The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is planning a workshop, Adopting the International System of Units for Radiation Measurements in the United States to discuss how the adoption of System Internationale (SI) units for radiation measurements in the United States could improve information exchanges and communications.
The workshop is sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is scheduled for 29-30 September 2016, in Washington, DC. The workshop is free. It may also be viewed by webcast. There is more information on their website and the meeting agenda is now available on their website.
The HPS Membership Survey on Future Directions has been completed by the Task Force on Future Directions. The results can be found on the HPS Members Only website, on the top of the Publications page. Over 800 members responded to the survey and shared their views on the topics. The results have been reviewed by the HPS Board. The Task Force will continue to review all the suggestions and provide exceptional ones to the Executive Committee for possible inclusion in an update of the HPS Strategic Plan 2020 (Members Only website under Organization, then Operations).
Nancy Kirner stated in the August HP News (Members Only website under Publications):
The Executive Committee was tasked to draft a strategic plan by the midyear meeting in North Bethesda, Maryland, 22–25 January 2017. Strategic plans identify the organization’s current state and the desired state at some specific point in the future. Strategic plans set long-term objectives and define short-term activities to reach those objectives. Strategic plans implement the organization’s purpose (mission) and vision. I expect that we will be bridging to and modifying our HPS 2020. I would also expect that by next spring, during the budget cycle, the committees will be asked to develop SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely) goals that implement the updated strategic plan.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.10, "Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposures as Low as is Reasonably Achievable.” This revision describes methods and procedures that the NRC staff considers acceptable for maintaining radiation exposures to employees and the public as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Revision 2 of RG 8.10 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-8033. Revision 2 addresses changes identified since Revision 1 was issued in September 1975 (the NRC issued Revision 1-R in May 1977).
In 1991, the NRC promulgated amendments to part 20 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (56 FR 23360; May 21, 1991). The 1991 rulemaking included substantive amendments to 10 CFR part 20 as well as a renumbering of those regulations. As such, this revision to the regulatory guide aligns with the regulatory structure of current 10 CFR part 20 by updating the regulatory guide's 10 CFR part 20 cross-references.
In addition, this revision includes additional guidance from operating ALARA experience since 1975. It provides more details describing management responsibilities to ensure commitment to ALARA.
Many radiation safety professionals are in need of professional liability insurance. As a leading US insurance broker, Alliant Insurance Services offers sophisticated risk management advice and insurance placement for property & casualty and employee benefits risks. Alliant Insurance provides coverage for middle market commercial companies, non-profits, public entities, and individuals, and has access to all major insurance markets. Alliant is ranked in the top 15 insurance brokers in the country.
The Health Physics Society is not endorsing this company but sharing information that it has received from other scientific societies in the USA.
Abstract submission deadline is 12 September 2016.
Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) will hold the National Cleanup Workshop 14–15 September 2016 at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center in Alexandria, Virginia. Cooperating organizations for the event include the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Energy Facility Contractors Group.
The nuclear cleanup program's leaders scheduled to take part in the workshop include Assistant Secretary Monica Regalbuto, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Whitney, and Acting Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Frank Marcinowski from DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM).
The workshop will bring together senior DOE executives, DOE site officials, industry executives, and other stakeholders to discuss EM's progress on the cleanup of the environmental legacy of the nation's Manhattan Project and Cold War nuclear weapons program.
Learn more on the 2016 National Cleanup Workshop web page.
"Health Physics Enrollments and Degrees Survey, 2015 Data" has been updated with new information from an additional institution.
The overall number of undergraduate students who graduated in 2015 with health physics degrees dropped to the lowest level in more than a decade, according to the latest annual study conducted by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. The institute surveyed 22 health physics programs, representing nearly all such programs at the nation's universities.
The report showed that a total of 151 bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees were granted between 1 September 2014 and 31 August 2015.
