BiodosEPR-2006 consensus committee report on biodosimetric methods to evaluate radiation doses at long times after exposure

Abstract

'kaev, Alexander V.; Tucker, James D.; and Wieser, Albrecht, "BiodosEPR-2006 consensus committee report on biodosimetric methods to evaluate radiation doses at long times after exposure" (2007 AbstractThe requirements for biodosimetric techniques used at long times after exposure, i.e., 6 months to more than 50 years, are unique compared to the requirements for methods used for immediate dose estimation. In addition to the fundamental requirement that the assay measures a physical or biologic change that is proportional to the energy absorbed, the signal must be highly stable over time to enable reasonably precise determinations of the absorbed dose decades later. The primary uses of these biodosimetric methods have been to support long-term health risk (epidemiologic) studies or to support compensation (damage) claims. For these reasons, the methods must be capable of estimating individual doses, rather than group mean doses. Even when individual dose estimates can be obtained, inter-individual variability remains as one of the most difficult problems in using biodosimetry measurements to rigorously quantify individual exposures. Other important criteria for biodosimetry methods include obtaining samples with minimal invasiveness, low detection limits, and high precision. Cost and other practical limitations generally prohibit biodosimetry measurements on a large enough sample to replace analytical dose reconstruction in epidemiologic investigations. However, these measurements can be extremely valuable as a means to corroborate analytical or model-based dose estimates, to help reduce uncertainty in individual doses estimated by other methods and techniques, and to assess bias in dose reconstruction models. There has been extensive use of three biodosimetric techniques in irradiated populations: EPR (using tooth enamel), FISH (using blood lymphocytes), and GPA (also using blood); these methods have been supplemented with luminescent methods applied to building materials and artifacts. A large number of investigations have used biodosimetric methods many years after external and, to a lesser extent, internal exposure to reconstruct doses received from accidents, from occupational exposures, from environmental releases of radioactive materials, and from medical exposures. In most applications, the intent has been to either identify highly exposed persons or confirmed suspected exposures. Improvements in methodology, however, have led many investigators to attempt quantification of whole-body doses received, or in a few instances, to estimate organ doses. There will be a continued need for new and improved biodosimetric techniques not only to assist in future epidemiologic investigations but to help evaluate the long-term consequences following nuclear accidents or events of radiologic terrorism.

Emergency Dosimetry Using Ceramic Components in Personal Electronic Devices

“…EPR spectroscopy, which can be carried out with either biological samples (e.g., hair, nails, bones and tooth enamel) or with physical objects (e.g., plastic, glass, saccharides, wool, and cotton), is based on the detection of radiation-induced free radicals. 4,6,7 The potential of EPR dosimetry with tooth enamel has been demonstrated in the dose evaluation of exposed populations of the atomic bomb explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, and of the Mayak nuclear facility and its neighboring Techa River region, as well as of the Chernobyl accident. [4][5][6][7] Luminescence dosimetry is based on the detection of thermally-or optically-stimulated light from phosphors that previously have been excited with ionizing radiation.…”

Long-Term Biodosimetry Redux

“…This paper revisits and reiterates the needs, purposes and requirements of biodosimetric assays for a longterm assessment of dose and health risk research as previously discussed by Simon et al (1,2) There are at least two important reasons to revisit these issues now. First, since the last publication (2) that discussed such needs, Japan and the world experienced the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster.…”

“…within a few days) appear to be well recognised (5) and numerous programmes and significant funding are focused on development of assays and mitigation agents. The needs of exposure assessments at long periods of time after exposure (1) (6 months to many decades), however, are, in our view, less than fully recognised or appreciated. Because it sometimes takes years to identify and trace a cohort as well as design and implement an epidemiological study (6) , and because there is often a many-year latency time before radiation-related cancer appears, health risk research often begins after significant time (6 months to many years) following the exposure event.…”

“…See Simon et al (1,2) for a listing of many studies as well as other publications in this special issue. Large epidemiological studies that have employed biodosimetry include cohorts from the Chernobyl accident, Techa River releases and A-bomb survivors.…”

“…As discussed elsewhere (1,2) , only two biodosimetric assays (EPR of tooth enamel and chromosome painting or FISH for stable translocations) are useful at long periods of time after exposure, e.g. years to decades.…”