| Info | ||||||||||||||
 |
5th Framework Programme and beyond – Nuclear Energy Neale Kelly |
Assessment of risk from medical exposures John W. Hopewell |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Dissemination
of research Neale Kelly |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
Exchange
of information on internal dosimetry projects carried out within the EU A meeting of project's coordinators held in ARCS (Vienna). Pascal Pihet , Alexander Brandl |
|||||||||||||
|
Contributions
of EURADOS and EULEP within the 6th Framework programme perspective John W. Hopewell , Pascal Pihet |
||||||||||||||
 |
EMIR
- European
network for Medical radio-Isotope and beam Research S. Crutzen or P. Jehenson RADSAFE
- Radiation
Safety Mailing lists in Europe |
|||||||||||||
|
|
EMIR European network for Medical radio-Isotope and beam Research S. Crutzen or P. Jehenson |
The aim of this European Network is to promote the development and availability to all EU-citizens of high quality and safe medical applications of nuclear technologies and methodologies, as used for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of major diseases. The applications essentially concern diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine and radiotherapy.
By involving clinicians, academia, industry, and, where needed, regulatory authorities, EMIR will co-ordinate and manage expertise and resources both for scientific activities (development of dedicated technologies and methodologies, to support medical research and applications, and the related pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries) and scientific support to regulatory aspects.
Radiation Protection is the full subject of one of the eight task groups and is also part of most others, like Transport and containers; Quality Assurance; New radioisotope therapies; Radiotherapy (including hadron and neutron capture therapies); Education, Training and Public awareness.
For these Radiation Protection aspects in particular, interaction has already started with DG-RTD (Nuclear fission and Radioprotection Unit), DG-ENV (Radiation protection unit) and also DG-SANCO (Europe against cancer programme), and collaboration should increase in the future.
Three main European stakeholder and end-user organisations (European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM: clinicians, academics), European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO: clinicians, academics), Association of Imaging Producers and Equipment Suppliers (AIPES: industry)) are actively contributing and took the roles of chair and vice-chairs. JRC, with four of its institutes, has some specific and sometimes unique competences and facilities in many of the involved fields, including in radiation protection, and manages the network.
EMIR further fits well in the ERA concept of the next EC-Framework Program.
The set-up work of this network started at the end of 2000 and most interested parties already signed a network agreement.
For
further information:
Joint Research Centre
S. Crutzen ( serge.crutzen@cec.eu.int)
or P. Jehenson (philippe.jehenson@cec.eu.int).
The "European Research Area" (ERA) approach is introducing perspectives of deep changes in the policy and the management of the future framework programmes (FPs) carried out within the European Union. This perspectives open a number of questions how and with which tools the EURATOM programme will be conducted in particular as far as the radiation protection area is concerned taking into account the range and the specificity of the projects which will be needed. This evolution is also concerning our scientific associations.
In concertation with the Commission, EULEP and EURADOS plan inquiries and debates on this matter in the framework of their forthcoming annual meetings (see announcements). It will be indeed of interest for EULEP and EURADOS and the Commission to receive the opinions of their member institutions and laboratories on the specific roles that they expect from EURADOS and EULEP towards the next FPs.
The issues of these debates will reported in this Newsletter. Furthermore, you are welcome to submit your correspondence, which will be disseminated on the present web site and booklet. Electronic dialog box might be installed in the three web sites in the near future to facilitate the debate to take place.
For further information:
see Newsletter, EURADOS and EULEP web sites.
|
|
RADSAFE Peter Hill Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Germany |
As a means of effective communication the Internet recently did become more and more important. Its possibilities to exchange and to obtain information efficiently and rapidly are just excellent. Internet and email access for professional use are nowadays standardly available even in small companies and institutions. Mailing lists are described as a means of information exchange between radiation safety professionals in Europe (see issue nr 8).