The workshop "Adopting the International System of Units for Radiation Measurements in the United States" will be held 29–30 September 2016 at 2101 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20418.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is planning a workshop to discuss how the adoption of SI units for radiation measurements in the United States could improve information exchanges and communications. The workshop is sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
More information on the workshop, including an agenda draft and registration instructions, will be available soon. Comments should be sent to NRSB@nas.edu.
The final text for comments on the "IRPA Guidance on Certification of a Radiation Protection Expert" is ready for review. The guidance was produced by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (IRPA) Task Group (TG), chaired by Kent Lambert and Colin Partington. The previous draft was distributed before the IRPA14 Congress in Cape Town, where an open meeting to discuss the guidance and collect comments took place. The TG chairs then prepared the current final text for comments.
The TG was launched in July 2013 with the objective "to develop a document of guiding principles for the development and implementation of a certification process for Radiation Protection Expert that would be useful to IRPA Associate Societies that would like to initiate such a certification process or improve an existing process in their countries."
Comments are expected by 30 September 2016 and can be emailed to email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org. The IRPA guidance is expected to receive final approval by the Executive Council in November 2016 in Madrid.
The International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) has posted IRPA Bulletin 10, a special issue covering the IRPA14 meeting that was held in South Africa 9–13 May 2016.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking additional input from the public, licensees, Agreement States, non-Agreement States, and other stakeholders on the need for potential rulemaking to address prompt remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational phase at licensed material sites and nuclear reactors. The NRC has not initiated a rulemaking, but is gathering information and seeking stakeholder input on this subject for developing a recommendation to the Commission regarding the need for further rulemaking.
To aid in this process, the NRC is requesting comments on the issues discussed in Section II, "Specific Questions," in the Supplementary Information section of this document. Comments on the issues discussed in this document must be submitted by 22 August 2016.
The document can be located on the federal rulemaking website at http://www.regulations.gov—search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0162.
Craig Little, Health Physics Society (HPS) Agency Liaison, is coordinating and organizing comments that can be submitted on behalf of the HPS. Reply directly to Craig at email@example.com. Comments are due no later than 17 August so that there is time to submit a coordinated response by the NRC due date.
A new handbook has been compiled with the help of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to better prepare and improve the ability of medical professionals, physicists, and other specialists in Asia and elsewhere to communicate about radiation-related health risks in a nuclear or radiological emergency.
The IAEA said the handbook provides an overview of general radiation history and circumstances of release of radiological material at Fukushima, Japan. It addresses risk perception and advises on how best to deal with psychosomatic symptoms. Topics on preparing for and coping with disasters and risk communication are also included, along with legal and ethical considerations.
The initiative was based on the need for clear and science-based communication. This article is excerpted from an article on World Nuclear News.
Health Physics students, here's your opportunity to publish your work free of page charges in the journals Health Physics and Operational Radiation Safety. Mike Ryan, editor of Health Physics, and Craig Little, editor of Operational Radiation Safety, are always looking for ways to encourage students to submit papers for publication. An objection that we sometimes hear is that students have no funds to pay for published page charges. While the page charges of the Health Physics Society's (HPS) journals are modest at $70 per published page, that amount is still sometimes an obstacle. Therefore, for the next year, from 1 July 2016 through 30 June 2017, we are offering to publish papers written by students free of page charges.
To qualify for publication without page charges, the paper must be submitted to one of the journals via the Editorial Manager website before the student author graduates. The student's academic advisor must verify the student's status. Additionally, the student must be the senior and corresponding author of the paper. Finally, since color figures are expensive to produce, there will be a charge for such figures at the rate published in the author guidelines on the Editorial Manager website.
A new federal study of the potential dangers of cellphone radiation, conducted in rats, found a slight increase in brain tumors in males and raised long-dormant concerns about the safety of spending so much time with cellphones glued to our ears.
But the study had enough strange findings that it has caused other federal scientists to highlight flaws in the research, and experts said these findings and those from other studies continue to suggest the potential risk from cellphone radiation is very small.
