Canadian Radiation Protection Association - CRPA-ACRP

Transcription

Vol 31 No 4
Winter / Hiver 2011
Canadian Radiation Protection Association
Association canadienne de radioprotection
Monitoring Personal Occupational Exposures
to Radon Progeny and Long-Lived Radioactive Dust
Why bother serving on the CRPA Board of Directors?
The Hook, the Glue, and BINGO!
Can Astronauts Survive Radiation on
Prolonged Space Missions?
Canadian Publications Mail Agreement 41574554
Canadian Radiation Protection Association /
Association canadienne de radioprotection
CRPA is an affiliate of the International Radiation
Protection Association / L’ACRP est membre de
l’Association internationale de radioprotection.
President / Président
Sandu Sonoc
ph: 416-978-2028
email: sandu.sonoc@utoronto.ca
President Elect / Président désigné
Lois Sowden-Plunkett
Past President / Président sortant
Dave Tucker
Secretary / Secrétaire
Petra Dupuis
Treasurer / Trésorier
Christine Dehm
Directors / Directeurs et directrices
Brian Gaulke, Raymond Ilson, Leona Page,
Jeff Sandeman
CRPA Committees / Comités de ACRP
Archives
Sunil Choubal, Christine Dehm (BoD Liaison),
Wayne Tiefenbach
Conseil éditorial du Bulletin Editorial Board
Stéphane Jean-François (chief editor / rédacteur en
chef), Leona Page (deputy editor / vice-rédactrice en
chef); scientific advisors / conseillers scientifiques:
Douglas Boreham, Kevin Bundy, Lou Champagne,
Kirk Lamont, Jag Mohindra, Daniel Picard, Sandu
Sonoc, Frank Tourneur, Mary Weedmark
Communication
Ralph Bose (chair / présidente),Lamri Cheriet,
Michèle Légaré-Vézina, Hoa Ly, Chester Neduzak,
Leona Page, Jodi Ploquin, Jeff Sandeman (BoD
liaison), Greg Zaporozan, Bulletin Editor /
Rédacteur en chef, CRPA/ACRP webmaster
Conference / Conférence
Pauline Jones (chair / présidente),
Lois Sowden-Plunkett (BoD liaison), Ralph Bose,
Pam Ellis,Mike Grey, Liz Krivonosov, Gary Wilson
CRPA Position Statements /
Déclarations publiques de l’ACRP
Dave Tucker (chair / président)
International Liason / Liaison internationale
Chris Clement (chair / président), Brian Gaulke
(BoD liaison), Kevin Bundy, Michèle Légaré-Vézina,
Gary Kramer
Membership / Recrutement
Emmy Duran (chair / présidente), Brian Gaulke
(BoD liaison), Gary Kramer, Steve Webster
Nominations
Debbie Frattinger (chair / président), Petra Dupuis
(BoD liaison), Geoff Byford, Stéphane Jean-François
Registration Certification /
Enregistrement Certification
Jeff Dovyak (chair / président), Trevor Beniston,
Lamri Cheriet, Ray Ilson (BoD liaison), Pauline
Jones, Sandu Sonoc, Steve Webster
Rules / Règlements
Frank Tourneur (chair / président), Ray Ilson
(BoD liaison), Lysanne Normandeau,
Student Affairs / Liaison avec les étudiants
Leah Shuparski (chair / présidente), Jeff Sandeman
(BoD liaison), Donata DrabikChaulk, Sonia Lala,
Michèle Légaré-Vézina, Dave Niven, Chuong Pham
Translation / Traduction
Roger Hugron (chair / président), Aimee Lauzon,
Leona Page (BoD liaison), Valerie Phelan, Nathalie
Ritchot, Carole Savoie, Colette Tremblay
Prospectus
The Canadian Radiation Protection Association (CRPA) was incorporated in 1982. The
objectives of the association are
Les objectifs de l’Association canadienne de
radioprotection, dont les statuts ont été déposés en 1982, sont les suivants:
• to develop scientific knowledge and practical means for protecting all life and the
environment from the harmful effects of
radiation consistent with the optimum use
of radiation for the benefit of all,
• Développer les connaissances scientifiques
et les moyens pratiques pour protéger toute
forme de vie et l’environnement des effets
dangereux des radiations, et ce, d’une
manière compatible avec leur utilisation
optimale pour le bénéfice de tous;
• to further the exchange of scientific and
technical information relating to the science
and practice of radiation protection,
• to encourage research and scientific
publications dedicated to the science and
practice of radiation protection,
• to promote educational opportunities in
those disciplines that support the science
and practice of radiation protection,
• to assist in the development of professional
standards in the discipline of radiation
protection; and
• to support relevant activities of other societies, associations, or organizations, both
national and international.
The association publishes the Bulletin four
times a year and distributes it to all members.
Subscription rates for non-members, such as
libraries, may be obtained from the secretariat.
Members of the association are drawn from all
areas of radiation protection, including hospitals, universities, the nuclear power industry,
and all levels of government.
Membership is divided into five categories:
full members (includes retired members),
with all privileges; associate and student
members, with all privileges except voting
rights; honorary members, with all privileges;
and corporate members. Corporate membership is open to organizations with interests in
radiation protection. Corporate members are
entitled to have their name and address listed
in each Bulletin, a complimentary copy of each
Bulletin, a copy of the Membership Handbook
containing the names and addresses of all
CRPA members, reduced booth rental rates at
the annual meeting, and reduced advertising
rates in the Bulletin.
Application forms are available on the CRPA
website or from the secretariat.
CRPA-ACRP Secretariat
PO Box 83
Carleton Place, Ontario K7C 3P3
tel: 613-253-3779
fax: 1-888-551-0712
email: secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca
website: www.crpa-acrp.ca
• encourager les échanges d’informations
scientifiques et techniques relevant de la
science et de la pratique de la radioprotection;
• encourager la recherche et les publications
scientifiques dédiées à la science et à la
pratique de la radioprotection;
• promouvoir les programmes éducationnels
dans les disciplines qui soutiennent la
science et la pratique de la radioprotection;
• aider à la définition des normes professionnelles concernant la radioprotection, et
• soutenir les activités pertinentes des autres
sociétés, associations, organisations nationales ou internationales.
Les membres de l’association proviennent de
tous les horizons de la radioprotection, y compris les hôpitaux, les universités, l’industrie
nucléaire génératrice d’électricité et tous les
niveaux du gouvernement.
L’association publie le Bulletin quatre fois par
an et le fait parvenir à tous les membres. Le
prix d’un abonnement pour les non-membres, par exemple une bibliothèque, peut être
obtenu auprès du secrétariat.
Les membres sont classés selon cinq catégories: membres à part entière (y compris les
membres retraités), avec tous les privilèges;
membres associés et étudiants, avec tous les
privilèges sauf le droit de vote; membres honoraires, avec tous les privilèges; et membres
corporatifs.
Les membres corporatifs ont droit d’avoir leur
nom et leur adresse indiqués dans chaque
Bulletin, de recevoir un exemplaire du Bulletin,
de recevoir un exemplaire de l’annuaire de
l’association contenant les noms et adresses
de tous les membres de l’association, d’avoir
un kiosque à tarif réduit lors des conférences
annuelles, d’avoir un espace publicitaire à tarif
réduit dans le Bulletin.
Les formulaires de demande d’adhésion
peuvent être obtenus sur le site Web ou
auprès du secrétariat.
Contents/Contenu
The CRPA Bulletin is published quarterly and is
distributed to all members of the association.
Le Bulletin ACRP est publié trimestriellement et
distribué à tous les membres de l’association.
Chief editor / Rédacteur en chef
Regular Columns / Contributions permanentes
7
President’s Message / Message du Président
9
Editor’s Note / Message du rédacteur en chef
11
Student Corner / Coin des étudiants
17
Book Review / Revue de livre
The Road to Yucca Mountain
28
Health Physics Corner
Monitoring exposure of on-site visitors: Whose responsibility is it?
28
Coin do spécialiste en radioprotection
À qui revient la responsabilité du contrôle de l’exposition des visiteurs sur place?
33
Contributors
Stéphane Jean-François
Deputy editor / vice-rédactrice en chef
Leona Page
Liz Krivonosov
Design and Production /
Montage et production
Michelle Communications
Production team / Équipe de production
Production manager
English copy editors
French copy editor
Translators
Proofreader
Michelle Boulton
Ursula Acton
Michelle Boulton
Carolyne Roy
Caro Gareau de Recio
Carolyne Roy
CRPA Translation Committee
Ursula Acton
Advertising / Annonces
ph: 306-343-8519
email: michelle.com@shaw.ca
Copyright © 2011 CRPA / ACRP
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, transmitted, or stored in a retrieval system
in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without prior
written consent of the publisher.
For reproduction information, contact
email: michelle.com@shaw.ca.
Features / Articles
14
Monitoring Personal Occupational Exposures to Radon Progeny
and Long-Lived Radioactive Dust
Brent Preston explains how a personal alpha dosimeter (PAD) can be used in
the uranium-mining industry, as well as in non-uranium mines, radioactive waste
cleanup and storage facilities, and other industries where workers are exposed to
uranium-bearing materials.
20
Can Astronauts Survive Radiation on Prolonged Space Missions?
Space radiation is entirely different from radiations on Earth—Nicholas Sion explores
effects and ways to protect astronauts
16
Why bother serving on the CRPA Board of Directors?
Jeff Sandeman, CRPA director, talks about his reasons for volunteering on the Board
Index to
Advertisers
Canberra Co.........................19–19, 36
F & J Specialty Products, Inc. ..............3
The views expressed in the CRPA Bulletin ACRP
are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of the editors or of the
association.
Canadian Publications
Mail Agreement No. 41574554
Send change of address notices
and undeliverable Canadian addresses to
Gamble Technologies, Inc...................2
Mirion Technologies .........................29
Radiation Measurement Systems........6
Stuart Hunt & Associates ...................8
ation about
For more inform
e CRPA Bulletin
advertising in th
ntact Michelle
co
se
ACRP, plea
s:
Communication
n
Michelle Boulto
unications
m
m
Co
lle
he
Mic
19
85
3ph: 306-34
a
.com@shaw.c
lle
he
ic
m
:
ail
em
Technical Management Services.......13
PO Box 83
Carleton Place, Ontario K7C 3P3
tel: 613-253-3779
fax: 1-888-551-0712
Cover Image: 2001 Mars Odyssey equipped with MARIE, the Martian
Radiation Environment Experiment, to study the radiation environment on
Mars. From NASA’s Mars image collection. See related story on page 20.
CRPA / ACRP Bulletin
Vol 31 No 4 / 5
President’s Message /
Message du Président
C’est avec plaisir que je m’adresse à vous à nouveau. J’écris
ce message à la mi-octobre, mais par le temps où vous lirez
ceci, nous serons déjà en hiver et la moitié de mon mandat
sera passé. Jusqu’à présent, ce fut un mandat facile sans
aucun événement hors du commun.
Le conseil d’administration de l’ACRP s’est réuni à
deux reprises depuis le congrès d’Edmonton. La première
téléconférence s’est tenue le 29 juin et la seconde le 15 septembre. Au cours de ces réunions, le conseil a analysé les
progrès réalisés sur certains points du quotidien de notre
association. Parmi les développements positifs, notons la
possibilité de voter électroniquement à partir de l’élection
de 2011. S’ils le préfèrent, les membres pourront continuer
à voter de la façon traditionnelle, c’est-à-dire sur un bulletin en papier et par la poste. Nous espérons également que
vos suggestions afin d’améliorer le processus électoral, en
ce qui concerne la sélection des candidats aux différents
postes du conseil, pourront être mises en place lors de
l’élection de 2011.
Si ce n’est déjà fait, je vous encourage à aller voir le
nouveau style de notre page Internet. Si vous avez des
problèmes avec la connexion « pour membres seulement »,
vous devriez envisager la mise à jour de votre navigateur
Internet. Si ceci ne fonctionne pas, veuillez communiquer
avec Liz Krivonosov à secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca.
Au cours des deux derniers mois, j’ai trouvé deux nouvelles qui pourraient intéresser certains d’entre vous. La
première nouvelle est d’ordre national. Le gouvernement
du Canada a approuvé un investissement de 35 millions
de dollars afin d’établir les bases en vue d’un approvisionnement plus sécuritaire et durable en Tc-99m à moyen et
long termes, ainsi qu’une dépendance réduite envers la
production d’isotopes par réacteur et a sélectionné quatre
projets du Programme de contribution financière à la
production d’isotopes ne nécessitant pas de réacteur. La
deuxième nouvelle d’intérêt provient du discours d’ouverture du directeur général de l’AIEA, Yukiya Amano, lors
du Forum scientifique de l’Agence, alors qu’il a plaidé
pour une « action unifiée afin de lutter contre l’épidémie
de cancer dans les pays en voie de développement ». C’est
la première fois que j’entends tous ces mots en une seule
et même phrase.
Les préparatifs en vue du congrès de 2011 à Ottawa
vont bon train. En lien avec la recommandation de 2007
de la CIRP (Publication 103 CIRP), laquelle introduit la
protection de l’environnement dans le cadre de la radioprotection, le thème de notre conférence sera « Protection
It is my pleasure to be
reporting to you once
again. I am writing this
message in the middle of
October, but by the time
you read it, winter will
already be here, and half
my term will be gone. So far this has been an easy term
without any extraordinary events.
The CRPA board of directors has met twice since the
Edmonton conference. The first teleconference was on
June 29th and the second on September 15th. During these
meetings, the board analyzed the progress made on some
key issues in the day-to-day life of our association. Among
other positive developments is the availability of electronic
voting, which will be ready for the 2011 elections. Members can also choose the traditional paper-mail vote, if they
prefer. We also hope that your suggestions for improving
the election process regarding the selection of the candidates for different board positions can be included in the
2011 election.
If you haven’t done so already, I encourage you to log on
to our webpage and enjoy the new look. If you have problems with the “members only login” part, you may consider
updating your web browser. If that doesn’t work, please
contact Liz Krivonosov at secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca.
Over the last two months, I have found two news items
that may interest some of you. The first is that the Government of Canada approved a $35 million investment that
is laying the groundwork for a more secure and sustainable supply of Tc-99m in the medium to long term, and
a reduced reliance on reactor-based production with the