1 Introduction
Internet is a package-mediating network using the TCP/IP-protocol. During a data communication no permanent physical connection between senders and recipients is required. Each message is divided into packages, which are sent independently from each other through the network (fig.1). Each package looks itself up its way by Internet. If no connection comes off between two nodes, it changes over to other connections. The target computer reassembles the packages arriving in coincidental order to the original message. Internet has thus a very open, self-organizing structure. Additional servers and connecting lines can be merged in any place into the network, limited only by the number of available IP - addresses.
|
Figure 1: Internet is a package-mediating network of open structure (S = sender, E = recipient, a-f = nodes, 1-5 = single packages of a message) [1] |
|
Internet consists of a manifold of different protocols, services and applications. Among the most important for users are:
2 Email and Mailinglists
Electronic letters (email) belonged to first applications of the Internet. Using the SMTP - protocol emails can be exchanged platform-independently world-wide between the most different computer systems. The possession of an email address is a basic requirement for the use of further services, e.g. mailing lists. Universities, research establishments, authorities and companies offer usually also an email connection to their co-workers. Also users of on-line services (T-Online, AOL, Compuserve etc..) have email access. For editing, transmitting, receiving and archiving of the electronic mail a special software (email client) is needed. Usual internet browsers already integrate such a function. Email clients for more professional users should include features like filter functions, use of nick names, use of text modules (‘stationary‘), use of digital signatures and encoding of confidential messages (z.b.PGP). If transmission of binary data records (e.g. .exe files) is required a coding possibility (Binhex, MIME, uuencode) is needed. Also a viewer for different data formats is usually very helpful.
Mailinglists and newsgroups are e-mail based internet services. Both types of services are usually dedicated to a fixed range of topics. They are ideal for the fast exchange of information over long distances. Newsgroups are like bulletin boards. A message posted is not automatically redistributed, but has to be actively accessed by the interested user (‚pull‘). Newsgroups are thus minimizing the use up of internet band with by large user groups. Mailinglists actively redistribute messages posted (‚push‘). Participants can principally enter themselves into the distribution list (or remove themselves). Since each message is sent to each subscriber mailing lists depend strongly on a certain degree of discipline exerted by the users. They enable however a high degree of interaction within the group of subscribers.
It is easily possible to create electronic mailing lists directly at the requirements of a certain user community. Thus the degree of the openness of the access can be regulated and if necessary also limited strictly. Closed lists have very strict requirements on the subscribers. Subscription involves successfully passing a review process. Moderated lists check the content of messages on compliance with list rules before distributing them. An example of a closed and moderated list is SSB-INFO, which serves the research centre Juelich (FZJ) for purely enterprise-internal communication of the central radiation safety group with more than 150 radiation safety officers on campus. Similarly one could organize mailing lists for members of professional health physics associations and their working groups.
No public newsgroup dedicated to radiation safety, radiation protection or health physics issues is currently known to the author. There are however quite some mailing lists , which are of interest to professionals of these fields. Some are described in the following chapter. Subscribe information can be found in Table 1.
3 Radiation Safety Mailing Lists in Europe
RADSAFE-EU turns to radiation safety professionals from industry, medicine, research, authorities and universities especially in Europe. List language is English. The mailing list is dedicated to discussions and information exchange for topics from all areas of radiation safety. The exchange over common problems could eventually contribute also to a harmonization of radiation protection in Europe. A digest version of RADSAFE-EU is available in order to relieve the input basket in the electronic mail box.
|
Some past topics contributions covered so far were :
As of October 12th, 2001 RADSAFE-EU counted 432 subscribers. A complete breakdown according to domains is given in the appendix (Table 1). German, British and Dutch users are presently the largest national groups of subscribers. The mailing list is obviously also of interest to radiation safety professionals from continents other than Europe, as can be seen from Fig. 2. |
Fig 2 : How to subscribe to mailing lists |
Table 1 : How to subscribe to mailing lists
| Mailinglist | Send e-mail to : | Text in body of message |
|
RADSAFE-EU European |
majordomo@fz-juelich.de | subscribe radsafe-eu end |
|
end RADSAFE-D A,CH,D |
majordomo@fz-juelich.de |
subscribe radsafe-d end |
|
SRP-UK United Kingdom |
Srp-uk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com | |
|
Radioprotezione Italy |
radioprotezione-subscribe@yahoogroups.com | |
|
RADSAFE USA and international |
Majordomo@list.vanderbildt.edu |
subscribe radsafe end |
|
RADIOBIOLOGY UK-based, international |
Mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk | Join radiobiology YourName |
|
IARPE-L Accelerator rad.prot./HPS |
Majordomo@slac.stanford.edu |
Subscribe iarpe-l end |
|
MEDPHYS Medical physics,Internat. |
Listserv@cms.cc.wayne.edu | Subscribe MEDPHYS YourName |
|
MEDPHYS-D Germany |
Listserver@strahlentherapie.uni-wuerzburg.de | Subscribe MEDPHYS |
RADSAFE-D is a subsidiary list to RADSAFE-EU. It is in particular meant for radiation safety professionals from Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Between professionals of these countries traditionally a close co-operation exists. List content includes essentially national issues or topics common to the four countries. List language is German/English language contributions should remain an exception (e.g.: cross posting to several lists). On October 12th, 2001 a total of 216 list members has been counted.
