Radiation Source Use And Replacement

In the United States there are several thousand devices containing high-activity radiation sources licensed for use in areas ranging from medical uses such as cancer therapy to safety uses such as testing of structures and industrial equipment. Those radiation sources are licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state agencies. Concerns have been raised about the safety and security of the radiation sources, particularly amid fears that they could be used to create dirty bombs, or radiological dispersal device (RDD). In response to a request from Congress, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked the National Research Council to conduct a study to review the uses of high-risk radiation sources and the feasibility of replacing them with lower risk alternatives. The study concludes that the U.S. government should consider factors such as potential economic consequences of misuse of the radiation sources into its assessments of risk. Although the committee found that replacements of most sources are possible, it is not economically feasible in some cases. The committee recommends that the U.S. government take steps to in the near term to replace radioactive cesium chloride radiation sources, a potential "dirty bomb" ingredient used in some medical and research equipment, with lower-risk alternatives. The committee further recommends that longer term efforts be undertaken to replace other sources. The book presents a number of options for making those replacements.

This account of sources of ionizing radiation and methods of radiation protection describes units of radiation protection, measurement techniques, biological effects, environmental radiation and many applications. Each chapter contains problems with solutions.

Please note: this publication will be superseded by a later SST publication.

Does radiation medicine need more regulation or simply better-coordinated regulation? This book addresses this and other questions of critical importance to public health and safety. The issues involved are high on the nation's agenda: the impact of radiation on public safety, the balance between federal and state authority, and the cost-benefit ratio of regulation. Although incidents of misadministration are rare, a case in Pennsylvania resulting in the death of a patient and the inadvertent exposure of others to a high dose of radiation drew attention to issues concerning the regulation of ionizing radiation in medicine and the need to examine current regulatory practices. Written at the request from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Radiation in Medicine reviews the regulation of ionizing radiation in medicine, focusing on the NRC's Medical Use Program, which governs the use of reactor-generated byproduct materials. The committee recommends immediate action on enforcement and provides longer term proposals for reform of the regulatory system. The volume covers Sources of radiation and their use in medicine. Levels of risk to patients, workers, and the public. Current roles of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, other federal agencies, and states. Criticisms from the regulated community. The committee explores alternative regulatory structures for radiation medicine and explains the rationale for the option it recommends in this volume. Based on extensive research, input from the regulated community, and the collaborative efforts of experts from a range of disciplines, Radiation in Medicine will be an important resource for federal and state policymakers and regulators, health professionals involved in radiation treatment, developers and producers of radiation equipment, insurance providers, and concerned laypersons.

Over the past several decades, public concern over exposure to ionizing radiation has increased. This concern has manifested itself in different ways depending on the perception of risk to different individuals and different groups and the circumstances of their exposure. One such group are those U.S. servicemen (the "Atomic Veterans" who participated in the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons at the Nevada Test Site or in the Pacific Proving Grounds, who served with occupation forces in or near Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or who were prisoners of war in or near those cities at the time of, or shortly after, the atomic bombings. This book addresses the feasibility of conducting an epidemiologic study to determine if there is an increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomes in the spouses, children, and grandchildren of the Atomic Veterans.

In the late 1980s, the National Cancer Institute initiated an investigation of cancer risks in populations near 52 commercial nuclear power plants and 10 Department of Energy nuclear facilities (including research and nuclear weapons production facilities and one reprocessing plant) in the United States. The results of the NCI investigation were used a primary resource for communicating with the public about the cancer risks near the nuclear facilities. However, this study is now over 20 years old. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested that the National Academy of Sciences provide an updated assessment of cancer risks in populations near USNRC-licensed nuclear facilities that utilize or process uranium for the production of electricity. Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 1 focuses on identifying scientifically sound approaches for carrying out an assessment of cancer risks associated with living near a nuclear facility, judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of various statistical power, ability to assess potential confounding factors, possible biases, and required effort. The results from this Phase 1 study will be used to inform the design of cancer risk assessment, which will be carried out in Phase 2. This report is beneficial for the general public, communities near nuclear facilities, stakeholders, healthcare providers, policy makers, state and local officials, community leaders, and the media.

Public misperception of radiological risk consistently directs limited resources toward managing minimal or even phantom risks at great cost to government and industry with no measurable benefit to overall public health. The public's inability to comprehend small theoretical risks arrived at through inherently uncertain formulae, coupled with an ir