Search

NCRP Report No. 180, 'Management of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation: Radiation Protection Guidance for the United States (2018)' was developed by Council Committee 1. The report builds and expands upon previous recommendations of NCRP and ICRP, covering exposure to radiation and radioactive materials for five exposure categories: occupational, public, medical, emergency workers, and nonhuman biota. Actions to add, increase, reduce or remove a source of exposure to humans require justification. Optimisation of protection universally applies, taking into account societal, economic, and environmental factors; addressing all hazards, and striving for continuous improvement when it is reasonable to do so. Numeric protection criteria for management of dose to an individual for a given exposure situation are provided, and differ in some respects from ICRP. A specific numeric criterion is suitable to be designated as a regulatory dose limit only when the source of exposure is stable, characterised, and the responsible organisation has established an appropriate radiation control program in advance of source introduction. Medical exposure includes patients, comforters and caregivers of a patient, and voluntary participants in biomedical research. Emergency workers are a new exposure category; their exposure is treated separately from occupational, public or medical exposure, and numeric criteria are provided for deterministic and stochastic effects. For nonhuman biota, the focus is on population maintenance of the affected species, and a guideline is provided for when additional assessment may be necessary. In addition, the recommendations emphasise that: ethical principles support decision-making; stakeholder engagement is necessary in deciding suitable management of their radiation exposure; and a strong safety culture is intrinsic to effective radiation protection programs.

The risk from environmental radon levels is not higher now than in the past, when residential exposures were not considered to be a significant health hazard. The majority of the radon dose is not from radon itself, but from short-lived alpha-emitting radon daughters, most notably 218Po(T1/2 3 min) and 214Po (T1/2 0.164 msec) along with beta particles from 214Bi (T1/2 19.7 min). Radon gas can penetrate homes from many sources and in various fashions. Measuring radon in homes is simple and relatively inexpensive and may be accomplished in a variety of ways. Although it is not possible to radon-proof a house, it is possible to reduce the level. In high radon areas, if the average level is higher than 4-8 pCi/liter (NCRP recommended level is 8 pCi/liter; EPA recommended level is 4 pCi/liter), appropriate action is advised. The shape of the dose response curves for miners exposed to alpha-emitting particles in the workplace is consistent with current biologic knowledge. It is linear in the low dose range and saturates in the high dose range. No detectable increase in lung cancer frequency is seen in the lowest exposed miners (those with exposures < 120 WLM, the relevant dose interval for most homes). Evidence for a health effect from radon exposure is based on data from animal studies and epidemiologic studies of mines. Extensive radiobiologic data predict a linear dose-response curve in the low dose region due to poor biological repair mechanisms for the high density of ionizing events that alpha particles create. However, no compelling evidence for increased cancer risks has yet been demonstrated from "acceptable" levels (< 4-8 pCi/liter).

The physical characteristics of the interactions of megavoltage photons and electrons with matter provide distinct advantages, relative to low-energy (orthovoltage) x rays, that lead to better radiation dose distributions in patients. Use of these high-energy radiations has resulted in better patient care, which has been reflected in improved radiation treatment outcome in recent years. But, as the desire for higher energy radiation beams increases, it becomes important to determine whether the physical characteristics that make megavoltage beams beneficial continue to provide a net advantage. It is demonstrated that, in fact, there is an energy range from 4 to 15 MV for photons and 4 to 20 MeV for electrons that is optimally suited for the treatment of cancer in humans. Radiation beams that exceed these maximum energies were found to add no advantage. This is because the costs (price of unit, installation, maintenance, shielding for neutron and photons) are not justified by either improved physical characteristics of the radiation (penetration, skin sparing, dose distribution) or treatment outcome. In fact, for photon beams some physical characteristics result in less desirable dose distributions, less accurate dosimetry, and increased safety problems as the energy increases for example, increasingly diffuse beam edges, loss of electron equilibrium, uncertainty in dose perturbations at interfaces, increased neutron contamination, and potential for higher personnel dose. The special features that make electron beams useful at lower energies, for example, skin sparing and small penetration, are lost at high energies. These physical factors are analyzed together with the economic factors related to radiation therapy patient care using megavoltage beams.