SRP-UK is a mailing list and discussion group set up by the Society for Radiological Protection for use by its members and other professionals for discussion of matters related to radiation protection in the UK. At December 31,2000 list membership stood at 387. Some 82% of the list members are based in the UK. Presently discussion on UK issues is very lively.
RADIOPROTEZIONE is a national Italian list for radiation protection professionals and health physicists. List language is Italian. On October 14th, 2001 the list had 93 members.
Those who don’t mind a lot of traffic on US-specific issues might be interested in joining the international list RADSAFE. The list has a tradition in exchanging frankly opinions and views. Topics of European interest are mostly forwarded/cross posted to RADSAFE-EU.
A UK-based list being more specialized is RADIOBIOLOGY. The purpose is to enable informal discussions between scientists and clinicians with an interest in animal, cellular or molecular radiobiology or clinical radiotherapy.
To some extend radiation safety issues are also discussed in mailinglists of the medical physics community (MEDPHYS, MEDPHYS-D). Specialists in accelerator radiological protection can receive a news letter by subscribing to IARPE-L. The latter list is no discussion list. It is solely used for distributing the newsletter and messages of the editor.
4 Outlook
Radiation Safety Mailinglists are very a useful tool to exchange professional information. Therefore their use will continue to grow in the near future:
For
further information,
see:
P. Hill
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, ASS,
D-52425 Jülich
Phone: ++49-2461-5081, Fax: ++49-2461-3726, mailto:p.hill@fz-juelich.de
Reference
[1] Hill, P.; Geisse,Ch.; Wüst,E. : Strahlenschutz
und Internet, Proceedings FS-Tagung 1998; Lindau 1998
Appendix
| Table A : Breakdown of number of RADSAFE-EU supscriptions into domains | ||||||
| Domain | # of suscriptions | Domain |
# of suscriptions |
|||
|
Argentine |
.ar |
1 |
Phillipines |
.ph |
1 |
|
|
Australia |
.au |
18 |
Poland |
.pl |
1 |
|
|
Austria |
.at |
8 |
Portugal |
.pt |
3 |
|
|
Belgium |
.be |
8 |
Romania |
.ro |
2 |
|
|
Belorus |
.by |
1 |
Russia (SU) |
.su |
1 |
|
|
Bulgaria |
.bg |
1 |
Saudiarabia |
.sa |
2 |
|
|
Canada |
.ca |
Slowac Republic |
.sk |
1 |
||
|
Croatia |
.hr |
8 |
Slowenia |
.si |
2 |
|
|
Denmark |
.dk |
3 |
South-Africa |
.za |
2 |
|
|
El Salvador |
.sv |
1 |
Spain |
.es |
7 |
|
|
Finland |
.fi |
3 |
Sweden |
.se |
8 |
|
|
France |
.fr |
5 |
Switzerland |
.ch |
15 |
|
|
Germany |
.de |
115 |
United Kingdom |
.uk |
48 |
|
|
Greece |
.gr |
1 |
unspecific |
.com |
54 |
|
|
Hungary |
.hu |
7 |
unspecific |
.int |
1 |
|
|
India |
.in |
1 |
unspecific |
.net |
12 |
|
|
Ireland |
.ie |
3 |
unspecific |
.org |
6 |
|
|
Israel |
.il |
7 |
Urugay |
.uy |
1 |
|
|
Italy |
.it |
12 |
USA |
.us |
3 |
|
|
Japan |
.jp |
1 |
USA |
.edu |
12 |
|
|
Malta |
.mt |
1 |
USA |
.gov |
11 |
|
|
Netherlands |
.nl |
23 |
USA |
.MIL |
2 |
|
|
Norway |
.no |
2 |
||||
|
|
5th Framework Programme and beyond - Nuclear Energy Neale Kelly European Commission, DG RTD, Brussels |
Surprising though it may seem, the 5th Framework Programme (Euratom) is rapidly drawing to a close, at least in terms of making new proposals. Most of the funds have already been committed. Of the funds remaining (about 10 MEuro), most will be allocated to research in the area of radiation protection.