The National Institutes of Health study bombarded rats with cellphone radiation from the womb through the first two years of life for nine hours a day. It found tumors in 2 to 3 percent of male rats, which the study's authors called low. But females weren't affected at all and, strangely, the rats not exposed to the cellphone radiation died much faster—at double the rate—of those that were.
The results were preliminary, and only part of what will ultimately be released. They were made public before they were officially published—and despite strong criticism from other NIH scientists—because the results were similar to other studies that hint at a potential problem, said study author John Bucher.
The study is part of a seven-year, $25 million effort conducted by the National Toxicology Program at the request of the Food and Drug Administration. It looked at the specific type of radiation that cellphones transmit, called non-ionizing radiofrequency.
"This is the first study to actually show that non-ionizing radiation (causes) cancer," said Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society's chief medical officer. The cancer society in a statement praised the study for "evidence that cellphone signals could potentially impact human health" but notes that it doesn't quite address real risk to people.
"If cellphones cause cancer, they don't cause a lot of cancer," he said in an interview. "It's not as carcinogenic as beef."
He said people should be far more concerned about "distraction caused by cellphone," which he said causes more deaths.
Both Brawley and Bucher said this would not change how they use their own personal cellphones.
While the study found what Bucher called a likely cause of cancer in rats, he cautioned that how that applies to humans "is not currently completely worked out. This may have relevance. It may have no relevance," he said.
Since about 1986, U.S. brain cancer deaths have not increased or decreased, Brawley said. That suggests that whatever effect cellphones may have it is so small as to be undetectable amid regular cases of brain cancer.
Also, Brawley and others point out that cellphone technology has improved so much in recent years to emit less radiation than medical studies simulate. Bucher said the levels the rats were subjected to would be considered "heavy."
Comments by John Moulder1 regarding the preliminary data are:
The report is a fragment of a preliminary version of a much bigger study. It suggests that long duration exposure to high levels of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) might cause a slight increase in brain cancer in male rats. The statistical significance of the result is questionable (that is, it might be noise) and the effect did not occur in female rats and probably not in mice. The implications of this for the safety of mobile phone use is between questionable and nonexistent. Serious evaluation of the health implications of the findings will need to wait for the final report which will be released with "peer review and public comment by the end of 2017."
Items of note are:
1) Both rats and mice were tested, but this report includes only the rats; it is implied (but not clearly stated) that the mouse studies did not find the same glioma increase.
2) Multiple types of tumors were studied, but only data on brain glioma and heart schwannomas are reported; it is implied (but not clearly stated) that results for other tumor types were negative. If all other tumor sites showed no effect, then the statistical and biological significance of the glioma effect is much diminished.
3) Each sex of each species was exposed at 3 different doses. The highest dose (6 Watts/kilogram) and the exposure time (18 hrs/day for 106 weeks starting in utero) were well above what people are exposed to.
4) The higher exposures were thermally significant. That is, they were high enough to cause heat stress in the animals. Since there is some evidence that heat stress may be carcinogenic in its own right (via epigenetic pathways), this makes the results of the higher doses of questionable relevance to human exposure (where RFR-induced heat stress is not an issue if current safety standards are followed).
5) Two different exposure regimens were used (GSM and CDMA-modulated).
6) Survival in the exposed male rats was longer than that in the unexposed group. The cause of this mortality difference is not stated, and this is a critical issue that the final report must address.
7) Four of the six groups of exposed males had higher rates of gliomas than the unexposed males (2–3 tumor per group vs. none in unexposed). This effect was not seen in females (and presumably not in mice?).
8) It is not explicit that the glioma increases in male rats were statistically significant, and it would appear that they are not.
9) Glioma incidence in the unexposed males was lower than that seen historically. If even 1 glioma (and 1–2 were expected) had appeared in the unexposed group, all statistical and biological significance of the results would have vanished.