selection of four projects under the Non-reactor-based Isotope Supply Contribution Program. The second interesting piece of news is contained in the opening comments
made by the IAEA Director General, Yukiya Amano, at
this year’s IAEA Scientific Forum where he calls for a
“unified action to fight the cancer epidemic in developing
countries.” This is the first time I have heard these terms
put together.
The preparations for the 2011 conference in Ottawa
are very far advanced. In harmony with the 2007 ICRP
Recommendation (ICRP Publication 103), in which the
concept of protecting the environment is introduced in
the radiation protection framework, the theme of our
conference will be “Protecting Canadians and the Environment.” Since the Local Organizing Committee is
suite à la page 31 . . .
continued on page 31 . . .
Vol 31 No 4 / 7
8 / Vol 31 No 4
Editor’s Note / Message
du rédacteur en chef
J’espère que vous attaquez l’année du bon pied, en santé et
le cœur à l’ouvrage car vous avez du travail, chers membres de l’ACRP. Le temps est à la revue de l’année qui
s’est terminée. J’aurais pu revenir sur la prise de position
de l’ACRP concernant les normes de tritium dans l’eau
potable en Ontario, j’aurais pu signaler la retraite méritée
de notre archiviste Tony MacKay, rappeler l’entrée comme
membre honoraire à vie d’une autre figure de l’ACRP,
Gary Kramer, ou même nous lancer des fleurs, car le
Bulletin semble avoir trouvé son rythme de croisière.
Voici que je me donne le droit de me concentrer sur
un seul élément : le processus démocratique de l’ACRP.
Vous ne pouvez me blâmer. Au moment d’écrire ces lignes,
à l’Assemblée nationale du Québec, une pétition en ligne
récolte jusqu’à 200 signatures à l’heure demandant la
démission du premier ministre provincial. Le compte, au
22 novembre 2010, était de 200 000 signatures en quelques
semaines. Je ne peux alors m’empêcher de poser la question : Où sont ces signataires lors du vrai scrutin provincial?
Le taux de participation aux élections est en baisse, mais
il semble plus facile de cliquer sur Internet pour protester
de façon ponctuelle. Commencez-vous à voir le lien avec
l’ACRP? Eh oui, en 2010, comme pour plusieurs élections
de l’Association, un membre sur trois a exercé son droit de
vote pour élire les membres du CA. Et ce chiffre reste sensiblement le même depuis plus de 20 ans. Que dire de notre
difficulté de trouver des candidats intéressés par le défi
du CA ? Est-ce du cynisme? Un manque de confiance ou
simplement par manque de temps? Et y a-t-il un lien avec
le manque de candidats qui se présentent aux élections de
l’ACRP, surtout au poste de président?
Une chose est certaine, l’ACRP cherche du sang neuf,
des idées nouvelles et elle doit se renouveler pour conserver sa pertinence et attirer de nouveaux membres. Nous
avons déjà des sondages en ligne et, bientôt, les élections
sur la cybertoile. La majorité silencieuse de l’ACRP doit se
faire entendre et faire des propositions. En tant que membre, je ne perçois plus la fougue du projet de certification,
je ne sens plus l’enthousiasme des initiatives des membres.
Plusieurs semblent absorbés par leurs occupations professionnelles et personnelles. Alors, vivement du sang neuf
qui ne demande qu’à changer le monde!
Observez bien les professionnels en radioprotection
autour de vous, HPS et son site Web destiné au public, la
CCSN qui se donne la peine de répondre formellement à
tous les articles de journaux la concernant tout en communiquant par courriel ses activités importantes, l’AAHP qui
raffine chaque année son sondage sur le salaire des CHP.
Non, ne comparez pas les ressources, c’est trop facile.
Nous pouvons faire beaucoup à partir des concepts et des
I hope you are ready to
tackle this new year with
aplomb and vigour, as there
is much work to be done,
my dear CRPA members.
It is time to review the
year that has just ended. I
could go over the CRPA’s
stand on tritium levels in
Ontario’s drinking water; I could note the well-deserved
retirement of our archivist, Tony MacKay, or the induction
of another of CRPA’s leading figures, Gary Kramer, as a
lifetime honorary member; or I could even give everyone
a pat on the back for a job well done on the Bulletin, as it
seems to have found its cruising speed.
But what I really want to focus on is the CRPA’s
democratic process. Could you blame me? As I write this,
there is an online petition garnering some 200 signatures
per hour demanding the resignation of Quebec’s Premier.
As of November 22, 2010, the count was over 200,000
signatories in just a few weeks. This begs the question:
Where are these people during an actual election? As
electoral participation rates drop, it seems so much easier
to go online to protest some issue with a simple click of
the mouse. Can you see where I’m going here—what this
has to do with the CRPA? Indeed, in 2010, as was the case
for many of the Association’s elections, only one third of
members exercised their right to vote in electing the Board
of Directors. This figure has remained essentially the same
for over two decades. And it is more difficult then ever to
find interested candidates. Is it cynicism? Lack of trust or
simply lack of time? Is this somehow linked to the dearth
of candidates standing for CRPA elections—particularly for
the position of president?
One thing is certain: the CRPA is looking for new
blood and new ideas. And to attract new members and
remain relevant, it needs to renew itself. We already have
surveys up online, and we will soon be holding elections
in cyberspace. The silent majority needs to speak up and
propose new ideas. As a member, I no longer sense enthusiasm for the certification project or for members’ initiatives. Many seem more absorbed by their professional and
personal concerns. So let’s find some youthful exuberance
that seeks no less than to change the world!
Take a close look at the radiation safety professionals
around you; the HPS and its public website; the CNSC,
which takes the trouble to formally respond to all newspaper articles that concern it while sending out e-mails about
its important activities; and the AAHP, which improves
its survey of CHP salaries every year. No, don’t compare
suite à la page 30 . . .
Vol 31 No 4 / 9
Welcome to Ottawa Bienvenue à Ottawa
in the springtime!
au printemps!
CRPA 2011 will be held at the Westin Ottawa, perfectly situated steps from Parliament Hill, the historic
Byward Market, the Rideau Canal, and attached
to the Rideau Centre mall. The Tuesday evening
banquet will be in the spectacular Grand Hall of the
Canadian Museum of Civilization, overlooking the
Ottawa River and across to Parliament Hill.
Ottawa has so much to offer! Visit world-class museums, stroll along the historic Rideau Canal, shop in
the Rideau Centre and Byward Market, or enjoy
the outdoors in nearby Gatineau Park.
Ottawa a beaucoup à offrir! Visitez des musées de renommée
mondiale, flânez le long du canal Rideau, visitez les boutiques et
magasins du Centre Rideau et du marché By ou profitez du plein air,
à proximité, dans le parc de la Gatineau.
ACRP 2011, Ottawa
Inscrivez-le à votre agenda dès maintenant!
Photos courtesy Ottawa Tourism.
CRPA 2011, Ottawa
Mark it on your calendar now!
L’ACRP 2011 aura lieu au Westin Ottawa qui est attenant au Centre
commercial Rideau et qui est situé à quelques pas de la Colline du
Parlement, du canal Rideau et du marché historique By. Le banquet aura lieu mardi soir dans la Grande Galerie spectaculaire du
Musée canadien des civilisations, d’où l’on peut voir la rivière des
Outaouais et les édifices du Parlement.
Conference Call for Proposals
Appel aux propositions pour la conférence
The Conference Committee, currently working with Halifax (2012) and Sherbrooke (2013), is inviting interested parties to submit expressions of interest for
annual conferences beyond 2013. Anyone wishing to submit a proposal should
contact me and I will forward a copy of both the Conference Proposal Guide and
the Conference Planning Guide
Le comité organisateur de la conférence, qui travaille actuellement avec Halifax
(2012) et Sherbrooke (2013), invite les parties intéressées à soumettre une lettre
d’intérêt pour les conférences annuelles suivant l’an 2013. Les parties désirant
soumettre une proposition devraient me contacter afin que je puisse leur faire
parvenir une copie du Guide des propositions de conférence ainsi que le Guide
de planification des conférences.
Pauline Jones, Conference Committee Chair
Ph 902-494-2055 • email pauline.jones@dal.ca
10 / Vol 31 No 4
Pauline Jones, présidente du comité organisateur de la conférence
Tel (902) 494-2055 • couriel pauline.jones@dal.ca
Student Corner / Coin des étudiant
The first half of my summer was spent teaching standard first aid and CPR-C,
while the latter half had me patching up kids at a summer camp. The opportunity
to hone my teaching skills was a valuable one. Here are three things I learned while
teaching first aid that could (and should!) be translated into radiation protection.
You need a hook
A “hook” is a story or set of statistics
that will make your class sit up and pay
attention. Your hook can be an incredible
attitude changer. My favourite first aid
hook? Bystander CPR. Cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) is done at the scene by
bystanders only 20–30% of the time. Why
do we care? Because survival rates are two
to four times better when bystander CPR is
Résumé
Leah Shuparski a passé l’été dernier
à enseigner la RCP C et à mettre des
pansements sur des enfants à un camp
d’été. Elle souligne trois leçons tirées
de cette expérience qui peuvent aussi
s’appliquer à la radioprotection : il faut
un hameçon pour capter l’attention des
individus et les motiver à participer;
il est utile de cultiver les « personnesliaison », les suiveurs conviviaux ayant
un enthousiasme contagieux; et BINGO
(oui, le jeu) peut s’avérer un outil de
participation des spectateurs très utile et
passionnant.
Leah partage aussi quelques mises à
jour brèves sur les activités du Comité
des affaires étudiantes. Pour les personnes qui s’intéressent au réseautage
virtuel, l’ACRP possède maintenant son
propre groupe sur Facebook. Pour ceux
qui préfèrent le réseautage en personne,
l’idée de mentorat a été discuté lors de
la dernière conférence et un programme
de mentorat est prévu être en place
par la conférence 2011 à Ottawa. En
parlant de conférences, le comité organisateur local d’Ottawa prépare, pour
la conférence 2011, des sessions ciblant
les étudiants et les professionnels de la
radioprotection en début de carrière.
Pour plus d’information au sujet de ces
initiatives, contactez Leah par couriel à
leahshuparski@gmail.com.
administered at the scene. Now imagine
your loved one being in that 70–80%
that doesn’t get bystander CPR . . . If
these numbers don’t convince my class
that they should know CPR, nothing will.
Wanted: “Glue Person”
“Glue people” are gregarious, thoughtful people who get on board with class
activities. Through their friendliness, they
engage others who wouldn’t otherwise be
interested in what’s happening in the classroom. A teacher can only carry a group
so far; the group has to be interested and
engaged in the subject to truly learn. And
glue people help foster that engagement.
Now, it’s time for Bingo
Yes, Bingo. The kind you played in the
school gym on rainy days. My version is
called “First Aid Bingo” and here’s how
it works. On the BINGO sheet, the five
columns are named for first aid categories instead of B-I-N-G-O. A selection of
answers are listed in each of the squares
on the page. Thanks to a handy computer
code devised by my clever boyfriend, I’m
able to generate bingo cards based on
whatever I input, and no two cards are the
same. The bingo caller reads out first aid
questions by category: the answers may
or may not be found under their respective column, depending on the card a
particular individual has. I tend to make
the “bingo!” criteria more difficult (two
intersecting lines—an X) so that I can cycle
through more questions. This game can be
an excellent review.
So, that was my learning experience
for the summer. Since I’ve been back at
school, life has been filling up with lots
of adventures, both school-related and
extracurricular. Following are a few brief
updates on CRPA Student Affairs Committee activities. We will return to our
regular programming as soon as possible!
CRPA on Facebook
Are you on Facebook? Now
CRPA is, too! To join the CRPA
Facebook group, search for
“Canadian Radiation Protection
Association” in the search
window at the top of the Facebook page.
Once you become a member of the group,
you can post photos from previous conferences or share news about an upcoming
radiation protection event in your city.
Mentorship
At the Edmonton conference, we discussed the idea of having a mentorship
program within the CRPA. The response
was great; many experienced CRPA members jumped at the chance to share their
wealth of knowledge with less-experienced
members. The mentorship program,
which will be run by the Student Affairs
Committee, should be up and running
by the Ottawa 2011 conference. If you’d
like to be a mentor, please contact me
(leahshuparski@gmail.com).
Ottawa 2011 Student News
The Ottawa Local Organizing Committee
has been working tirelessly to create sessions at the next conference that will be
geared to students and radiation protection
professionals who are just starting their
careers. The Student Affairs Committee
and the Local Organizing Committee
are especially proud to present a panel
discussion on radiation protection career
opportunities across all industries. You
can do your part by helping the students
at your workplace secure funding to attend
and by generally spreading the word about
the conference. Let’s make 2011 our best
student year yet! I’ll see you there!!
Vol 31 No 4 / 11
CONCOURS
DE
COMMUNICATIONS
ÉTUDIANTES
ST UDENT
PA P ER
ANTHONY J. MACKAY
CONTEST
Peut-être avez-vous déjà une communication que vous avez préparée
dans le cadre d’un cours et que vous
pourriez nous soumettre!
You may already have a paper that
could be submitted that you have
completed in the course of your
studies!
CONDITIONS
CONTEST
DU
CONCOURS :
• Pour être admissibles : les
étudiants doivent étudier à temps
plein au niveau postsecondaire au
Canada dans une discipline liée
aux rayonnements
• Sujet de la communication : tout
sujet lié aux rayonnements
• Longeur : Maximum de
3 000 mots
• Date limite d’envoi des communications : le 1er mars 2011
• Envoyez les soumissions à :
secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca
PRIX :
• L’ACRP défraiera vos frais de
déplacement et d’hébergement
pour présenter votre communication à son congrès annuel, du 8
au 12 mai 2011, à Ottawa, ON
• L’Association publiera votre communication dans son Bulletin
PARTICIPATION D’ÉTUDIANTS
AU CONGRÈS :
• Bien que nous acceptions aussi
les affiches et les présentations,
