Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas
Annals of the ICRP
Resumen/Descripción – provisto por la editorial en inglés
The International Commission on Radiological Protection was founded in 1928 to advance for the public benefit the science of radiological protection. The ICRP provides recommendations and guidance on protection against the risks associated with ionising radiation, from artificial sources as widely used in medicine, general industry and nuclear enterprises, and from naturally occurring sources. These reports and recommendations are published four times each year on behalf of the ICRP as the journal Annals of the ICRP. Each issue provides in-depth coverage of a specific subject area.Palabras clave – provistas por la editorial
No disponibles.
Disponibilidad
Institución detectada | Período | Navegá | Descargá | Solicitá |
---|---|---|---|---|
No detectada | desde mar. 1999 / hasta dic. 2023 | SAGE Journals | ||
No detectada | desde ene. 1977 / hasta ago. 2013 | ScienceDirect |
Información
Tipo de recurso:
revistas
ISSN impreso
0146-6453
ISSN electrónico
1872-969X
Editor responsable
SAGE Publishing (SAGE)
País de edición
Estados Unidos
Fecha de publicación
1977-
Cobertura temática
Tabla de contenidos
ICRP Publication 120: Radiological Protection in Cardiology
C. Cousins; D.L. Miller; G. Bernardi; M.M. Rehani; P. Schofield; E. Vañó; A.J. Einstein; B. Geiger; P. Heintz; R. Padovani; K-H. Sim
Palabras clave: Radiological and Ultrasound Technology; Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health; Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging.
Pp. 1-125
The 2018 Bo Lindell Laureate Lecture: Finding common ground between science, ethics, and experience
N.E. Martinez
<jats:p> The present system of radiological protection has evolved with the advancement of science; evolution of ethical and societal values; and the lessons of our individual, collective, and historical experience. In communicating with each other and members of the public, words are often not enough to completely relay thoughts, ideas, or experiences. Art is a shared experience, beyond the spoken language, where many can find common ground. This paper provides several examples of utilising the visual arts, cinema, and popular culture for communication in different contexts, with discussion of how each relates to the ethical values of the system of radiological protection. In this way, we find inter-relationships between science, ethics, and experience. Experience improves understanding; empathy, or the awareness and feeling of another’s experience, can lead to similar understanding. Drawing on art and the broader human experience will help us improve our communication, promote transparency, and encourage empathy. Through this, we will be more likely to develop trust with stakeholders, which is an essential, yet challenging, aspect of radiological protection. </jats:p>
Palabras clave: Radiological and Ultrasound Technology; Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health; Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging.
Pp. 9-31
Lifetime radiation risk of stochastic effects – prospective evaluation for space flight or medicine
A. Ulanowski; J.C. Kaiser; U. Schneider; L. Walsh
<jats:p> The concept of lifetime radiation risk of stochastic detrimental health outcomes is important in contemporary radiation protection, being used either to calculate detriment-weighted effective dose or to express risks following radiation accidents or medical uses of radiation. The conventionally applied time-integrated risks of radiation exposure are computed using average values of current population and health statistical data that need to be projected far into the future. By definition, the lifetime attributable risk (AR) is an approximation to more general lifetime risk quantities and is only valid for exposures under 1 Gy. The more general quantities, such as excess lifetime risk (ELR) and risk of exposure-induced cancer, are free of dose range constraints, but rely on assumptions concerning the unknown total radiation effect on demographic and health statistical data, and are more computationally complex than AR. Consideration of highly uncertain competing risks for other radiation-attributed outcomes are required in appropriate assessments of time-integrated risks of specific outcomes following high-dose (>1 Gy) exposures, causing non-linear dose responses in the resulting ELR estimate. </jats:p><jats:p> Being based on the current population and health statistical data, the conventionally applied time-integrated risks of radiation exposure are: (i) not well suited for projections many years into the future because of the large uncertainties in future secular trends in the population-specific disease rates; and (ii) not optimal for application to atypical groups of exposed persons not well represented by the general population. Specifically, medical patients are atypical in this respect because their prospective risks depend strongly on the original diagnosis, the treatment modality, general cure rates, individual radiation sensitivity, and genetic predisposition. Another situation challenging the application of conventional risk quantities is a projection of occupational radiation risks associated with space flight, both due to higher radiation doses and astronauts’ generally excellent health condition due to pre-selection, training, and intensive medical screening. </jats:p><jats:p> An alternative quantity, named ‘radiation-attributed decrease of survival’ (RADS), known in past general statistical literature as ‘cumulative risk’, is recommended here for applications in space and medicine to represent the cumulative radiation risk conditional on survival until a certain age. RADS is only based on the radiation-attributed hazard rendering an insensitivity to competing risks or projections of current population statistics far into the future. Therefore, RADS is highly suitable for assessing semi-personalised radiation risks after radiation exposures from space missions or medical applications of radiation. </jats:p>
Palabras clave: Radiological and Ultrasound Technology; Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health; Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging.
Pp. 200-212