1John E. Moulder, PhD, is a professor and director of radiation biology, Department of Radiation Oncology, at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Dr. Moulder has lectured on ionizing and nonionizing radiation biology and human health to biologists, physicists, physicians, policy makers, and industry groups around the world and has served as a consultant and expert witness in several cases involving the alleged health effects of exposure to ionizing and nonionizing radiation. Two areas of his research are the biological basis for carcinogenesis and cancer therapy and the biological aspects of human exposure to non-ionizing radiation. Moulder has published extensively in these areas, and his research has been supported by the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society.
The 2016 NORM VIII Symposium will be held 18–21 October 2016 and will bring a worldwide audience to Rio de Janeiro, where the first effort of a worldwide exchange of experiences in the naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) field occurred 17 years ago. The Technologically Enhanced Natural Radiation (TENR II) Symposium was attended by participants from 22 countries, representing all regions of the world.
The 2016 symposium will address the radiation protection control of NORM and will include the results of new research, explore practical case studies of industrial applications and waste-disposal practices, and evaluate the practical implication of international and national standards, as well as identifying new societal needs and technical requirements for regulators and industry on NORM. Possible solutions for using, recycling, and disposal of NORM residues will be another focus area, as well as the quality of NORM sampling and measurements.
The event is an essential platform for NORM industries, academic and research institutions, and regulatory authorities to share experiences, review progress made, identify opportunities, and provide an in-depth analysis of current challenges. The symposium offers a multitude of possibilities and opportunities for networking.
Taking into account that NORM VIII is an excellent opportunity for students and young professionals to get the newest technical information, while making important industry contacts, the 2016 NORM VIII Symposium committees invite students and young professionals to apply for the Young Professional Awards.
This opportunity is only open to students or professionals up to 35 years old who are the first author of a paper and whose extended abstract and presentation have been better rated by the Award Committee. Three awards will be delivered to the selected young scientists and professionals: first place (US$1,500), second place (US$700), and third place (US$350), according to the Award Commitee criteria. The awards will be announced in the closing ceremony of NORM VIII.
The contributed papers submission deadline is soon—18 May 2016.
Recently, a number of websites have reported grossly false information regarding radioactive releases during the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Here are the key facts that refute those claims.
The erroneous information cites a recently “declassified report”:
The claim is that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) “declassified” documents about Fukushima in December 2015. The truth is that the documents were requested through the Freedom of Information Act and were provided in May 2012, and more documents were provided in March 2014. None of these documents were ever “classified” in the legal sense.
The erroneous information claims that the report says “25% of the total fuel in unit 2 . . . , 50% of the total spent fuel from unit 3 . . . , and 100% of the total spent fuel . . . from unit 4” was released to the atmosphere:
Yes, these are the hypothetical releases that were evaluated in an attempt to understand the worst possible situation. No, these are not the amounts that were released from the reactors or spent fuel rods.
The truth is that there was a high degree of uncertainty regarding actual releases early in the accident and continuing for several weeks. As a result, the NRC asked the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) to provide dose estimates for two or more hypothetical scenarios to set bounds on the potential protective actions that might be taken.
The NRC documents clearly identify those percentages as a hypothetical bounding case, which they asked NARAC to consider. The hypothetical releases were described as a “worst-case scenario” and “realistic worst case.” The NARAC report clearly states the scenario was hypothetical, and the documents also state “There is no evidence this scenario has occurred.”
What was released?
Actual (not hypothetical) data show that ultimately there was major fuel damage in Units 1, 2, and 3 reactor cores. Through about mid-March of 2011, releases from these cores were primarily volatile fission products released to air, as well as some soluble fission products released to water. There has been no evidence of releases from any of the on-site spent fuel pools (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident/). The total release from the Fukushima accident was about 10-15% that of Chernobyl, though by element, the iodine release was less than 25% and the cesium release was less than 45% of the Chernobyl releases (http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/AdditionalVolumes/P1710/Pub1710-TV1-Web.pdf).
Want more true facts about the Fukushima accident?
Check out the reputable resources listed on the Health Physics Society’s website at http://hps.org/fukushima/.
Barbara Hamrick, CHP, JD