celles-ci ne font pas partie du
concours de communications
étudiantes
• Venez rencontrer des professionnels des sciences des rayonnements (qui œuvrent dans les
domaines de l’électronucléaire, de
la radioprotection, de la physique
médicale, de la recherche, dans
les universités, les compagnies
privées et aux gouvernements)
Pour plus de renseignements, visitez
WWW.CRPA-ACRP.CA
12 / Vol 31 No 4
ANTHONY J. MACKAY
CONDITIONS:
• To be eligible: students must
be full-time in a Canadian
college or university program
related to the radiation sciences
• Topic of paper: radiation
• Maximum length: 3000 words
• Deadline for Submission:
March 1, 2011
• Send submissions to:
PRIZE:
• CRPA will pay your travel and
lodging expenses to present
your paper at the CRPA annual
conference May 8–12, 2011, in
Ottawa, ON
• Your paper will be published in
the CRPA Bulletin
STUDENT
PARTICIPATION
AT THE CONFERENCE:
• Posters and presentations are
also welcome, however, these
can not be included in the
Student Paper Contest
• Attending the CRPA conference
is an excellent opportunity to
meet professionals in the radiation sciences (nuclear power
industry, health physics, medical
physics, university/education,
research, government, business)
For more information visit
WWW.CRPA-ACRP.CA
Advertising in the
Advertising in the CRPA Bulletin ACRP delivers your message to the heart of the radiation protection
community through an association and a publication readers know and trust. The editorial content of the
Bulletin delivers the insights, contacts, information, advice, and valuable solutions that people in radiation
protection need to stay at the forefront of their profession.
If you want to reach the radiation protection community, the targeted nature of the Bulletin will get your
message out to people who are interested in what you sell or do.
Submissions
To place an ad in the Bulletin, contact
Michelle Boulton
2501 Blain Avenue
Saskatoon, SK S7J 2B7
ph 306-343-8519
fax 306-477-5418
email michelle.com@shaw.ca
Vol 31 No 4 / 13
Monitoring Personal Occupational Exposures
to Radon Progeny and Long-Lived Radioactive Dust
by Brent Preston, National Laboratories, Radiation Safety Institute of Canada
Introduction
The personal alpha dosimeter (PAD) is a
lightweight monitoring system designed
to infer individual exposures to radon and
thoron progeny and to long-lived radioactive dust (LLRD). Although used primarily in the uranium-mining industry, the
PAD has also been used in non-uranium
mines, radioactive waste cleanup and
storage facilities, and a variety of other
industries where workers may be exposed
to uranium-bearing materials.
The PAD is licensed by the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) under
Regulatory Standard S-106 Revision 1 Technical and Quality Assurance Requirements for
Dosimetry Services. This is the only licensed
dosimeter in Canada capable of inferring
the exposure of individual workers to radon
and thoron progeny and LLRD.
Design
The dosimeter is comprised of a tracketch detector, commonly referred to as a
dosimeter head, which is mounted inside
a battery-powered air pumping system,
referred to as the PAD body (Figure 1).
Figure 1: PAD body (yellow) and
dosimeter head (green)
The PAD body is a lightweight airpumping system that draws air through
the dosimeter head at a nominal flow rate
of 4 L/h. The pump is enclosed in a durable polycarbonate box, which is designed
to be worn on an individual’s belt.
The PAD is powered by a small
rechargeable battery that is designed to
operate for a minimum of 12 hours. The
charger uses induction to recharge the
PAD. An electric card on the charger
generates a high-frequency alternating cur-
rent, which feeds a coil that supplies the
energy necessary to recharge the battery.
The dosimeter head (Figure 2) is an
alpha-particle spectrometer capable of
separately detecting the 5.99 MeV and
7.69 MeV alpha particles from radon progeny (Po-218 [RaA] and Po-214 [RaCʹ]) and
the 8.78 MeV alpha particles from thoron
progeny (Po-212 [ThCʹ]) without the use
of electronics. This is achieved using a
three-channel collimator, each channel
having an energy-absorbing Mylar™ strip
with a thickness specifically chosen for the
alpha particle the channel is designed to
identify. The thickness of each Mylar™
absorber is chosen so that the alpha particle of interest hits the cellulose nitrate
film with the energy required to make an
easily identifiable track.
Operation
The air flow through the PAD is determined using an indirect technique that
utilizes the basic principles of air-flow
circuit dynamics. By measuring parameters
such as the PAD body-stall pressure (the
pressure exerted by the PAD body at zero
air flow) and the pressure drop across the
dosimeter head (at a constant air-flow rate
Résumé
Le dosimètre alpha personnel
(DAP) constitue un moyen fiable
pour déduire le niveau d’exposition individuel aux progénitures
de radon et de thoron ainsi qu’à
la poussière radioactive à période
longue (PRPL). L’article examine en
détail la conception et l’opération
du DAP, puis discute des calculs
utilisés pour déterminer l’exposition aux progénitures de radon et
de thoron, ainsi qu’à la PRPL.
14 / Vol 31 No 4
End Cap
Metal
Screen
Gasket
Membrane
Filtre
Barrel
Absorbers
Figure 2: Exploded view of dosimeter head
Collimator
Detector
LR115 Type II Barrel
Holder
of 4 L/h), the air flow through the PAD,
Q, can be calculated using the equation
The parameter PAverage denotes the
average PAD stall-pressure measurement,
which is measured weekly during the
monitoring period. The terms ∆P1 and
∆P2 denote the initial and final pressure drops across the dosimeter head,
which are measured before and after the
monitoring period. Both the stall-pressure
and the pressure-drop measurements are
performed with a standard Magnehelic
pressure gauge.
During operation, particulates in the
air are drawn through the dosimeter head.
The particulates, including any attached
radon and thoron progeny and LLRD,
will get caught in the filter inside the
dosimeter head. Although worn outside
the breathing zone of the individual being
monitored, testing has shown that significant aerosol concentration gradients do
not exist between the hip and the breathing zone. The sampled air can therefore
be considered representative of the air
breathed by the individual.
As the attached radon and thoron
progeny decay, alpha particles are emitted.
Some of these alpha particles will travel
up the three-channelled collimator and
pass through the absorbers attached to
the collimator. The alpha particles will
then strike the detector film located at the
top of the collimator. The detector film
(LR-115 Type II) is only sensitive to alpha
particles that have energy in the range of
1.5–4.0 MeV.
To properly discriminate between
alpha particles, each collimator is fitted
with a Mylar™ absorber of a specific thickness. The thickness of each absorber is
chosen so that the alpha particle of interest emerges from the Mylar™ absorber
with an approximate energy of 1.5–4.0
MeV in order for it to leave identifiable
tracks on the film. Alpha particles that
are not of interest will either be stopped
completely by the Mylar™ absorber or
pass through the film with energy greater
than that required to leave identifiable
tracks. The result is three distinct film
regions that only contain alpha damage
tracks from RaA (Po-218), RaCʹ (Po-214),
and ThCʹ (Po-212), respectively.
to infer the individual’s exposure to longlived alpha emitting radionuclides, using
the following expression:
where 1200 [L/h] represents the average
breathing rate of ICRP 23’s reference man
during light activity and 0.8 refers to the
aerosol collection efficiency of the PAD
for inhalable LLRD.
PAD Detection Limits
Figure 3: Damage tracks on film
The tracks on the film are then
enlarged by etching the films for 90
minutes in a sodium-hydroxide solution
at a temperature of 60°C. The etching
process enlarges the damage tracks on the
film so that they can be counted using a
specialized image-analysis system (Figure
3). The number of damage tracks can then
infer the individual’s inhalation exposure
to radon and thoron progeny using the
following expressions:
where NRaA, NRaCʹ, and NThCʹ refer to
the number of tracks counted in the RaA,
RaCʹ, and ThCʹ regions, respectively.
The constant 0.8 refers to the collection
efficiency for radon and thoron attached
aerosols, while the constant 0.001037
represents the efficiency factor of the
dosimeter head. The constants 1.3 x 105
and 170 are the required factors to convert
the result from MeV/L to Working Level
Months (WLM).
Following a minimum waiting period
to allow all radon and thoron progeny
to decay, the gross alpha activity of the
dosimeter-head filter is measured using
a low background proportional counter.
The activity of the filter can then be used
The limits of detection for the measurement of radon and thoron progeny with
the PAD are governed by the ability to
accurately determine the number of tracks
on the exposed film.
Theoretically, the PAD can measure
radon and thoron progeny to exposures as
low as 0 Working Level Months (WLM),
which would correspond to zero tracks on
the film. However, at low exposure, the
uncertainty in the results due to statistical errors is quite large. Therefore, the
lower limit is governed by the number of
background tracks and surface defects typically found on the detection film, which
translates into a lower detection limit of
approximately 0.002 WLM.
The upper limit of detection for the
PAD is governed by track density on the
film and the resolution of the track counting system being used. The upper limit of
detection for the measurement of radon
and thoron progeny is approximately 11 to
18 WLM.
The upper and lower detection limits
for the measurement of LLRD are determined by the operating parameters of the
low-background proportional counter.
PAD Testing
The PAD has undergone extensive testing
in Canada, the United States, and Europe
for the measurement of radon and thoron
progeny and LLRD. This testing continues to provide results that are consistent
with testing-facility reference systems and
that are in compliance with the CNSC
Regulatory Standard S-106 Revision 1
accuracy requirements.
Vol 31 No 4 / 15
Why bother serving on the
CRPA Board of Directors?
When Stéphane put out a call asking the
CRPA Board members for brief articles
on what it’s like serving on the board, I
thought, “sure, I can do that,” and dove
right in. Only one problem—he suggested a
500 word maximum. Anybody who knows
me will tell you I can’t even say hello in less
than 500 words, but I’ll give it a shot.
The important issue to me is not
“what’s it like?” but rather “why bother?”
The answer is pretty simple. I want the
CRPA to exist and to grow and improve
because I have found great value in being
a member of CRPA. Before joining, I
had already worked in radiation safety for
over a decade, but in a relatively insular
I find value in being part of CRPA and I want it to grow and improve, and
since the only way that’s going to happen is if people volunteer to try and get things done,
I figured I’d better get off my fat, lazy butt and do my share.
Lorsque Stéphane nous a demandé
d’écrire de courts articles sur notre
expérience à siéger au conseil de
l’ACRP, j’ai pensé : « Oui, je peux
très bien faire cela. » En fait, ce
qui importe pour moi est non pas
d’expliquer en quoi cela consiste,
mais plutôt, pourquoi quelqu’un
se donnerait la peine de siéger au
conseil. C’est pourtant tout simple :
Puisque je désire que l’ACRP s’améliore et prenne de l’ampleur, puisque
j’en retire de nombreux avantages en
tant qu’adhérent et puisque cela n’est
possible que parce que des bénévoles
essaient de faire avancer les dossiers,
je me suis convaincu de sortir de
mes pantoufles et de contribuer à
l’essor de l’association. Parfois, les
changements et améliorations se font
attendre, mais rien n’est possible sans
le concours de volontaires. Qui plus
est, savoir que l’on a travaillé aux réalisations de l’ACRP est des plus gratifiant. Et puis, les membres du conseil
sont des gens FANTASTIQUES!
16 / Vol 31 No 4
I’m now serving my second, two-year
term as a director and I’m not going to
tell you it’s the greatest joy in existence.
In fact, it frequently seems like an attempt
at “herding cats” . . . an exercise that’s
guaranteed to take a long time and cause
a lot of frustration for little gain. It’s
very difficult to function when you only
meet every couple of months, mostly by
teleconference. It’s far too easy to forget
to look after the tasks you were supposed
to do between meetings. Even if you do, a
lot of times the issues you’re dealing with
require feedback from the general membership, which causes further delays, often
has a distressingly low response rate, and
rarely results in any definitive consensus.
I could stop here and scare everyone off,
but I won’t. These frustrations are pretty
typical for any volunteer organization.
environment. I had very little knowledge
of the Canadian radiation protection community at large, had rarely had any opportunity to learn from others working in the
same field or to present my own work, and
basically didn’t know anyone involved in
radiation safety other than my immediate
co-workers back in Manitoba.
Joining CRPA was the single biggest
factor in changing all of that for me.
Simple things like reading the Bulletin and
participating in the annual conference
enabled me to network with and learn
from a very knowledgeable, diverse, and
remarkably likeable group of radiation
safety professionals from across Canada.
In addition, since moving over to work
with the CNSC, I find CRPA to be an
invaluable forum for discussing issues
Serving on the CRPA board —
Both exciting and enjoyable
I served as a director and then as president of the
association. My experience on the board was both
exciting and enjoyable. We experienced a number
of successes, but important issues remain.
If you want to see improvements for our
association, offer your time and efforts as
a board member.
Would I do it again? Yes, without hesitation!
Ray Ilson,
Past President, CRPA
Ray Ilson
receiving
Founders’
from Stép
Award
hane Jean
François.
Book Review / Critique de livre
The Development of Radioactive Waste
Policy in the United States
J. Samuel Walker
(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009)
review by Michael Grey
Candesco Corporation,
Burlington, ON
Résumé
Samuel Walker est l’autorité officielle
sur la United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) et l’auteur ou
co-auteur de quatre autres livres portant sur le système de réglementation
nucléaire aux États-Unis. The Road to
Yucca Mountain documente la création d’un site permanent d’évacuation de déchets radioactifs au cours
de la période située entre la fin de la
deuxième guerre mondiale et l’amendement de la Nuclear Waste Policy Act