New calls for proposals was published in the Official Journal on October 16, 2001. These calls will refer to the scope and content of the revised Work Programme, which was issued in August 2001 (see www.cordis.lu/fp5-euratom). Research in radiobiology is the main focus of the revised work programme with limited funding earmarked for risk assessment and management, restoration of contaminated environments and the transfer of radioactive material in the terrestrial environment. For most types of activity in the programme, the deadline for submission of proposals is 21 January 2002. The two exceptions are Individual Fellowships, where the deadline is 9 January 2002, and accompanying measures and training, where the deadline is 25 March 2002. Further detail can be found in the Calls and the revised Work Programme.
One novel feature is worthy of note and concerns the call for proposals to extend existing (or those under negotiation) contracts to include partners from countries in Central and Eastern Europe that are associated to the Euratom Programme (namely, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). This is an important opportunity to enhance the participation of researchers from these countries in the wider European Research Area. Contract extensions will, however, be strictly limited to those where such participation will clearly enhance the project’s outcome.
Discussions continue in the Council and European Parliament on the Commission’s proposal for the next Framework Programme (Euratom). It is premature to anticipate the outcome but it would be surprising were radiation protection not to remain an important element of any new programme. Formal decisions on the Framework Programme are expected by the middle of next year.
For
further information,
see:
www.cordis.lu/fp5-euratom
|
|
Neale Kelly European Commission, DG RTD, Brussels |
Dissemination of research findings remains a key element of the Commission’s programme. Publication in journals and elsewhere is an important component of any dissemination strategy but, by itself, is insufficient. In future, the Commission is expecting contractors to be far more pro-active than hitherto in disseminating their research findings and interfacing with potential user communities. The increased attention given in FP5 to the development, from the outset of a project, of a "Technology Implementation Plan" exemplifies this new approach. Some remain antagonistic to these new developments, not being convinced of their worth. Such views are however in decline as the research community recognises the importance of ensuring that the outcome of its work achieves and, moreover, is seen to achieve a broader social good.
In this context the Commission Services in the Nuclear Energy Programme have reflected on how to improve its own dissemination activities, in particular in what it chooses to publish. Traditionally, in the area of Radiation Protection, the Commission published, at the end of each programme, a voluminous compilation of the final reports of all contracts. Many of us even today will have several of these large "green" volumes taking up space in our bookshelves or acting as door stops; sadly, somewhat fewer of us will have made more effective use of this material.
A decision was taken in the 4th Framework Programme to discontinue this practice. Instead, contractors were encouraged to publish their own reports as part of their dissemination strategy, with the Commission only publishing a compilation of summaries of annual reports. While a step in the right direction, this approach has proved far from satisfactory for two reasons. Firstly, only a small fraction of contractors responded positively to the Commission Services’ exhortation for them to publish (in hard copy or on a web site) their final reports. The reasons for this remain unclear – it has, however, led some to question the value of the research undertaken. Secondly, the compilation of summaries still remains voluminous and its effectiveness as a dissemination mechanism remains unclear.
With the objective of broader and more effective dissemination, the Commission Services are now preparing a number of topical brochures on particular areas of the programme. These brochures will summarise the main objectives and achievements (or expected achievements) of research carried out in the 4th and 5th Framework Programmes with indications of the main directions research may follow in the next Programme. Currently, four topical brochures are in preparation and will be published early in 2002. They address:
Feedback on these brochures from both the research and user communities will determine future policy and practice in this area. But it must be recognised that what the Commission Services can do in this area is limited. The onus for dissemination rests firmly with those carrying out the research and this needs to be more clearly recognised within the research community.
For
further information:
george-neale.kelly@cec.eu.int
|
|
Assessment of risk from medical exposuresr 2001 EULEP annual meeting, Reisensburg, Germany John
W. Hopewell (Chairman of EULEP) |
At the annual meeting of EULEP in February 2001 a half-day Symposium was arranged on the assessment of risks from medical exposure. This included speakers talking on risks from both therapeutic and diagnostic irradiation, including the increased use of interventional procedures in Radiology. The speakers included Dr. McGale (Oxford), Dr. D. Nicholas (Oxford), Dr. M. Frankenberg-Schwager (Göttingen), Dr. D. Shrimpton (Chilton), Dr. M. Little (London) and Professor E. Vano (Madrid).
Dr. McGale outlined the most recent finding of a meta-analysis of 40 randomised clinical trials of radiotherapy vs. no-radiotherapy in the treatment of early breast cancer. Local recurrence was reduced by approximately two-thirds and breast cancer mortality significantly reduced in women given radiotherapy. However, there was an increased risk of mortality from other causes in the women receiving radiotherapy. A salient feature was the excess deaths from cardiovascular disease in patients treated by radiotherapy for left sided breast cancer and in lung cancer for right sided breast cancer patients. Dr. Nicholas complemented this talk by a review on how treatment techniques had progressed over the last few decades, but that earlier arrangements and modalities had continued resulting in a wide variety of treatment regimes. This complicated the assessment of risk factors for excess deaths other than from breast cancer in patient trials.
