Effects of Hot Particles on the Skin: The Considerations of a EULEP/EURADOS Task Group

Charles, M W; Burkhart, W.R.; Darley, P.J.; Hopewell, J. W.; Mill, A. J.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033262

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

2000

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033262

|View full text |Cite

Effects of Hot Particles on the Skin: The Considerations of a EULEP/EURADOS Task Group

M W Charles¹,

W.R. Burkhart²,

P.J. Darley³

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2003

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Charles and his colleagues have been leading contributors to the development of knowledge and standards of protection, particularly with regard to effects of local irradiation of skin (see e.g. Charles et al 2000). Studies in progress include detailed assessments of possible doses and effects following skin contact with or ingestion of hot particles released from the Dounreay fast reactor site (Darley et al 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carcinogenic risk from hot particle exposures - has ICRP got it right?

Harrison¹

2003

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The argument has become very familiar - that radionuclides introduced into the environment from nuclear installations, fall-out from weapons testing, or whatever source, are responsible for substantial increases in cancer rates, and, because current risk estimates do not support this conclusion, they must be very wrong. It is argued that there must be some way in which low levels of artificial radionuclides, levels that result in tissue doses lower than from naturally-occurring radionuclides, pose a risk that is yet to be appreciated. One obvious problem with current risk estimates, it is suggested, is the simplistic averaging of doses from hot particles - see, for example, the home page of the Low Level Radiation Campaign website (www.llrc.org).It is true that the most widely used estimates of dose and carcinogenic risk from incorporated radionuclides, provided by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), are based on calculations of average dose. Dose estimates do consider, however, the distribution of target cells within tissues. Doses to the respiratory tract from inhaled radionuclides take account of the position of target cells for the induction of different lung cancer types in the bronchial and bronchiolar airways (ICRP 1994). Similarly, the distribution of target cells in skeletal tissues is taken into account in estimates of risk of bone cancer and leukaemia (ICRP 1979, Goessner et al 2000). In other cases, the liver for example, the assumption is made that target cells are distributed throughout the whole organ. Thus, the target tissue volume can vary from a single layer of cells to a whole organ. But, having considered the available animal and human data on hot particle effects, ICRP concluded that risk should be estimated on the basis of average dose within the target tissue (ICRP 1980, 1991). Claims that dose from hot particles can be orders of magnitude more carcinogenic than dose delivered uniformly were judged to be poorly founded.Charles and Mill (pages 5-28 of this issue) have provided a review of in vitro and in vivo experimental studies and epidemiolocal evidence relevant to the hot particle question. Most information comes from animal studies but with support from recent in vitro studies. Charles and Mill conclude that ICRP dose averaging is likely to provide a reasonable estimate of carcinogenic risk, within a factor of ±3. The evidence includes a quite surprising concordance of risk estimates for radiation-induced lung cancer from three sources: Russian Mayak workers exposed to plutonium-239, mainly by inhalation, underground miners exposed to radon-222 and its progeny, and Japanese atomic bomb survivors exposed to external radiation. Taking account of differences in relative biological effectiveness of alpha particles and low LET radiations, the risk estimates derived were similar despite differences including the time-course of dose delivery and the heterogeneity of energy deposition from plutonium-239 oxide particle...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carcinogenic risk from hot particle exposures - has ICRP got it right?

Harrison¹

2003

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Effects of Hot Particles on the Skin: The Considerations of a EULEP/EURADOS Task Group

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Carcinogenic risk from hot particle exposures - has ICRP got it right?

Carcinogenic risk from hot particle exposures - has ICRP got it right?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About