en 1987, qui a eu pour résultat la
désignation de Yucca Mountain au
Nevada comme site d’évacuation unique aux États-Unis pour les déchets
nucléaires à haut niveau d’activité. La
faiblesse du livre est sa conclusion, où
l’auteur décrit l’histoire complète du
projet de Yucca Mountain de 1987 à
2009 en à peine deux pages.
Bien qu’il soit inévitable de
mentionner certains enjeux techniques, il est évident que ceux-ci ne
relèvent pas des champs d’expertise
ou d’intérêt de l’auteur. Quoique The
Road to Yucca Mountain ne soit pas
une introduction technique au sujet
de la gestion des déchets nucléaires
à haut niveau d’activité, il s’agit tout
de même d’un bon sommaire des
controverses publiques et des faux-pas
en réglementation qui ont affligé le
programme américain. Il s’agit d’un
précieux appel à la prudence, tandis
que le programme canadien amorce
l’étape suivante de son projet.
Samuel Walker is the official historian
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. He is the author or coauthor of four previous books on the
nuclear regulatory system in the United
States: Containing the Atom—The Beginnings
of Nuclear Regulation, 1946-1962 (1984);
Containing the Atom—Nuclear Regulation in
a Changing Environment, 1963-1971 (1992),
Permissible Dose: A History of Radiation
Protection in the Twentieth Century (2000),
and Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in
Historical Perspective (2004).
The Road to Yucca Mountain is a history
of the political and regulatory aspects of
the efforts to create a permanent disposal
site for high-level radioactive waste. It
focuses on the period from the end of
World War II through the 1987 amendment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which
resulted in Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
being designated as the sole high-level
nuclear waste repository in the United
States. The author largely limits the scope
of the book to issues related to the disposal of high-level civilian wastes and there
are occasional references to the disposal
of low and intermediate-level wastes and
military wastes.
A relatively short first chapter covers
the period from the end of World War II
through the early sixties and describes the
early efforts at disposal, including ocean
dumping, and the declining confidence in
the Atomic Energy Commission’s management of waste disposal. The second chapter looks at the controversies associated
with the management of high-level waste
at Hanford (Washington) and the national
reactor Testing Station (Idaho) and the
early efforts at establishing a national
policy for high-level waste management.
The third chapter, entitled “An ‘Atomic
Garbage Dump’ for Kansas” is devoted
to “Project Salt Vault” and the attempt to
create a disposal facility in a salt mine near
Lyon, Kansas, in the late sixties and early
seventies. Chapter 4 looks at the activities
during the final days of the Atomic Energy
Commission which was replaced by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
the Energy Development and Research
Administration in 1974. The next two
chapters lie slightly off the main track of
the book as they deal with low-level waste
and transportation issues but the author
returns to his main theme in the last
chapter, “A Legislative Solution,” which
looks at the events leading to the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the 1987
amendments to that Act which designated
Yucca Mountain as the sole repository for
high-level civilian radioactive waste.
The Road to Yucca Mountain concentrates on the legal, political, and regulatory aspects of high-level radioactive waste
disposal. Some mention of the technical issues is unavoidable but these are
obviously not the areas of the author’s
Vol 31 No 4 / 17
Can Astronauts Survive
Radiation on Prolonged
Space Missions?
by Nicholas Sion
Résumé
L’humanité se laisse fasciner par
les étoiles et les planètes, qui
sont là depuis la nuit des temps.
Aujourd’hui, nous pouvons explorer
les planètes avec l’espoir de les exploiter et de les habiter. Notre prochain
objectif consiste à se concentrer
de plus en plus sur une planète
avoisinante, Mars, qui se trouve à
portée de notre technologie et de nos
conceptions techniques actuelles.
Mais les effets prolongés des rayonnements galactiques sur les équipages
de l’espace restent à déterminer et
constituent en fait le facteur restrictif.
En effet, il a été reconnu au cours
des premières expériences d’exploration spatiale que les rayonnements
cosmiques galactiques (RCG) empêcheraient les voyages de longue durée
dans l’espace et que le suivi des doses
d’exposition est primordial pour la
sécurité de l’équipage et le succès des
missions futures.
L’article ci-contre quantifie les
types et niveaux de rayonnements
susceptibles d’être croisés au cours
de voyages de longue durée dans
l’espace; évalue le risque biologique;
considère les incertitudes; et revoit
les contre-mesures ou solutions qu’il
est possible d’étudier pour protéger
les astronautes, dont les substances
protectrices et radioprotectrices. Le
besoin de mieux comprendre la provocation du cancer par les RCG est
aussi souligné.
20 / Vol 31 No 4
Introduction
Current human exploration of space has
been taking place in the vicinity of the ISS
(International Space Station) whose orbit
is well below the relatively protective layers
of the Van Allen Belts and the Earth’s
magnetosphere. This means astronauts
have been somewhat sheltered from the
harshness of Galactic Cosmic Radiation
(GCR). Brief excursions to the moon
(beyond the Belts) have been of very short
duration and the radiation effects, though
cumulative, are not considered high
enough to be problematic.
Space radiation is entirely different
from the types of radiations we experience on Earth, such as gamma rays and
X-rays. It is comprised of atomic particles
whose electrons have been stripped,
thus ionizing the atom. These particles,
when moving with tremendous velocity (i.e. high energy), can severely affect
human cells and DNA, leading to future
health issues. Though these particles are
relatively sparsely distributed, they have a
cumulative effect over long duration and
can overwhelm the astronauts’ immune
systems and/or increase the latent risk for
cancer, cataracts, and damage to the central nervous system. The main characteristics of GCR are summed up in Table 1.
Table 1: Main characteristics of space radiation
Solar Particle Events (SPE)
Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR)
Composed largely of electrons, protons, and
alpha particles of energies of tens to few
hundreds MeV/n.
Composed of 85% protons, 14% helium
alphas, and 1% heavy ions with very high
energies, exceeding tens of GeV/nucleon.
Occurs at solar maximum. Onset, duration, dose rate, and dose are presently
unpredictable.
GCR gives steady radiation background and
varies by a factor of 2 approx. over the 11-year
sun cycle.
With adequate warning and access to shelter
(>10 g/cm2 aluminum-equivalent), radiation
hazard can be reduced to acceptable levels.
Shielding is ineffective because ions penetrate
hundreds of centimeters of material and
produce secondary radiation, primarily X-rays
and neutrons.
Biological effects are similar to X-ray or
gamma rays.
Biological effects are poorly understood with
large uncertainties in projections because
there is no human data on which to base
estimates.
Low LET radiation deposits energy in a uniform pattern.
High LET radiation deposits energy in nonuniform pattern along its track.
Major research questions are predicting the
onset and relevant characteristics of SPE, and
the health risks due to the residual low dose
rates, when protected by shielding.
Major research questions are understanding
the mechanisms linking radiation exposure to
health risk.
Data from outer space and from Mars
are still spotty and have been gathered
from the few successful probes sent there.
Initially, computer models were relied on
and then verified by data sent back by mission probes.
How detrimental the GCR is to
human tissue is the main thrust of
current-day research since there is no
human data. Some extrapolation has been
done from the Low Earth Orbit (LEO)
data gained from International Space
Station (ISS). Table 2 shows the type of
radiation encountered in LEO and the
Linear Energy Transfer, which is the average energy released or deposited per unit
length of track.
1 Types of Radiation
Table 2 shows the types of radiation in
Low Earth Orbit (LEO), at Solar Particle
Events (SPE), and at Galactic Cosmic
Radiation (GCR). The effect of Linear
Energy Transfer (LET) is magnitudes
higher at GCR than in the lower orbits.
LET is the energy deposited to the
target per unit length of track. It is at the
high energy, high atomic numbers [HZE]
that most tissue damage occurs.
Following are some typical example
numbers:1
• Z=1 proton at 250 MeV/n has an LET
of ∼ 0.4 keV/μm
• Z=2 helium alpha particle at 1.25
MeV/n has an LET 90 keV/μm
• Z=26 fast iron ion at 600 MeV/n has
an LET of 200keV/μm
• Dose, fluence, and LET are interrelated: Dose in cGy or rad = 1.602x10-7
x fluence (#/cm2) x LET (keV/μm)
2
Abundance of Particles
in GCR and Their Dose
Figure 1 depicts the abundance of the
contribution of typical particles found in
GCR harmonized on a logarithmic scale
and their dose, in Rem.
Table 2: Types of radiation, energy levels, and linear energy transfer (LET) (Derived from NCRP Report #142)
Radiation Type
Energy Levels
Location
Electrons in LEO
10 MeV
Trapped in the outer Van Allen Belts
Protons in LEO
40 keV–500 MeV
Protons >30 MeV trapped in the inner Van Allen Belts
Radiation Type
Energy Levels
LET
keV.µm-1
Location and/or Effects
Trapped electrons in LEO
0.5–6 MeV
0.2
Electrons >0.5 MeV can penetrate some parts of the EVA (Extra
Vehicular Activity) suit
Trapped protons in LEO
<10 MeV
5
Do not penetrate spacecraft nor EVA suits. Are of little concern.
Trapped solar protons and light
nuclear particles
10–400 MeV
0.3–5
Penetrates EVA suits and spacecraft; produces low energy
but highly ionizing target fragments. Will knock out the lighter
particles (Z=1, Z=2) and neutrons.
Protons
100s of MeV
Not yet
Fluence >10 protons.cm-2.sr -1 .s-1
Heavy ions
10s–100s MeV
quantified
Will penetrate space suit but not spacecraft.
>50 MeV/nucleon, and
Z>1 with peaks of few
100s MeV
1–1,000
e.g. Fluence for Fe is 1/cm2
Solar Particle Events (SPE)
GCR and high energy secondary
fragments
Stopped by Earth’s magnetosphere and Van Allen Belts.
Can penetrate skin of current spacecraft and produce high and
low energy charged particles. Can produce pions whose dose
contribution is unknown.
For Fe energy levels are
10–10+14 MeV
Charged target fragments
(secondary particles)
< 10 MeV/nucleon on
average
2–1,200
Target fragments have short range and deposit large energies
at location. If within human body, can produce substantial
biological effects. Distribution falls to 1% of peak at 40 MeV.
Neutrons
0.1–500 MeV
Not yet quantified
High-energy protons interact with heavier nuclei in shielding and
in tissue to produce albedo neutrons that interact with atomic
nuclei to produce ionizing secondary particles.
About 50% of GCR neutrons H is from neutron >10 MeV, and
20% of total H aboard ISS is from neutrons >10 MeV
Reentrant electrons,
and splash albedo electrons
1 MeV–>1GeV
0.2–3
Reentrant electrons are decay products of unstable nuclei
produced by the trapped GCR ions.
The splash albedo electrons are those scattered upwards by the
interactions in the atmosphere.
These electrons are boosted to higher levels to increase the
dose by a factor of 10. Hence, trapped electron dose dominates
where shielding is thin, whereas reentrant and splash electrons
dominate when shielding is thickened !!!
Vol 31 No 4 / 21
Prominently, the protons
and the helium are in abundance and are major contributors to dose, but iron is much
lower in abundance yet is a
major contributor as well.
for six months. Their dose
equivalent received over a
6-month period is shown in
Figure 4. Aboard the ISS, astronauts would receive 0.48 mSv/
day, while in Martian orbit they
would receive 1.28 mSv/day, or
∼2.7 times more.
Radiation En
3 Route and
on Mars
On April 7, 2001, NASA
launched the Odyssey spacecraft (Figure 2) that carried on
board an instrument dubbed
MARIE (Martian Radiation
Environment Experiment).
MARIE is an instrument
designed to measure protons
and heavy ions in the energy
range that is most harmful to
humans. It transmitted radiation data while en route to and
from Mars orbit until its computers were damaged by a solar
particle event (SPE). The data it
sent back is shown in Figure 3.
The daily averaged dose
rate is in the vicinity of 25
mRad/day (250 μSv/day) with
spikes due to SPE reaching
2866 mRad/day (28.66 mSv/
day) at almost regular intervals
between 50–70 days.
Data from MARIE also indicated a higher density of particles while in orbit around Mars
than while in transit through
galactic space (Table 3).2
MARIE also detected
back-scattered albedo neutrons. These are created when
neutrons are knocked from the
nuclei during the interaction of
high-energy cosmic rays and the
Martian atmosphere.
The data indicate there is
not much difference in the
fluence whether in orbit or
en route, except in terms of
the >2 HZE particles (Martian
orbit has less fluence).
There are astronauts in the
lower Earth orbit aboard the
International Space Station
(ISS) who have stayed in orbit
22 / Vol 31 No 4
4 Comparisons
Figure 1: Particle abundance and their dose found in galactic
cosmic radiation (GCR), harmonized on a logarithmic scale and
their dose, in Rem.
Figure 2: Mars Odyssey was equipped with MARIE, the Martian
Radiation Environment Experiment, to study the radiation environment on Mars. Odyssey was launched April 7, 2001, and was
captured into orbit around Mars on October 24, 2001. MARIE transmitted radiation data while en route to and from Mars orbit until its
computers were damaged by a solar particle event (SPE).
In certain circumstances,
humans on Earth are subjected
to higher doses of radiation
than those received on Mars.
These are shown in Tables 4
and 5.3, 4 In cases of severely
injured trauma patients, for
example, immediate diagnostic
imaging is the basis of hospitals’ trauma units’ response,
and heavier doses than the
limits are incurred. As another
example, dose from one thyroid
scan is about 33 weeks on Mars
surface, and one breast scan
about 11–12 weeks.
Radiation doses from different NASA programs — the
shuttle, Apollo, Skylab, etc. — are
shown in Table 6. They are
reasonably high but the mission
durations were far too brief to
have detrimental effects.
Table 7 compares Earth
and Mars and shows that the
radiation received on Mars is
about 91 times that on Earth,
and that favourable accessibility
to Mars is available about every
two years.
How Much Dose
Will an Astronaut
5
Receive on a