The theme of breast cancer was continued by Dr. Frankenberg-Schwager with an in vitro evaluation of the enhanced oncogenic and mutagenic potential of mammographic x-rays (25-30 kVp) compared to conventional x-rays (200 kV) in a human hybrid cell line (HeLa x skin fibroblast). At the dose level associated with 10% cell survival, mammography x-rays were only slightly more effective than conventional x-rays. However, after lower doses, the RBE of mammography x-rays, relative to conventional x-rays, was 4.4. Preliminary studies have showed that he neoplastic potential of mammographic x-ray was 3.4 higher than conventional x-rays (see issue nr 8, December 2000) . This result contradicts ICRP Guidelines, which attribute the same risk to both types of radiation.
Less specific aspects of radiation doses from medical exposures and the risks of cancer incidence and mortality following radiation therapy for benign and malignant diseases were presented in talks by Drs. Shrimpton and Little, respectively. Dr. Shrimpton described how global reviews of medical exposure were periodically conducted by UNSCEAR, most recently for the period 1991-1996. Medical exposures were distributed unevenly amongst the world population, often to elderly and sick patients. Practice, not surprisingly, was concentrated in health care area, level 1 (developed countries), which represented one-quarter of the world’s population but three-quarters of all diagnostic procedures and over half of all therapeutic treatments. However, the medical practice of Radiology continues to involve worldwide increasing the general levels of population exposure. From the analysis of excess relative risk (ERR) coefficients, based on studies of patients recovering appreciable doses of radiation from radiotherapy, Dr. Little concluded that for 12 out of 17 studies the ERR for leukaemia was significantly lower than that observed in the Japanese A-bomb survivors. This could largely be accounted for by cell sterilisation and dose fractionation within the medical cases.
Finally, risks associated with the increased use of interventional procedures in Radiology were discussed by Professor Vano. Skin injuries from long, high dose, procedures were of concern to patients and cataracts were a significant occupational risk for the staff undertaking these procedures. The importance of training was emphasised a factor referred to in an ICRP document to be published in the near future (ICRP Report 85, 2001).
For
further information, see:
www.eulep.org
Info
Exchange
of information on internal dosimetry projects
carried out within the EU
A meeting of project's coordinators held in ARCS (Vienna).
Pascal Pihet (1) , Alexander Brandl (2)
(1) EURADOS, (2) ARCS, Vienna.
|
Within the framework of its action on "harmonisation of individual monitoring", EURADOS is considering the integration of external and internal dosimetry into individual monitoring practices, being particularly interested in legal, dosimetric and quality aspects, which are related to the implementation of dosimetry services following the EURATOM Council Directive 96/29. In carrying out this action plan, it was felt necessary to meet various groups engaged in internal dosimetry projects within EU. |
 |
|
The meeting (1) took place at the Austrian Research Center Seibersdorf (ARCS, Vienna) on September 9, 2001. It allowed a fruitful exchange of information showing how the wide and complex area of research and expertise in internal dosimetry is covered at present, from fundamental studies to practical applications in radiation protection. These actions are included or linked to projects funded under the 5th Framework Programme of the European Commission (EURATOM). A "route map" was drawn to present the contribution of the projects to the process of monitoring and assessing internal dose and to indicate the main flow of information between these groups and projects. More details on the projects are summarised in the record notes of the meeting distributed to the groups and found on EULEP or EURADOS web sites. Additional information is enclosed in the present issue (see status reports, and ICRP Committee 2 report). The executive summary of the meeting in ARCS put the emphasis on the network of highly skilled laboratories and services contributing to these projects with the capability of performing research and transferring the results to users and providing expertise in situations of abnormal internal exposure. Actions were identified to increase the synergy between the groups, notably the exchange of information, the participation to forthcoming meetings (see announcements: EURADOS, EULEP, Oxford Workshop) and planned activities (training, intercomparisons, workshops). A next meeting open to all partners in the projects is planned in Oxford, following the Workshop on "Internal Dosimetry of Radionuclides".
For
further information (1) Participants (see EURADOS or EULEP
web sites for detailed reference) :
|
|
|
|
