scholarly journals Individual dose monitoring of the nuclear medicine departments staff controlled by Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 62-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamil Szewczak ◽  
Sławomir Jednoróg ◽  
Paweł Krajewski
2019 ◽  
Vol 188 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-275
Author(s):  
M Tahidul Islam ◽  
J Ferdous ◽  
M M Haque

Abstract Finger doses can serve as a guide to suggest any needed modification in work practice to minimise radiation doses to the extremities. In the present study, radiation doses at the base of the middle finger of both hands of 20 nuclear energy workers handling 99mTc-labelled compounds,125I and131I during various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in nuclear medicine were measured. The laboratory assessments were carried out by means of thermoluminescence ring dosimetry in Health Physics Division, Atomic Energy Center, Dhaka. The recorded extremity doses were then compared to their routinely monitored whole-body doses. The average annual finger doses recorded in this study were found to be 10.7 ± 8.2 and 12.7 ± 12.9 mSv, respectively, for the left- and right-hand fingers, which are at least 12-fold higher than the average whole-body dose. There was, however, no extreme case found of health hazard to the workers’ hand, which exceeds maximum dose limit 500 mSv/year given by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. On comparing the average annual finger doses at different labs, significantly higher average dose was recorded at isotope-dispensing lab (19.6 ± 12.6 mSv/year) and then followed by gamma camera lab (13.2 ± 12.1 mSv/year) and radioimmunoassay lab (7.0 ± 5.5 mSv/year). These observations are fairly in good agreement with the reported results. The observations of the present study, therefore, may be implemented for the betterment of safety for the occupational workers in nuclear medicine facilities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 126-140
Author(s):  
C.J. Martin

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) developed effective dose as a quantity related to risk for occupational and public exposure. There was a need for a similar dose quantity linked to risk for making everyday decisions relating to medical procedures. Coefficients were developed to enable the calculation of doses to organs and tissues, and effective doses for procedures in nuclear medicine and radiology during the 1980s and 1990s. Effective dose has provided a valuable tool that is now used in the establishment of guidelines for patient referral and justification of procedures, choice of appropriate imaging techniques, and providing dose data on potential exposure of volunteers for research studies, all of which require the benefits from the procedure to be weighed against the risks. However, the approximations made in the derivation of effective dose are often forgotten, and the uncertainties in calculations of risks are discussed. An ICRP report on protection dose quantities has been prepared that provides more information on the application of effective dose, and concludes that effective dose can be used as an approximate measure of possible risk. A discussion of the way in which it should be used is given here, with applications for which it is considered suitable. Approaches to the evaluation of risk and methods for conveying information on risk are also discussed.


2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 276-277
Author(s):  
M.J. Guy ◽  
C.D. Greaves ◽  
P.J. Hinton ◽  
R.J. Morton

2020 ◽  
Vol 190 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-184
Author(s):  
C Lindholm ◽  
A Pekkarinen ◽  
O Sipilä ◽  
A-L Manninen ◽  
M Lehtinen ◽  
...  

Abstract The eye lens exposure among 16 technicians in two nuclear medicine departments at university hospitals in Finland was investigated by measuring the operational quantity Hp(3) using EYE-D dosemeters. For all workers, the annual mean Hp(3) was estimated to be 1.1 mSv (max. 3.9 mSv). The relation between Hp(3) to routinely monitored personal dose equivalent Hp(10) was clearly correlated. Considering individual dose measurement periods (2–4 weeks), the Hp(3)/Hp(10) ratio was 0.7 (Pearson’s coefficient r = 0.90, p < 0.001, variation of ratio 0.1–2.3). The variation decreased considerably with increasing Hp(10) (σ2 = 0.04 vs. 0.43 for Hp(10) > 0.1 mSv vs. < 0.1 mSv, respectively), i.e. higher Hp(10) predicts Hp(3) more reliably. Moreover, annual Hp(10) data from national dose register during 2009–2018 were used to derive the annual Hp(3) applying the Hp(3)/Hp(10) ratio. The data from Finnish nuclear medicine departments imply that routine measurements of Hp(3) among nuclear medicine technicians are not justified.


2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1147-1153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Guy ◽  
Claire D. Greaves ◽  
Rosemary J. Morton ◽  
Paul J. Hinton

Author(s):  
Sajjad Akbar ◽  
M. Shahid Khalil ◽  
Shahzad Ahmad

The advancement in technology has resulted into development of Telethrapy and X-ray machine which has high potential hazards of ionizing radiation to user and patient exposed. Ionizing radiations are referred as gamma rays photons. X-rays can cause conjunctivitis and sterility. Ionization radiation is hazard both in radiotherapy and nuclear medicine department. The energy of this radiation is around 10eV, higher the energy of radiation greater is hazard because of penetration into tissues the basic protection rule is either move way from source of radiation or put absorber in between. These equipments are tools of diagnostics, therefore international commission on radiological protection (ICRP) ha recommended that exposure to radiation be kept minimum. Designing of teletherapy facilities play important role in protection and monitoring of radiations. The author has analyzed the protective measures and monitoring of radiations in various hospitals in public and private sector in Rawalpindi / Islamabad Pakistan. It has been observed that only in military hospitals strict protective and monitoring measurers are taken against radiations but in other public and private sector hospitals such measure are compromised due to lack of proper awareness. Pakistan nuclear regulatory authority (PNRA) is taking measures for ensuring protective and monitoring measurer against radiations and arousing awareness to all concerns.


2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. R141-R150
Author(s):  
Arnaud A Gbetchedji ◽  
Gilles D Houndetoungan ◽  
Hubert C Hounsossou ◽  
Neige Journy ◽  
Nadia Haddy ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Carlo Mancini-Terracciano ◽  
Francesco Collamati ◽  
Riccardo Faccini ◽  
Giuseppe Iaccarino ◽  
Riccardo Mirabelli ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document