Mission to Mars?
Figure 3: Daily average dose rate sent by MARIE (Martian Radiation
Environment Experiment), March 13, 2002, to September 30, 2003.
If humans do reach Mars and
habitation is to occur, then
what radiation dose will astronauts endure?
The available data are collected from instruments sent to
Mars and refer to actual radiation dose to which humans
have not yet been subjected;
hence the maximum dose
equivalent can only be estimates at this stage. These have
been derived from:
• GH(T) = 0.05+4(1-e-T/72)
in Sv;5 where GH(T) is the
Dose Equivalent in Sv; T
is the mission duration in
months, e.g. to Mars.
Figure 5 suggests that to
keep low dose equivalents,
the mission time should be
reduced to a minimum. Since
the orbital timing cannot
be changed, then another
approach must be considered,
such as faster rocketry or
improved countermeasures, i.e.
multifaceted means of astronaut protection.
Another calculation6 was
made using the available data
and typical mission durations
and assumed shielding.
• Typical journey time = 536
days in transit + 439 days
on Mars
• Mission time is then 975
days (approx. 2.67 years)
Lifetime extra risks are in
the vicinity of 3.4% — 2.4% for
males aged 55–64 years old and
16.7% for females aged 25–34
years old.
6 Radiation Limits
National Council for Radiation
Protection (NCRP) Report
#98 (1989) was revaluated
using new data in NCRP
Report #132 (2000) and sets
limits on lifetime exposure
Table 5: Mean radiation dose in cardiac imaging
Effective
Dose
(mSv)
Risk
(in order of
magnitude)
Thorax radiography
0.02
Negligible
(1:1,000,000)
Pelvic radiography
1
Minimal (1:
100,000)
PET scans – cardiac (drip/
intravenous)
2–4
Very Low
(1:10,000)
Diagnostic coronography
(5–10 min.)
2–4
Very Low
(1:10,000)
Coronary CT scans (prospective gating)
3–4
Very Low
(1:10,000)
3
Very Low
(1:10,000)
4–8
Very Low
(1:10,000)
Procedure
Figure 4: Comparison of dose equivalent between the International Space Station (ISS) and Mars Orbit.
Table 3: GCR fluence in outer space summarized from the MARIE
data provided by NASA.
Ion
Energy
En Route to
Mars
MeV
Proton Flux
(cm2-sr-s-MeV/n)-1
45–75
2 x 10-5
~ 2–4 x 10-5
75–105
7 x 10-5
~ 7–9 x 10-5
50–150
6 x 10-6
5–7 x 10-6
150–250
1.5 x 10-5
1–1.7 x 10-5
125–225
1–2 x 10-6
0.5x10-6 – 2x10-6
225–325
~ 4 x 10-6
2–5 x10-6
Helium Flux
HZE >2
Flux
In Orbit around
Mars
# of Patients
Myocardial scans – 90mTc
Coronary CT scans (retrospective gating)
10–14
Low (1:1000)
Myocardial Scans – 201Tl
18–20
Low (1:1 000)
Table 6: Comparative table of exposures*
Table 4: Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging in severely
injured trauma patients (mSv) compared to other diagnostic testing
scenarios
Type of Diagnostic Testing
Natural radioactivity in
Switzerland (1y)
Type of Exposure
Dose Equivalent
Mission to Mars
Around 200 Rem/mission [2 Sv)
(best estimate)
Shuttle (average skin dose)
~ 0.433 Rem/mission (~4.33 mSv)
Shuttle (highest skin dose)
7.864 Rem/mission (78.64 mSv)
Apollo 14 (highest skin dose)
1.4 Rem/mission (14 mSv)
Skylab 4 (highest skin dose)
17.8 Rem/mission (178 mSv)
Airline flight crew
200 mrem/y (2 mSv/y)
Dose (mSv)
Gas cooking range
0.02 mrem/y (0.2 µSv/y)
Dental prosthesis
0.02 mrem/y (0.2 µSv/y)
CT scan (chest)
700 mrem/event (7 mSv)
(NASA claims 1 mSv space radiation
≡ 3 chest X–rays)
Barium enema
400 mrem/event (4 mSv)
Background radiation
(Houston)
100 mrem/y (1 mSv/y)
Total Effective Dose
108
22.7
average dose to
trauma patients
Thyroid
172
58.5
Red Marrow
108
18.5
Breast (females)
40
20.9
* Courtesy NASA, Space Radiation Analysis Group, Johnson Space Center
Vol 31 No 4 / 23
that corresponds to a 5% risk.
The aimed-for lifetime risk for
astronauts is 3%.
The Effects of
7 Cosmic Galactic
Radiation (GCR)
Table 1 lists the characteristics
of GCR; we know GCR radiation has a greater detrimental
effect on human tissue than
the usual radiations we encounter on Earth.
Iron-56 has been identified
as the most potent contributor
to cellular damage. Mice irradiated with 1 GeV/nucleon of
Iron-56 particles showed acute
myeloid leukemia and hepatocellular carcinoma (forms of
cancer).
Mice irradiated with heavy
ions viz. C (energy 290 MeV/n)
and Fe (energy 500 MeV/n)
showed an inherited predisposition to renal carcinomas.
7.1 Effects on DNA
Ionizing radiation directly leads
to single and double-strand
breaks, and cluster breaks when
hit by a high-energy HZE particle, e.g. 56Fe. Many molecular
bonds are broken in the tissue
along the trajectory. Figure 6.
Though DNA is quite adept
at repairing single-strand breaks
by copying from the undamaged strands as templates, the
double-strand breaks, and the
cluster breaks in particular,
cause complex biological damage. The cells’ ability to do the
repair is impaired and DNA
deletions may occur that may
cause genetic aberrations and
possible latent cancer. The
damaged DNA also compromises cell reproduction.7
NASA estimates that up
to 35% of DNA would be
destroyed on a round-trip Mission to Mars.
7.2 Effects on
Chromosomes
There are 23 pairs of chromosomes in each cell (one chromosome from each parent).
They comprise a P arm and a
Q arm and span millions of
base pairs (the bonds joining
the two helical strands). They
contain about 3,000 genes per
chromosome and are the building blocks of DNA.
High-energy HZE particles and a high LET causes
fragmentation damage to
chromosomes. Changes in the
chromosome structure cause
latent health and development
problems and are associated
with some cancers.
• Deletions of the P arm are
identified in brain and
kidney tumours.
• Duplications of the Q arm
are associated with blood
disorders with the possibility of developing leukemia.
Normal DNA
Table 7: Earth – Mars comparisons
Mars
Sidereal Day
23.934 h
24.62 h
Background radiation
dose (depending on
altitude and location)
2.76 µSv/d
[0.276 mR/day, or
11.5 µR/h]
1 mSv/y
[19 µSv/wk]
[0.1 Rem/y]
~ 250 µSv/d
[~25 mR/day, or
1.04 mR/h]
91 mSv/y
[1.75 mSv/wk]
[9.1 Rems/y]
Radiation ratio Mars
/ Earth
Mars receives 91 times the radiation received
by Earth
Orbit: distance from
the Sun
149,600,000 km
(92.96 million miles),
almost circular
Orbital velocity
29.87 km/s
24.19 km/s
Orbit period
365.256 days
686.98 days
227,940,000 km
(141.62 million miles),
somewhat elliptical
Therefore: Hello Mars every 22.56 months = 22m 16d 9h 36 min
Figure 5: Maximum radiation dose (estimate) per mission
duration in days.
Irradiated DNA via water molecule
& free radical
Figure 6: Radiation Damage to DNA
24 / Vol 31 No 4
Earth
Irradiated DNA via X-Ray and by
Heavy Ion
Chromosomal damage is
being studied using mFISH
(multicolour fluorescence in situ
hydridazation) in bone marrow
cells, and mBAND (multicolour
banding in situ hybridization).8
Tests using mFISH indicated an
increase of abnormal cells (4.3
x Cs-137 induced gamma rays)
and chromosome breaks (4.2 x
Cs-137 induced gamma rays).9
Longer-lived biomarkers for the
high LET were identified using
mBAND.8
Astronauts wear dosimeters
and undergo bio-dosimetry evaluation to detect chromosome
damage in blood cells. Using
a method derived to determine the radiation dose after
a prolonged flight, significant
increases in aberrations were
observed after long missions.10
7.3 Late Radiation Effects
Late radiation effects appear
several years after radiation
exposure in space; hence the
tendency is to send “older”
astronauts into space. The
expectation is that younger
astronauts will live long enough
for the symptoms to develop.
An astronaut’s radiation
history is also checked in the
recruiting process.
7.3.1 Cataracts
An increase in cataract risk
has been observed in astronauts whose dose was >8 mSv
compared to those with <8
mSv. Yet, even relatively low
doses of GCR do increase the
incidence of cataracts.11 These
were observed in Russian
cosmonauts who have spent
prolonged periods of up to one
year in the MIR station.
7.3.2 Genetic Instability
Space radiation tests on living cells showed enhanced
genomic instability compared
to control cells in that some
10–20 divisions later, and even
up to 60 divisions later, the
irradiated cells change direction
to become cancer cells. Timing
for cell division depends on the
Table 8: Career whole-body dose equivalent (Sv-Eq) limits based on a lifetime excess risk of 3%*
Age in Years
25
35
45
55
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
NCRP Report# 98
1.5
1.0
2.5
1.75
3.25
2.50
4.0
3.0
NCRP Report # 132
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.6
1.5
0.9
3.0
1.7
* Data From National Council for Radiation Protection (NCRP) Reports #98 and #132
organ and can be from a few
hours to several days.12
7.3.3 Hereditary Effects
Hereditary effects resulting
from the inconsistent repair
of cluster-damaged DNA are
genetic deletions + chromosome damage leading to possible leukemia, brain, and/or
kidney tumours.
8
Effects of
Microgravity
Normal chromosome
The human body has adapted
itself to Earth’s gravity; its
biological structure and function have developed to suit the
earth’s environment. When
outside this envelope, the body
is disturbed. Following are
some areas of concern.
Damaged chromosome in a post
flight sample
Figure 7: Fragmentation Damage to Chromosomes by Galactic
Radiation
8.1 Space Sickness or
Space Adaptation
Syndrome
Or in other words motion sickness. About 40% of astronauts
who have ventured into space
have endured this and fortunately the symptoms wear
off after 2–3 days as the body
adapts to weightlessness.
8.2 Blood Circulation
Circulation is affected when
there is no gravity to balance
the pumping force of the heart,
hence the tendency toward
“puffy faces” and “chicken legs”
in space flights.13 Fortunately
these effects are reversible.
Other symptoms are nasal
congestion and headaches, and
swollen eyes: intraocular pressure was noticeable in Korea’s
first astronaut.14
Figure 8: Earth’s gravity pulls everything down, so our lower torso
and legs carry our body weight. In space, because of microgravity, astronauts float and their legs are largely unused. The resulting
muscular atrophy makes affected limbs look skinnier. Microgravity
can also be insufficient to offset the pumping of the heart, resulting
in a tendency toward puffy faces. These effects are reversible.
8.3 Balance and Orientation
Balance and orientation are disturbed when the body lacks its
normal points of reference. In space, the brain is receiving information via visual cues only, the eyes. Vestibular cues are no longer
coming from sensors detecting liquid movement in the ear canals.
Balance and orientation are much curtailed.
Vol 31 No 4 / 25
8.4 Muscular Atrophy
Muscles atrophy as the bones weaken due
to mineral loss viz. calcium, potassium,
and sodium. Bone degradation in the
lower limbs can be as high as 10%. These
changes can be mitigated by medication
and by vigorous exercise while on board.15
8.5 Vertebrae Separation,
or Relaxation
Vertebral relaxation occurs as a result of
microgravity and the spine elongates by up
to 7 cm. This is also reversible when back
on Earth. Ongoing space agencies research
programs hope to reduce or even eliminate these undesirable effects.
distribution over LET. Hence, discussions
of risk remain estimates.
9.3 Excess Relative Risk (ERR)
ERR is an expression of excess risk
relative to the baseline risks from X-rays
and gamma rays as they exist on Earth.
However, our understanding of ERR in
relation to thermal and fast neutrons generated within the cabin and from albedo
neutrons found on the Mars surface has
not been quantified.
9.4 Defining Sv/MeV
If we could define or to ascertain the dose
equivalent per units of particle energy, it
would enable the normalization of particle
energies.
10 Countermeasures
To reduce the uncertainties, the National
Council for Radiation Protection has published NCRP #153,18 a report outlining
topics for further research and for space
missions beyond low Earth orbit.
10.2 Nutrition and ImmuneEnhancing Drugs
A countermeasure to the cytotoxicity
induced by an HZE particle and the oxidative stress in a cell is selenomethionine.19,20
Another study evaluated the Bowman-Birk
Inhibitor Concentrate (BBIC), a derivative
from soy beans, and it is effective in providing protection against space-radiationinduced cytotoxicity.
10.3 On-Board Bio-Dosimetry
Astronauts are encouraged to undergo onboard bio-dosimetry evaluations to detect
for chromosome damage in blood cells.
10.4 Exposure Surveillance
Exposure surveillance is implemented
and monitored during the mission. Active
monitoring on board reduces the radiation received by locating the best-shielded
locations.21 All astronauts wear dosimeters.
10.5 Monitoring the Mission Time
The duration of a mission must be
monitored viz-a-viz the radiation received
by each astronaut. Accounting for the
astronaut’s previous dose history will be
a more accurate method of assessing the
life-time dose.
Figure 9: Vertebral relaxation in space
occurs as a result of microgravity and the
spine elongates by up to 7 cm. This is
reversible back on earth.
9 Uncertainties
A number of uncertainties surrounding
radiation exposure on prolonged space
missions still exist.
9.1 Heavy HZE Particles
We need to develop a greater understanding of the effects of the heavy HZE particles on tissue and on organs. In particular, Iron-56 has been identified as the most
potent contributor to cellular damage.
Mice irradiated with 1 GeV/nucleon of
Iron-56 particles showed acute myeloid
leukemia and hepatocellular carcinoma
(forms of cancer).16 Irradiation with heavy
ions viz. C (energy 290 MeV/n) and Fe
(energy 500 MeV/n) showed an inherited
predisposition to renal carcinomas.17
neutrons. Ongoing experiments are in
progress to establish the effectiveness of
these materials against HZE particles.
Figure 10: Galactic cosmic radiation
(GCR) dose at 5 cm depth tested for better
shielding on Mars missions
9.2 Q-Factor
The Q-Factor is a LET-dependent factor, a
multiplier of the absorbed dose to derive
the dose equivalent. There is still considerable uncertainty regarding HZE and its
10.1 Optimizing the Shielding
NASA states that shielding that is up to
35% effective in protecting the astronauts
against galactic particles is a viable compromise between unacceptable concentrations from secondary radiation caused by
neutron accumulations inside the cabin
on the one hand and excess weight and
logistical constraints on the other. There
are also logistic and weight constraints in
providing complete shielding.
Research on materials showed that
polyethylene, and lithium hydride, i.e.
materials with a high Hydrogen content,
produce far less secondary radiation, viz.
26 / Vol 31 No 4
10.6 Creating a Biological
Risk Factor
Creating a biological risk factor is advocated as a means of predicting, or assessing risk, by non-invasive methods where
metabolic changes can be sampled during
the mission. However, a biological risk factor might be affected by microgravity since
