Society's support of radiological protection, both in the United Kingdom and internationally.
Cite
Citations (0)