Implementing a safe and practical radiation safety program involves carefully balancing low radiation exposure to staff and reasonable solutions to protect them. While the harmful effects of radiation exposure are an occupational risk in some professions, just like a taxi driver has an occupational risk of being in a traffic accident, it does not mean basic and practical solutions to reduce the risk of occupational exposure should be ignored. However, there are many items to consider when reducing radiation exposure and ensuring the solutions are intelligent, resourceful, ethical, and do not generate worse adverse effects than radiation exposure. This article aims to help decision-makers balance low radiation exposure and reasonable radiation protection solutions.
ALARA
The cornerstone approach to addressing radiation safety is the ALARA principle. ALARA stands for As Low As Reasonably Achievable, which means our goal for reducing occupational exposure should be to minimize radiation exposure to workers through reasonable solutions. The crux of this issue is that the concepts of low and reasonable are loosely defined and may vary from one individual or facility to another.
Knowing the three methods used to reduce occupational radiation exposure is essential to fully understand the ALARA principle.
1. Time – Reducing the time of exposure to a radiation source has a direct correlation to reducing radiation exposure.
2. Distance – Providing additional distance from radiation exposure has an exponential effect on reducing radiation exposure. For example, doubling your distance from radiation exposure does not just cut the exposure in half but instead cuts the exposure to one-fourth.
3. Shielding – Placing an appropriate shield between the person and the radiation source can effectively reduce radiation exposure when reducing time and increasing distance are unsuitable options. However, consulting with a qualified physicist is essential to determine the appropriate shielding required.
Reasonable solutions to reduce time, increase distance, and use shielding to lower radiation exposure can be a complex balance and may require the help of an expert.
What is Considered Low Exposure?
Exposure to low levels of radiation is part of our everyday lives. Whether it comes from the sun’s x-rays and gamma rays, trace amounts of radon in the air, or even the food we eat, we are continuously exposed to various forms of radiation. This phenomenon is referred to as background radiation. However, when a facility plans to use radiation for business—whether for medical purposes, industrial testing, or nuclear power—specific regulations must be followed to ensure that workers and the general public are not subjected to excessive radiation. Regulatory limits are established for the general public, occupational workers, and the embryo of a declared pregnant worker. These limits are set higher than the background radiation we receive but remain well below the threshold of known adverse effects caused by radiation.
It is relevant to mention that scientific evidence is not conclusive on the effects of these low levels of radiation exposure, and there is only firm evidence of adverse effects from radiation exposure in acute doses much higher than regulatory limits. In some work environments, achieving background levels of exposure may be simple, while other work environments may find it challenging to be below the regulatory limits. For an environment where background levels are easy to achieve, reaching 10% of the regulatory annual exposure may cause concern and require an investigation. Yet, in an environment where being below the regulatory limit is challenging, significant oversight is needed to ensure the exposures are necessary, the workforce is adequate, and proper equipment is used.
What is Considered a Reasonable Solution?
Quantitative and qualitative approaches have been introduced to help implement the ALARA principle in practice. Quantitative approaches include cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-effectiveness analysis, multi-attribute utility analysis, and life cycle assessment. Qualitative methods are more judgment-based, and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has stressed the importance of stakeholder involvement, safety culture, and individual equity.
Wieder et al. have proposed a framework of the three Rs to evaluate whether radiation exposures are reasonable. The study indicates that Relationships, Rationale, and Resources need to be considered to assess if the ALARA principle is being followed. The relationship component ensures that all parties involved, such as workers and management, engage in active and open dialogue to discuss occupational concerns, scientific knowledge, and expectations, fostering empathy and trust within the community. Following this, a well-communicated technical, contextual, and ethical rationale can be established. Finally, an appropriate examination of the effectiveness of technologies and techniques in reducing exposure should be balanced against resources like money and time.
A 2023 study by Engstrom et al. established that the cost of radiation protection can be assessed based on the Value of Statistical Life (VSL), productivity losses due to adverse effects of radiation exposure, health care costs, the number of years between exposure and cancer diagnosis, and other factors. The study suggests a range of $56-$170 per man.mSv for the general public and $61-$162 per man.mSv for workers. This implies that if the exposures of 20 workers can be reduced by 10 mSv (20 x 10 = 200 man.mSv), an appropriate cost for the radiation protection technology would be between $12,200 and $32,400. However, it is essential to note that these values vary by country and are not all-encompassing.
As mentioned earlier, monetary calculations are not the only factor determining the need for additional radiation protection. The method could substantially increase the time it takes to complete a task, thus potentially increasing overall exposure. It may also be an ethical requirement for a particular environment. It should also be determined if the solution creates an even greater risk than the radiation.
Final Thoughts
Low exposures and reasonable solutions are an ever-changing landscape influenced by the working environment, individual needs, and available resources. Some methods for reducing radiation exposure are simple and require little to no cost. Techniques such as increasing distance from the radiation source and minimizing time may be accomplished with little to no effort. However, due to its complexity, a qualified physics expert should be consulted for guidance if radiation shielding is necessary.
We must always remain aware that what was once regarded as ‘low’ and ‘reasonable’ may not always hold true. As new technologies emerge and techniques advance, we should be open to embracing them for the benefit of workers and the general public. What was once cutting-edge may now be outdated, and what is cutting-edge today may soon become obsolete.
Who is Heartland Physics?
At Heartland Physics, our mission is simple: to ensure the safe and effective use of radiation while protecting both staff and patients. We specialize in radiation protection for facilities, offering expert guidance and customized solutions tailored to your specific needs.
With extensive experience across the U.S. and internationally, we understand the complexities of radiation safety and compliance. Our team is dedicated to providing practical, innovative, and cost-effective strategies to keep your facility safe and in full compliance with regulations.
Let’s work together to create a smarter, safer radiation safety program. Contact us today to discuss how we can support your facility with expert-driven solutions.