things like lymphocyte locomotion and
proliferation rates, which are integral to
the immune response, are compromised.
10.7 A Better Understanding of the
Induction of Cancer
The goal here is to ascertain when a cell
mutates and at what dose level, and then
to devise the means to find its countermeasures. A tall order indeed.
11 Risk
To reduce the risk, radiation doses are
chosen to reduce the long-term effects on
Figure 11: Evolution of risk for Mars
exploration. NASA hopes risk reductions
are achievable in periodic breakthroughs
where uncertainties can be halved.
the mission astronauts. These effects may
manifest themselves only several years
after the mission has been completed.
Hence the principle of ALARA is implemented to ensure astronauts do not even
approach these limits.22
Using earlier assessment from BEIR
lll, based on low levels of gamma radiation, e.g. <0.1 Sv, and low LET, the effect
induces an increase of cancer risk of 1
per 8 million per 10 μSv. This means that
Endnotes
1. Nelson, Gregory A. Fundamental
Space Radiobiology. Gravitational
and Space Biology Bulletin, June
2003, 16(2), pp. 29–36.
7.
for astronauts subjected to 0.80 Sv on a
Martian mission, the risk increase is 1%,
or 1 fatal cancer per 100 astronauts.23 This
result is an extrapolation of using the low
LET to apply as the high LET. There is an
uncertainty here since no human biological data is available at the high LET.
NASA hopes risk reductions are achievable in breakthroughs where the uncertainties can be halved in, say, 5-year intervals.22
NASA’s Ongoing
Program
Since Mars and Earth are at their closest
proximity every two years, that dictates
the frequency of the probes. A Test Bed
Lander is scheduled for 2011, and a
Sample Return probe for 2013.
Parting Shot
How about using stem cells to regenerate
the DNA and the dying cells that result
from radiation? Stem cells are susceptible
to radiation as well, leaving the countermeasure of storing the stem cells on Earth,
and using them on the astronauts upon
their return.
Acknowledgement
Numerous figures and information have
been obtained from NASA databases and
archives courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Simulated Mission to Mars. Radioactivity in the Environment, 2005, 7,
pp. 894–901.
12. Space Research, Office of Biological and Physical Research Vol.1
No.1, Fall 2001. NASA.
Hellweg, C.E. & Baumstark-Kahn,
C. Getting Ready for the Manned
Mission to Mars: The Astronauts’
Risk From Space Radiation.
Naturwissenschaften, 2007, 94, pp.
517–526.
13. Canadian Space Agency. Space
Travel and the Effects of Weightlessness on the Human Body. Information Sheet.
2. Lee K., Andersen V., Pinsky L. et
al. Cosmic Ray Flux Measurements
made by MARIE in Mars Orbit.
28th International Cosmic Ray
8. USRA – Universities Space
Conference (2003), pp. 1769–1772.
Research Association, High Energy
3. Tien, H.C., Tremblay, L.N.,
Space Research.
Brenneman F., et al. Radiation
9. Rithidech, K.N., L. Honikel, E.B.
Exposure From Diagnostic ImagWhorton. mFISH analysis of chroing in Severely Injured Trauma
mosomal damage in bone marrow
Patients. J. Trauma, 2007, 62(1), pp
cells collected from CBA/CaJ mice
151–155.
following whole body exposure to
4. Monney, P., Prior, J.O., Rizzo, E.,
heavy ions (56Fe ions), Radiation
Locca, D., Bischof, D.A., Qanadli,
and Environmental Biophysics, 2007
S., & Jeanrenaud, X., of CHUV
46(2), pp. 137-45.
Lausanne. Cardiac Imaging:
10. George, K., Durante M., Wu, H.,
Specific Clinical Role of Newly
Willingham, V., Badhwar, G., &
developed Non-Invasive TechCucinotta, F.A. Chromosome
niques. University of Lausanne.
Aberrations in the Blood Lym2008, 4(159), pp. 1304–10.
phocytes of Astronauts after Space
5. Pissarenko, N.F. Radiation SituaFlight. Radiation Research, 2001,
tion Determining the Possibility
156, pp. 731–738.
of a Manned Flight to Mars and
11. Cucinotta, F., Manuel, F.K. et al.
Back. Advanced Space Research,
Space Radiation and Cataracts
1992, 12(No.2–3), pp. 435–439.
in Astronauts. Radiation Research,
6. Friedberg, W., Copeland, K.,
2001, 156, pp. 460–466.
Duke, F.E. et al. Health Aspects
of Radiation Exposure on a
14. Chung, K., An, C., & Huh, K.
The Effect of Diurnal Variation
of Intraocular Pressure. Aerospace
Medical Center, ROKAF, Cheongwon-Gun, Chung Buk, Korea.
15. Yumoto, K., Globus, R. et al.
Short Term Effects of Whole-Body
Exposure to 56Fe Ions in Combination With Musculoskeletal Disuse
on Bone Cells. Radiation Research,
0033–7587/10. 2010 Radiation
Research Society.
16. Weill, M.M., Bedford, J.S., Bielefeldt-Ohmann, H. et al. Incidence
of Acute Myeloid Leukemia and
Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Mice
Irradiated with 1GeV/nucleon
56
Fe Ions. Radiation Research, 2009,
172(2), pp. 213–219.
17. Nakadai, T., Nojima K., Kobayashi
I., et al. HZE Radiation Effects
for Hereditary Renal Carcinomas.
International Space Radiation
Laboratory NIRS, Chiba, Japan.
18. National Council for Radiation
Protection. Information Needed To
Make Radiation Protection Recommendation For Space Missions Beyond
Low Earth Orbits. NCRP #153
(2006). Bethesda, Maryland.
19. Kennedy, A.R., Zhou, Z., Donahue, J.J., & Ware, J.H. Protection
against Adverse Effects induced by
Space Radiation by the BowmanBirk Inhibitor and Antioxidants.
Radiation Research, 2006, 166(2,
August). pp. 327–332.
20. Kennedy, A.R., Ware, J.H. et al.
Selenomethionine Protects Against
Adverse Biological Effects Induced
by Radiation. Free Radical Biology
and Medicine, 2004, 36(2), pp.
259–266.
21. NASA Facts, Johnson Space Center. Understanding Space Radiation.
FS-2002-10-080-JSC, Oct. 2002.
22. National Academy of Sciences,
USA. Managing Space Risks in
the New Era of Space Exploration,
Committee on the Evaluation
of Radiation Shielding for Space
Exploration. Pre-publication
copy. ISBN: 0-309-11384-9, 2008,
108 pages.
23. Sion N. Radiation Protection For
Astronauts on Prolonged Space
Missions. Proceedings of IRPA12,
Full Papers, Topic lll 5.4 RP in
Flights and Space, Paper # 0281.
Vol 31 No 4 / 27
Health Physics Corner
Monitoring exposure of on-site visitors:
Whose responsibility is it?
by Emélie Lamothe, Health Physics Specialist
Hi and welcome back. Have you wrestled with last issue’s question? I have, and for better
or worse, here is my personal take on the situation.
Last Issue’s Question
A CNSC inspector is coming to your
site. Whose Thermo Luminescent
Dosimeter (TLD) should the inspector wear?
Answer
The following is based on my understanding of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act
and its Regulations. I invite our CNSC
members to correct me if I am wrong.
The situation is quite straightforward
for workers at a given site: the licensee is
responsible for ascertaining and recording
dose to the nuclear energy workers and, by
extension, to other monitored personnel
at their site.
The issue becomes murky when a monitored person is monitored by different
licensees at different sites, as is the case
for a CNSC inspector. The question then
becomes, who is responsible for monitoring? And, if you push this a bit further,
who reports the dose to the National Dose
Registry (NDR) and to which site does the
dose need to be attributed?
The CNSC is responsible for maintaining the dose records for their inspectors.
Further, the CNSC is responsible for
designating inspectors as nuclear energy
workers, for providing training, and for
providing dosimetry (i.e. a TLD). There
is no expectation that the licensee will
provide monitoring for inspectors. The
licensee must ensure the inspector is
wearing a TLD while on site, must provide
a TLD if required, and must report the
resulting dose to the CNSC.
This issue’s question
A technician took a sample of moderator water for analysis, and put it in
his pocket. The water had very little
in the way of radionuclides, except for
tritium: it was 444 GBq / kg water.
If the vial broke and 10 ml of the 20
ml contents were absorbed through
his skin, how much dose would he be
expected to eventually receive, assuming no intervention, e.g. no increased
fluid intake? What actions should a
health physicist take on discovering
this uptake?
Have fun! Remember, this
column’s for you. Send your answers
and suggestions for future issues to
the CRPA Secretariat or eslamothe@
hotmail.com.
Licensees can request that the inspector also wear their company’s TLD while
at site. In this case, the dose to this
badge is solely attributed to the activities
performed by the inspector while on the
licensee’s site and is reported directly to
the CNSC and not to NDR. The inspector’s personal TLD continues to reflect
occupational exposure for inclusion into
NDR by the CNSC’s licensed dosimetry
service provider.
À qui revient la responsabilité du contrôle de l’exposition
des visiteurs sur place?
par Emélie Lamothe, spécialiste en radioprotection
Bonjour et bienvenue à nouveau. La question du dernier numéro représentait-elle
un défi pour vous? Pour ma part, elle m’a bien fait réfléchir dans tous les sens. Vous
trouverez ci-dessous mon opinion personnelle à cet égard.
Réponse
L’opinion suivante est basée sur ma
compréhension de la Loi sur la sûreté
et la réglementation nucléaires et de ses
Règlements. J’invite nos membres de la
CCSN à me corriger si j’ai tort.
La situation est une évidence pour les
travailleurs d’un site donné : le détenteur de permis est responsable d’assurer
le contrôle des doses reçues par les
travailleurs en énergie nucléaire et, par
extension, par les autres membres du
personnel suivis sur le site de travail, puis
d’enregistrer lesdites doses.
La question s’embrouille lorsqu’une
personne est suivie par plusieurs détenteurs de permis sur différents sites, comme
c’est le cas pour un inspecteur de la
CCSN, par exemple. La question devient
28 / Vol 31 No 4
Question du dernier numéro
Un inspecteur de la CCSN vient
évaluer votre site. À qui appartient le
dosimètre thermoluminescent (DTL)
que l’inspecteur devra porter?
alors : « À qui revient la responsabilité
du suivi? » Et pour pousser la chose un
peu plus loin : « Qui est responsable de
rapporter la dose au Fichier dosimétrique
national (FDN) et à quel site doit-on attribuer la dose? »
La CCSN est responsable de maintenir à jour les dossiers de dosimétrie
pour ses inspecteurs. Elle est en outre
responsable de désigner les inspecteurs
Coin des spécialiste en radioprotection
comme travailleurs en énergie nucléaire, de leur donner
la formation nécessaire et de leur fournir un DTL. Il n’y
a aucune attente précisant si le détenteur de permis doit
assurer un suivi aux inspecteurs; il est toutefois responsable de s’assurer que l’inspecteur porte un DTL lors de sa
présence au site, de lui fournir un DTL au besoin et de
rapporter la dose résultante à la CCSN.
Les détenteurs de permis peuvent demander que
l’inspecteur porte aussi le DTL de leur entreprise lors
de sa présence au site de travail. Dans ce cas, la dose
de ce dosimètre est attribuée uniquement aux activités
effectuées par l’inspecteur lors de sa présence au site et
est rapportée directement à la CCSN, et non au FDN.
Le DTL personnel de l’inspecteur continue de refléter
l’exposition en milieu de travail et ses résultats sont
ajoutés au FDN par le fournisseur autorisé de services de
dosimétrie de la CCSN.
Question du présent numéro
Un technicien prend un échantillon de 20 ml d’eau virole pour analyse et le place dans sa poche. L’eau a une teneur très faible en radionucléides, sauf en tritium : celui-ci a une concentration de 444 GBq
/ kg d’eau. Si le flacon se brise et que 10 ml du contenu est absorbé
par la peau du technicien, quelle est la dose qu’il aura éventuellement
reçue, en tenant pour acquis qu’il n’y a aucune intervention (par
exemple aucune augmentation de la consommation de liquides par
le technicien)? Quelles actions un spécialiste de la radioprotection
devrait-il entreprendre suite à la découverte de cette absorption?
Amusez-vous! Souvenez-vous que cette rubrique s’adresse à vous!
Envoyez vos réponses et vos suggestions pour les prochains numéros
au secrétariat de l’ACRP ou encore faites-les-moi parvenir par courriel
à l’adresse eslamothe@hotmail.com.
(. . . continued from page 17)
expertise or interest. There are a few
minor technical errors in the text, such
as a sentence on page 113 which reads
“Radioactive waste experts were more
concerned about the long-range risk
of other transuranics, especially technetium-99” (italics added). These errors
tended to stand out but they did not
adversely impact the author’s message.
The major weakness of the book is
its ending. The main story ends with the
passage of the 1987 amendments to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, after which the
author relates the entire history of the
Yucca Mountain project (1987–2009) in
two pages. This short section has the feel
of an afterthought and it might better
have been relegated to an after word.
The Road to Yucca Mountain is not a
technical introduction to the subject of
high-level waste management, but it is
a good summary of the political controversies and regulatory missteps that
have plagued the American program,
and it is a valuable cautionary tale as the
Canadian program moves into its next
phase.
Vol 31 No 4 / 29
Submission Procedures
Message du rédacteur en chef / Editor’s Note
Authors submitting manuscripts for consideration
are asked to follow these guidelines.
1. Submit manuscripts (in English or French)
electronically as attachments (in Microsoft
Word®).
2. Include the title of the paper, author(s) name(s)
and affiliation(s), and email address to which
correspondence should be sent.
3. Include an abstract of no more than 200 words
and a biographical note of not more than 50
words for the author and any co-authors.
4. Submission of a manuscript implies that it is
not being considered for publication elsewhere.
Once accepted for publication in the Bulletin,
consent from the editor must be obtained
before a manuscript, or any part of it, may be
published elsewhere in the same form.
5. Authors are invited to submit manuscripts at
any time during the year to
Editor (c/o CRPA Secretariat)
ph: 613-253-3779
Deadlines
Materials must be received by the editor no later
than the following dates:
Number 1 .....................January 15
Number 2 .....................April 15
Number 3 .....................July 15
Number 4 .....................October 15
Advertising
While advertisements are sought after and
accepted to offset the production costs of the
Bulletin, the newsletter is published primarily
for, and on behalf of, CRPA / ACRP members.
Therefore inclusion of advertisements is entirely
at the discretion of the association. CRPA / ACRP
reserves the right to reject, omit, or cancel any
advertisements that are not in keeping with the
professional nature of the Bulletin or in any other
way inappropriate for our members.
Advertorials
Advertorials are a new advertising feature for the
Bulletin and are available at the same rate as
display advertising. If a client requires assistance with writing, editing, or production of their
advertorial, these services can be negotiated with
the production company responsible for producing the Bulletin. For more information, contact
Michelle Boulton at michelle.com@shaw.ca.
Publishing Office
For rates, technical specifications, deadlines, and
any information about advertising, contact the
publishing office.
. . . suite de la page 9 / continued from page 9
idées, notre talent compense le manque
de ressources; il suffit d’y mettre le temps.
Votre CA a d’ailleurs revu le processus de
nomination des membres aux élections et
il a étudié la possibilité de tenir des élections électroniques. À vous de jouer. Et le
premier geste est de se présenter au sein
des comités de l’ACRP ou simplement de
vous faire entendre auprès de votre CA.
Les plus discrets proposeront des projets
mobilisateurs, les plus enthousiastes se
présenteront aux élections, mais il faut
vaincre cette apathie que je qualifiais gentiment d’inertie lors de mon mandat à la
présidence. Il faut bouger, et les élections
sont un bon départ.
Heureusement, j’ai le Bulletin pour
canaliser ma fougue. Et ce Bulletin est
soutenu par des membres comme vous qui
contribuent à ajouter de la valeur pour le
membre de l’ACRP. Nous commençons
à être victimes de notre succès, la banque
d’articles commence à s’étoffer. Ce moisci, j’ai le plaisir d’accueillir Nick Sion qui
nous propose un article sur la radioprotection dans l’espace. Nick avait présenté ce
sujet sidéral à Edmonton en 2010. Nous
vous proposons comme motivateur un
directeur qui n’a pas la langue dans sa
poche, Jeff Sandeman, qui nous révèle les
raisons qui l’ont poussé à joindre le CA de
l’ACRP. Cette édition électorale est bien
sûr assaisonnée à la sauce de nos collaborateurs habituels.
J’espère qu’après la lecture de ce
Bulletin, vous aurez l’envie farouche de
nous faire part de vos commentaires ou de
votre opinion, de proposer un membre de
l’ACRP au CA ou bien de vous proposer
vous-même. Allez, vous pouvez faire la
différence comme plusieurs bénévoles de
l’ACRP l’ont fait avant vous. Mais tout
commence par un vote.
Bonne lecture !
Stéphane
Rédacteur en chef, Bulletin de l’ACRP
Happy reading!
Stéphane
Editor-in-chief, CRPA Bulletin
Ph: (306) 343-8519
Email: michelle.com@shaw.ca
30 / Vol 31 No 4
resources—that’s too easy. We can do a lot
with concepts and ideas; our talent can
make up for our lack of resources—it’s
simply a matter of putting the time into
it. Your Board of Directos has furthermore reviewed the process of nominating
members for elections and studied the
possibility of holding elections electronically. The ball is in your court. And the
first thing to do is join a CRPA committee
or simply voice your opinion to the Board
of Directors. The more discreet among
you may propose projects for mobilization while the more outgoing may stand
for election—but most importantly, we
must overcome this apathy, which I kindly
called “inertia” during my mandate as
President. We need to get things moving,
and elections are a good place to start.
Fortunately, I have the Bulletin through
which to channel my fervour. And
remember that the Bulletin is supported
by members like you, who help add value
for the CRPA membership. In fact, we are
becoming the victims of our own success;
the bank of articles is starting to overflow.
This month, I am pleased to welcome
Nick Sion, whose article deals with radiation safety in space. Nick presented this
celestial subject in Edmonton in 2010. We
also have a stirring piece by Jeff Sandeman—not usually one to mince his words—
explaining what spurred him to join the
CRPA’s Board of Directors. Of course,
this electoral edition is also peppered with
the thoughts and views of our regular
contributors.
My hope is that reading the Bulletin
will give you the unquenchable desire to
share your comments or opinions with
us, to nominate a CRPA member for the
Board of Directors or even to step forward
as a candidate yourself. Go on—you can
make a difference just as many CRPA
volunteers have done before you. But it all
begins with a vote.
Message du Président / President’s Message
. . . suite de la page 7 / continued from page 7
des Canadiens et de l’environnement ».
Étant donné que le comité organisateur
local est composé de membres chevronnés
de l’ACRP, il n’est pas surprenant que les
meilleurs spécialistes mondiaux tels que
Dre Claire Cousins (présidente de la Commission internationale de protection radiologique), Dr Norman Genter (président
du Comité scientifique des Nations Unies
sur les effets du rayonnement atomique),
Dr Ken Kase (président de l’Association
internationale de radioprotection) et Dr
Sigurour Magnusson (président du comité
des normes radiologiques de l’Agence
international de l’énergie atomique, chef
de la direction de l’Icelandic Radiation
Safety Authority, et Chef du Nordic
Radiation Protection Society), soient inclus
sur la liste des conférenciers. Donc, si vous
n’avez pas déjà réservé vos billets d’avion et
votre chambre d’hôtel, je vous suggère de
le faire rapidement. De plus, nous sommes
presque tous intimidés par ces grands
spécialistes, nous demandant « que puis-je
dire après eux? » Si tel est le cas, rappelezvous que c’est notre congrès annuel et que
c’est un moment pour nous d’apprendre.
Apprendre de nos conférenciers, mais
également d’apprendre les uns des autres à
mieux résoudre nos problèmes quotidiens.
Alors, n’hésitez pas à vous inscrire au
congrès et à faire parvenir vos résumés de
présentation sur un sujet que vous jugez
pertinent pour vos collègues.
Sandu Sonoc
Président, ACRP
formed of CRPA’s best, it is no surprise
that the list of invited speakers includes
some of the top specialists in the world:
Dr. Claire Cousins (Chair of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection), Dr. Norman Genter (Chair
of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation),
Dr. Ken Kase (International Radiation
Protection Association President), and
Dr. Sigurour Magnusson (Chairman of
the International Atomic Energy Agency
Radiation Standards Committee, CEO of
the Icelandic Radiation Safety Authority,
and Head of the Nordic Radiation Protection Society). If you have not booked your
plane tickets and hotel rooms already, I
suggest you do so soon. And something
else—almost all of us are intimidated by
these big names and we may think, “what
can I say after them?” Well, remember that
this is our annual conference and it is the
place and time where all of us learn—learn
from our invited guest speakers but also
learn from one another how to better
solve our day-to-day problems. So do not
hesitate to register for the conference and
to send your abstract on a topic that you
think will be useful to your colleagues.
Sandu Sonoc
President, CRPA
Why bother serving on the CRPA Board?
. . . continued from page 16
with colleagues outside of the normal
regulator-licensee relationship.
So what? Well, since I find value in
being part of CRPA and I want it to grow
and improve, and since the only way that’s
going to happen is if people volunteer to
try and get things done, I figured I’d better
get off my fat, lazy butt and do my share.
Changes and improvements may come
pretty slowly at times, but they won’t get
done at all if nobody tries. And when those
changes do come about, it’s rewarding.
At the cost of a few hours a month,
and a couple of Saturdays each year given
up for meetings (travel expenses and
such are covered by the association), it’s
definitely worth it. Plus, there is one other
saving grace. The people are GREAT!
Every person I’ve met on the board gives
a damn. We don’t always (ever?) agree, but
every person cares about CRPA and wants
to see it grow and improve. At the end of
the day, that is what counts. Oh . . . and it
looks good on a resume, too!
My two cents’ worth.
Jeff Sandeman
Director, CRPA
Processus de soumission
Les auteurs désirant soumettre des manuscrits
pour considération sont priés de suivre ces lignes
directrices.
1. Soumettre les manuscrits (en anglais ou en
français) par attachement électronique (sous
format Microsoft Word®).
2. Inclure le titre de la communication, le(s) nom(s)
et l’affiliation de l’(des) auteur(s) et l’adresse
courriel à laquelle la correspondance devrait
être envoyée.
3. Inclure un résumé d’un maximum de 200 mots
et une note biographique d’un maximum de 50
mots pour l’auteur et tout co-auteur, s’il y a lieu.
4. La soumission d’un manuscrit implique qu’il
n’est pas considéré ailleurs pour publication.
Une fois sa publication acceptée dans le Bulletin, il est essentiel d’obtenir le consentement
du rédacteur en chef avant qu’un manuscrit, ou
toute partie d’un manuscrit, puisse être publié
ailleurs sous le même format.
5. Les auteurs sont invités à soumettre des manuscrits à tout moment au cours de l’année à
Rédacteur en chef (secrétariat de l’ACRP)
Tél : (613) 253-3779
Courriel : secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca
Dates limites
Le matériel doit être reçu par le rédacteur en chef
au plus tard par les dates suivantes :
Numéro 1 .....................15 janvier
Numéro 2 .....................15 avril
Numéro 3 .....................15 juillet
Numéro 4 .....................15 octobre
Publicités
Bien que les publicités soient recherchées et
acceptées pour contrer les coûts de production
du Bulletin, la lettre est d’abord publiée pour et
au nom des membres de l’ACRP. Ainsi, le fait
d’inclure des annonces demeure entièrement à
la discrétion de l’association. L’ACRP se réserve
le privilège de refuser, omettre ou annuler toute
publicité qui ne serait pas pertinente à la nature
professionnelle du Bulletin ou qui serait d’une
manière quelconque inappropriée pour nos
membres.
Articles publicitaires
Les articles publicitaires sont une nouvelle option
de publicité dans le Bulletin et sont disponibles
au même taux que les publicités par annonce. Si
un client a besoin d’appui avec la rédaction, l’édition ou la production de son article publicitaire,
ces services peuvent être négociés auprès de
l’entreprise responsable de la production du Bulletin. Pour plus d’information, contactez Michelle
Boulton à michelle.com@shaw.ca.
Bureau de publication
Pour les taux, les spécifications techniques, les
échéanciers et toute autre information au sujet de
la publicité, contactez le bureau de publication.
Tél : (306) 343-8519
Courriel : michelle.com@shaw.ca
Vol 31 No 4 / 31
Coming Events /
Réunions à venir
• 44th Health Physics Society Mid-Year
Topical Meeting on Radiation
Measurements February 6–9, 2011,
Charleston, SC For more information, visit
www.hps.org/meetings/meeting27.html.
• International Laser Safety Conference
March 14–17, 2011, San Jose, CA For more
information, visit www.laserinstitute.org/
conferences/ilsc/conference.
• 2011 CRPA Conference May 8–12, 2011,
Ottawa, ON For more information, visit
the website at www.crpa-acrp.com.
• 56th annual meeting of the Health Physics
Society Jun 26–30, 2011, Palm Beach, FL
For more information, visit www.hps.org/
meetings/meeting28.html.
• Living with Radiation—Engaging with
Society, IRPA 13 May 13–18, 2012,
Glasgow, Scotland For more information,
visit www.irpa13glasgow.com.
CRPA Corporate Members /
ACRP Membres corporatifs
ALARA Consultants
Allan Seitz
9556-27 Ave.
Edmonton, AB T6N 1B2
tel: 780-944-2557
fax: 780-944-2558
www.alaraconsultants.com
F & J Specialty Products
F. M. Gavila
404 Cypress Rd.
Ocala, FL USA 34472
tel: 352-680-1177
fax: 352-680-1454
www.fjspecialty.com
Atomix Nuclear Services
Bruce Conning
Unit 1, 250 Thompson Drive
Cambridge, Ontario
Canada N1T 2E3
tel: 519-624-7233
fax: 519-624-6853
www. atomixnuclear.com
Gamble Technologies
Janice Langaigne
6535 Millcreek Drive, Unit 58
Mississauga, ON L5N 2M2
tel: 905-812-9200 or
800-268-2735
fax: 905-812-9203
www.gtl.ca
BC Centre for Disease Control
Terry Spock
Main Floor, 655 12th Ave W
Vancouver, BC V5Z 4R4
p: 604-707-2442
f: 604-707-2441
www.bccdc.ca
Mirion Technologies
Louis Biacchi
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA USA 92614
tel: 888-419-10000 or
949-419-1000, ext 2316
fax: 949-296-1130
www.mirion.com
Bubble Technology
Industries Inc.
Dr. Robert Noulty
31278 Highway 17
Chalk River, ON KOJ 1J0
tel: 613-589-2456
fax: 613-589-2763
www.bubbletech.ca
Canadian Association of Medical
Radiation Technologists
Mark Given
Suite 1000, 85 Albert Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 6A4
tel: 613-234-0012
fax: 613-234-1097
www.camrt.ca
Canberra Co.
Jim Outos
West - 50B Caldari Road
Concord, ON L4K 4N8
tel: 905-660-5373
fax: 905-660-9693
www.canberra.com
What's Up?
SPEAK OUT
Do you know of an upcoming event that
might be of interest to your fellow CRPA
members? Send the event information to
secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca and we can
include it in the next issue of the Bulletin.
Quoi de neuf?
Connaissez-vous une activité qui pourrait
intéresser vos collègues de
l'ACRP? Faites-en parvenir les renseignements relatifs à l'adresse courriel
secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca et nous pourrons en faire la promotion dans la
section "Réunions à venir" du Bulletin.
32 / Vol 31 No 4
Danatec Educational Services
Warren Bailey
201, 11450 29th St. SE
Calgary, AB T2Z 3V5
Phone:403-723-3289
wbailey@danatec.com
www.danatec.com
DURRIDGE Company, Inc.
Derek Lane-Smith
7 Railroad Avenue, Suite D
Bedford, MA USA 01730
tel: 781-687-9556
fax: 781-687-0955
www.durridge.com
Energy Solutions Canada
Ron Leblond
Head Office
190 Wilkinson Rd., Unit #2
Brampton, ON L6T 4W3
tel: 800-665-7736
fax: 905-450-8523
www.monserco.com
Harpell Associates Inc.
1272 Speers Road, Unit 2
Oakville, ON L6L 2X4
tel: 905-825-2588
800-387-7168
fax: 905-825-0234
www.harpellassociates.com
Hopewell Designs, Inc.
Joy Garrett
5940 Gateway Drive
Alpharetta, GA USA 30004
tel: 770-667-5770
fax: 770-667-7539
www.hopewelldesigns.com
J L Shepherd & Associates
Mary Shepherd
1010 Arroyo Avenue
San Fernando, CA USA 91340-1822
tel: 818-898-2361
fax: 818-361-8095
www.jlshepherd.com
Landauer, Inc
2 Science Road
Glenwood, IL USA 60425
tel: 708-755-7000
fax: 708-755-7011
www.landauerinc.com
Lou Champagne Systems Inc.
Lou Champagne
Unit 6B,1195 North Service Rd. W.
Oakville, ON L6M 2W2
tel: 905-338-1176
fax: 905-338-6426
www.louchampagnesystemsinc.com
Marshield—
Division of Mars Metal Co.
David Holden
4140 Morris Drive
Burlington, ON L7L 5L6
tel: 800-381-5335
fax: 905-637-8841
www.marshield.com
www.marsmetal.com
National Dosimetry Services
Radiation Protection Bureau
Dan Karov
775 Brookfield Road, 6301D
Ottawa, ON K1A 1C1
tel: 800-261-6689
fax: 613-957-8698
800-252-6272
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/nds
Radiation Measurement
Systems
Ernie Franzese
81 Romeo Crescent
Woodbridge, ON L4L 7A2
tel: 905-856-5950
fax: 905-851-7473
email: rmsys@rogers.com
www.radiation-measurementsystems.com
Ray-Bar Engineering
Vince Wohler
PO Box 415
697 Foothill Boulevard
Azusa, CA USA 91702
tel: 626-969-1818
fax: 626-969-6510
www.raybar.com
Stuart Hunt and Associates
Trevor Beniston
20 Rayborn Crescent
St. Albert, AB T8N 4B1
tel: 780-458-0291 or
800-661-4591
fax: 780-459-0746
www.stuarthunt.com
Technical Management
Services
Robin Rivard
PO Box 226
New Hartford, CT USA 06057
tel: 860-738-2440
fax: 860-738-9322
www.tmscourses.com
Uni-Vert Tech
Willy Rhein
3737 Notre-Dame Ouest
Montreal, QQ H4C 1P8
tel: 514-573-2858
fax: 514-937-9440
www3.sympatico.ca/rad.tech/
english.html
CRPA membership is divided into five
categories: full members (includes
retired members), associate and student members, honourary members,
and corporate members. Application
forms are available on the CRPA
website (www.crpa-acrp.ca) or from
the secretariat (secretariat2007@
crpa-acrp.ca).
Les membres de l’ACRP sont classés selon cinq catégories: membres
à part entière (y compris les membres
retraités), membres associés et
étudiants, membres honoraires, et
membres corporatifs. Les formulaires
de demande d’adhésion peuvent être
obtenus sur le site Web (www.crpaacrp.ca) ou auprès du secrétariat
(secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca).
Contributors
Chris Clement, a certified health
physicist, has worked in radiation
safety since the 1980s, first on
environmental restoration projects,
then with the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission, where he was the
director of radiation protection when
he left in 2008. He is currently the
scientific secretary of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection.
Chris Clement, expert de radiophysique médicale sanitaire agréé,
travaille en radioprotection depuis
les années 1980, d’abord dans des
projets de restauration environnementale, puis avec la Commission
canadienne de sûreté nucléaire, où
il portait le chapeau de directeur de
la radioprotection à son départ en
2008. Aujourd’hui, il occupe le poste
de secrétaire scientifique de la Commission internationale de protection
radiologique (CIPR).
Emélie Lamothe is a health physicist
and member of CRPA. In her professional life, she has worked in the
fields of research and development,
dosimetry, QA, health and safety,
and emergency preparedness.
Emélie Lamothe est spécialiste
de radioprotection et membre de
l’ACRP. Au cours de sa carrière, elle
a travaillé dans les domaines de la
recherche et du développement, de
la dosimétrie, de l’assurance qualité,
de la santé et sécurité en milieu de
travail et de la protection civile.
Brent Preston currently holds the
position of manager at the Radiation
Safety Institute of Canada National
Laboratories, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. He provides scientific oversight
for operations at the National
Laboratories including radiation
protection, radiation measurement,
and radon dosimetry systems. Brent
holds a BSc (Hons) in physics from
the University of Winnipeg and a
MSc in theoretical physics from the
University of Guelph.
Michael Grey is a senior analyst with
Candesco Corporation in Toronto,
Ontario, and past-president of
CRPA.
Michael Grey est analyste principal
chez Candesco Corporation de
Toronto, Ontario, et ancien président de l’ACRP.
Brent Preston est gérant des laboratoires nationaux de l’Institut de radioprotection du Canada à Saskatoon,
en Saskatchewan. Dans son article,
il fournit un aperçu scientifique des
opérations des laboratoires nationaux,
y compris des systèmes de radioprotection, des mesures de rayonnement et
de la dosimétrie de radon. Il détient
un baccalauréat en sciences avec distinction en physique de l’université de
Winnipeg et une maîtrise en sciences
(physique théorique) de l’Université
de Guelph.
Jeff Sandeman began working in
the field of radiation protection at
CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB) in
1983. He initially specialized in
non-ionizing radiation as part of the
Radiation Protection Division at the
clinic, which provides province-wide
services under contract with the
provincial government. He spent
the next 20 years at CCMB, during
which time he had the opportunity
to dabble in a broad spectrum of
radiation protection applications,
including diagnostic x-rays, nuclear
medicine, and radiotherapy. He was
RSO for the centre for several years
before heading off to Ottawa in 2003
to work for the Accelerators and Class
II Facilities Division of the CNSC.
He is currently finishing his second
term as a director on CRPA board.
de la radioprotection pendant plusieurs années avant de se rendre à
Ottawa, en 2003, pour travailler
dans la division des accélérateurs et
des installations de catégorie II. Il
termine actuellement son deuxième
mandat comme membre du conseil
de l’ACRP.
After a year of living the working life
at the Ottawa Hospital, Leah Shuparski is back at school, working on her
MSc at McMaster University in health
and radiation physics. If you see her
looking distracted or confused, don’t
worry! She’s just not used to coming
home from school to find a pile of
schoolwork waiting for her.
Après avoir travaillé pendant une
année à l’Hôpital d’Ottawa, Leah
Shuparski est de retour sur les bancs
d’école pour sa maîtrise en santé
et en physique des rayonnements à
l’Université McMaster. Si vous l’apercevez et qu’elle semble distraite ou
confuse, ne vous inquiétez pas! Elle
n’est tout simplement pas habituée
de revenir à la maison après les classes… pour mieux s’attaquer à la pile
de travaux de recherche qui l’attend.
En 1983, Jeff Sandeman débute sa
carrière en radioprotection au centre
CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB).
Sa spécialisation porte alors sur le
rayonnement non ionisant à l’unité
de radioprotection du centre, qui
fournit des services cliniques partout
dans la province, par engagement
contractuel avec le gouvernement
provincial. Au cours des 20 années
qui suivent, Jeff Sandeman explore
une vaste gamme d’applications en
radioprotection, y compris en radiodiagnostic, en médecine nucléaire et
en radiothérapie. Toujours au centre,
il occupe le poste de responsable
Nicholas Sion is a graduate of
London University, United Kingdom,
Vol 31 No 4 / 33
2011 CRPA Awards
Récompenses de
l’ACRP 2011
La date-limite pour soumettre les formulaires de nomination
pour les récompenses de l’ACRP approche rapidement. Les formulaires et la documentation de soutien sont requis en 6 mars
2011. Les lauréats seront annoncés à la conférence annuelle à
Ottawa, en mai 2011.
Le prix des fondateurs est présentée pour des contributions exceptionnelles vers l’amélioration de l’Association. Les
récipients de ce prix doivent avoir volontairement effectué des
activités dans un ou plusieurs des secteurs suivants: améliorez
la réputation de l’association nationalement et internationalement; encouragez la participation aux activités d’association;
avancez le rôle et la statût de l’Association comme organisation
importante en radioprotection; ou favorisez les mérites des
membres dans l’Association à d’autres qui peut contribuer à, ou
bénéficier des activités de l’Association en gardant ses objectifs.
Le prix d’accomplissement distinguée est présentée
pour des contributions exceptionnelles dans le domaine de la
radioprotection. Les récipiendaires de ce prix doivent avoir reçu
la reconnaissance de ses pairs au niveau national ou international pour des accomplissements majeurs à la connaissance, la
pratique ou l’avancement de la profession de radioprotection.
Le prix de service méritoire est présentée pour des services importants rendus soit à l’Association ou à la communauté
de la radioprotection en général.
Nominations et documentaion
de soutien
Tous membres ou anciens membres de l’ACRP, à l’exception
des membres actuels du conseil d’administration, sont éligibles
pour ces prix.
Deux membres de l’Association peuvent nommer un individu
donné. Un court résumé biographique doit être fourni sur la
carrière du candidat et des raisons pour lesquelles le candidat
est nommé. Des rapports, des références etc., devraient être
soumis comme matériel de support pour la nomination du candidat en conformité avec les objectifs du prix.
Les formulaires de nomination sont disponibles sur
le site Web (www.crpa-acrp.ca, sous Récompenses)
ou veuillez contacter le secrétariat à
secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca.
34 / Vol 31 No 4
The nomination deadline for the 2011 CRPA Awards
is fast approaching. Forms and supporting documentation are due March 6, 2011. Award winners will be
announced at this year’s conference in Ottawa in
May 2011.
The Founders’ Award is presented for outstanding contributions toward enhancing CRPA’s reputation
nationally and internationally, encouraging participation in CRPA activities, advancing CRPA’s role and
stature in the field of radiation protection, or promoting the merits of CRPA membership.
The Distinguished Achievement Award is
presented for outstanding contributions in the field
of radiation protection. Recipients of this award must
have received recognition from peers either nationally
or internationally for accomplishments of major significance to the knowledge, practice, or advancement of
the radiation protection profession.
The Meritorious Service Award is presented
for significant service provided either to CRPA or to
the radiation protection community in general.
Nominations & Supporting
Documentation
Any current or past CRPA member, except current
members of the CRPA Board of Directors, is eligible
for any of these awards. Award nominations must be
signed by two CRPA members. Please provide the
following:
• a short biographical resume of the candidate’s
career
• reasons for the nomination
• a synopsis of their reports, references etc.,
relevant to the objectives of the award
Forms are available from the website
(www.crpa-acrp.ca, under Awards) or
by contacting the Secretariat at
secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca.
Contributors
. . . continued from page 33
and did his postgraduate studies at Birmingham University, United Kingdom. He was
employed at Ontario Power Generation
(OPG) for about 28 years designing radiation
monitoring instrumentation and reactor
control. His discriminating tritium monitor,
stack monitor, and C-14 monitor designs are
operational at OPG and at Bruce Power.
Sion was also a consultant at Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited (AECL) for two and a half
years on the MDS Nordion Medical Isotope
Reactor (MMIR), MAPLE project.
Nicholas Sion est diplômé de l’Université
de Londres, au Royaume-Uni, et a terminé
ses études supérieures à l’Université de
Birmingham, au Royaume-Uni. Il a œuvré
auprès de Ontario Power Generation (OPG)
pendant environ 28 ans dans la conception
d’instruments de surveillance des rayonnements et dans le contrôle de réacteurs. Ses
conceptions discriminantes d’appareils de
surveillance du tritium, de surveillance de
faisceau, de surveillance du C-14 sont à
l’oeuvre chez l’OPG et chez Bruce Power.
Sion a aussi joué le rôle de conseiller auprès
de Énergie atomique du Canada limitée
(EACL) pendant deux ans et demie sur le
projet MAPLE de MDS Nordion destiné à
la production d’isotopes à des fins médicales
(MMIR).
CRPA members are drawn from all areas
of radiation protection, including hospitals,
universities, the nuclear power industry,
and all levels of government. Membership
is divided into five categories: full members
(includes retired members), associate and
student members, honourary members,
and corporate members.
Application forms are available on the
CRPA website (www.crpa-acrp.ca) or
from the secretariat (secretariat2007@
crpa-acrp.ca).
Les membres de l’ACRP proviennent de
tous les horizons de la radioprotection,
y compris les hôpitaux, les universités,
l’industrie nucléaire génératrice d’électricité
et tous les niveaux du gouvernement. Les
membres sont classés selon cinq catégories: membres à part entière (y compris les
membres retraités), membres associés et
étudiants, membres honoraires, et membres corporatifs.
Les formulaires de demande d’adhésion
peuvent être obtenus sur le site Web
(www.crpa-acrp.ca) ou auprès du secrétariat (secretariat2007@crpa-acrp.ca).
Readers’ Corner
Readers’ Corner is where you get
to share your ideas and opinions
or to comment on something we
have published in the Bulletin. We
ask that you try to keep your letters
to no more than 500 words. Please
include your name and affiliation
with your letter. Anonymous letters will not be published. Letters
commenting on another author’s
work will be sent to the author with
a request for a reply. If possible,
the comment and the reply will be
published together.
Please send your letters to the
CRPA Secretariat:
Coin des lecteurs
Thinking of writing the CRPA(R) exam?
Cette année, il ne sera possible de passer l’examen d’enregistrement qu’à un seul endroit, soit sur les lieux du congrès 2010
de l’ACRP, à Ottawa, le dimanche 8 mai 2011.
Le Coin des lecteurs vous permet
de partager vos idées, d’émettre
votre opinion ou encore de donner votre commentaire au sujet
d’une publication antérieure du
Bulletin. Nous vous demandons
de limiter votre correspondance à
moins de 500 mots et d’y inclure
votre nom et affiliation, puisque
nous ne publierons pas les lettres
anonymes. Les commentaires
s’adressant à un auteur en particulier seront envoyés à celui-ci,
accompagnés d’une demande de
réponse. Si cela est possible, nous
publierons le commentaire et sa
réponse ensemble.
Les formulaires de demande de reconnaissance et d’enregistrement sont disponibles sur Internet, à l’adresse suivante :
Prière d’envoyer vos lettres au
Secrétariat de l’ACRP:
This is a reminder that the deadline to submit applications for
2011 CRPA Registration Exam is April 7, 2011.
This year, there will only be one exam location, at the CRPA
Conference in Ottawa on Sunday, May 8, 2011.
Application forms for recognition and registration are
available online at:
http://www.crpa-acrp.ca/en/page.php?9
Envisagez-vous d’écrire l’examen ACRP(R) ?
Ceci est un rappel aux membres que la date limite pour
soumettre une demande d’examen d’enregistrement est le 7
avril 2011.
http://www.crpa-acrp.ca/fr/page.php?12
Vol 31 No 4 / 35

Canadian Radiation Protection Association - CRPA-ACRP

Transcription

Similar documents

La pression de radiation acoustique et ses applications

Les Propos - Réseau des Femmes d`affaires du Québec

9 janvier 2014

Collections

open space - Cruising Yachts

Janvier 2014 - Site officiel de La Varenne

Les technologues en radiation médicale et leur milieu de travail

Document - Musée du Bas-Saint

Bulletin Municipal N° 121

Bulletin municipal n°8

Bulletin epidémiologique

élan classique - Allied Properties REIT

Cartographie des sites typiques GSM 900, données France Telecom

Rapport annuel 2014 - Canadian Association of Medical Radiation