Canadian Radiation Protection Association - CRPA-ACRP
Transcription
Canadian Radiation Protection Association - CRPA-ACRP
Vol 32 No 1 Spring / Printemps 2011 Canadian Radiation Protection Association Association canadienne de radioprotection Canadian Publications Mail Agreement 41574554 Contents/Contenu The CRPA Bulletin is published quarterly and is distributed to all members of the association. Le Bulletin ACRP est publié trimestriellement et distribué à tous les membres de l’association. Chief editor / Rédacteur en chef Stéphane Jean-François Deputy editor / vice-rédactrice en chef Leona Page CRPA-ACRP Secretariat Liz Krivonosov Design and Production / Montage et production Michelle Communications Production team / Équipe de production Production manager English copy editors French copy editor Translators Proofreader Michelle Boulton Ursula Acton Michelle Boulton Carolyne Roy Caro Gareau de Recio Carolyne Roy CRPA Translation Committee Felicitas Egunyu Advertising / Annonces Michelle Communications ph: 306-343-8519 email: [email protected] Regular Columns / Contributions permanentes 5 Since you asked / Puisque vous l’avez demandé…. 7 President’s Message / Message du Président 9 Editor’s Note / Message du rédacteur en chef 13 ICRP News First announcement for the ICRP Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection 15 Book Review / Revue de livre The Radiance of France 25 Student Corner / Coin des étudiants Hobbies Make Us Fun and Interesting People Outside of Work 26 Health Physics Corner Oh no! A vial of moderator water breaks in a technician’s pocket! What should you do? 27 Coin des spécialiste en radioprotection Oh non! Un flacon de l’eau de modérateur se brise dans la poche d’un technicien. Que faire? 31 Contributors Features / Articles 10 CIRSA A common voice to positively influence the industrial radiography industry 18 Summary of the 2010 FPTRPC Annual Meeting Wayne Tiefenbach, FPTRPC outgoing co-chair, shares the highlights of last October’s meeting in Ottawa, ON Copyright © 2011 CRPA / ACRP All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, or stored in a retrieval system in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without prior written consent of the publisher. For reproduction information, contact Michelle Communications email: [email protected]. The views expressed in the CRPA Bulletin ACRP are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or of the association. Canadian Publications Mail Agreement No. 41574554 Index to Advertisers Canberra Co..........................16–17, 32 Danatec............................................2 5 F & J Specialty Products, Inc..............12 Gamble Technologies, Inc...................2 Lou Champagne Systems Inc..............8 Mirion Technologies..........................24 Radiation Measurement Systems......1 Send change of address notices and return undeliverable Canadian addresses to 4 Stuart Hunt & Associates....................6 CRPA-ACRP Secretariat Technical Management Services..........5 PO Box 83 Carleton Place, Ontario K7C 3P3 For more information about advertising in the CRPA Bulletin ACRP, please contact Michelle Communications: Michelle Boulton Michelle Communications ph: 306-343-8519 email: [email protected] tel: 613-253-3779 fax: 1-888-551-0712 email: [email protected] CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 32 No 1 / 3 Canadian Radiation Protection Association / Association canadienne de radioprotection CRPA is an affiliate of the International Radiation Protection Association / L’ACRP est membre de l’Association internationale de radioprotection. President / Président Sandu Sonoc ph: 416-978-2028 email: [email protected] President Elect / Président désigné Lois Sowden-Plunkett Past President / Président sortant Dave Tucker Secretary / Secrétaire Petra Dupuis Treasurer / Trésorier Christine Dehm Directors / Directeurs et directrices Brian Gaulke, Raymond Ilson, Leona Page, Jeff Sandeman CRPA Committees / Comités de ACRP Archives Sunil Choubal, Christine Dehm (BoD Liaison), Wayne Tiefenbach Conseil éditorial du Bulletin Editorial Board Stéphane Jean-François (chief editor / rédacteur en chef), Leona Page (deputy editor / vice-rédactrice en chef); scientific advisors / conseillers scientifiques: Douglas Boreham, Kevin Bundy, Lou Champagne, Kirk Lamont, Jag Mohindra, Daniel Picard, Sandu Sonoc, Frank Tourneur, Mary Weedmark Communication Ralph Bose (chair / présidente),Lamri Cheriet, Michèle Légaré-Vézina, Hoa Ly, Chester Neduzak, Leona Page, Jodi Ploquin, Jeff Sandeman (BoD liaison), Greg Zaporozan, Bulletin Editor / Rédacteur en chef, CRPA/ACRP webmaster Conference / Conférence Pauline Jones (chair / présidente), Lois Sowden-Plunkett (BoD liaison), Ralph Bose, Pam Ellis,Mike Grey, Liz Krivonosov, Gary Wilson CRPA Position Statements / Déclarations publiques de l’ACRP Dave Tucker (chair / président) International Liason / Liaison internationale Chris Clement (chair / président), Brian Gaulke (BoD liaison), Kevin Bundy, Michèle Légaré-Vézina, Gary Kramer Membership / Recrutement Emmy Duran (chair / présidente), Brian Gaulke (BoD liaison), Gary Kramer, Steve Webster Nominations Debbie Frattinger (chair / président), Petra Dupuis (BoD liaison), Geoff Byford, Stéphane Jean-François Registration Certification / Enregistrement Certification Jeff Dovyak (chair / président), Trevor Beniston, Lamri Cheriet, Ray Ilson (BoD liaison), Pauline Jones, Sandu Sonoc, Steve Webster Rules / Règlements Frank Tourneur (chair / président), Ray Ilson (BoD liaison), Lysanne Normandeau, Student Affairs / Liaison avec les étudiants Leah Shuparski (chair / présidente), Jeff Sandeman (BoD liaison), Donata DrabikChaulk, Sonia Lala, Michèle Légaré-Vézina, Dave Niven, Chuong Pham Translation / Traduction Roger Hugron (chair / président), Aimee Lauzon, Leona Page (BoD liaison), Valerie Phelan, Nathalie Ritchot, Carole Savoie, Colette Tremblay Prospectus The Canadian Radiation Protection Association (CRPA) was incorporated in 1982. The objectives of the association are Les objectifs de l’Association canadienne de radioprotection, dont les statuts ont été déposés en 1982, sont les suivants: • to develop scientific knowledge and practical means for protecting all life and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation consistent with the optimum use of radiation for the benefit of all, • Développer les connaissances scientifiques et les moyens pratiques pour protéger toute forme de vie et l’environnement des effets dangereux des radiations, et ce, d’une manière compatible avec leur utilisation optimale pour le bénéfice de tous; • to further the exchange of scientific and technical information relating to the science and practice of radiation protection, • to encourage research and scientific publications dedicated to the science and practice of radiation protection, • to promote educational opportunities in those disciplines that support the science and practice of radiation protection, • to assist in the development of professional standards in the discipline of radiation protection; and • to support relevant activities of other societies, associations, or organizations, both national and international. The association publishes the Bulletin four times a year and distributes it to all members. Subscription rates for non-members, such as libraries, may be obtained from the secretariat. Members of the association are drawn from all areas of radiation protection, including hospitals, universities, the nuclear power industry, and all levels of government. Membership is divided into five categories: full members (includes retired members), with all privileges; associate and student members, with all privileges except voting rights; honorary members, with all privileges; and corporate members. Corporate membership is open to organizations with interests in radiation protection. Corporate members are entitled to have their name and address listed in each Bulletin, a complimentary copy of each Bulletin, a copy of the Membership Handbook containing the names and addresses of all CRPA members, reduced booth rental rates at the annual meeting, and reduced advertising rates in the Bulletin. Application forms are available on the CRPA website or from the secretariat. CRPA-ACRP Secretariat PO Box 83 Carleton Place, Ontario K7C 3P3 tel: 613-253-3779 fax: 1-888-551-0712 email: [email protected] website: www.crpa-acrp.ca • encourager les échanges d’informations scientifiques et techniques relevant de la science et de la pratique de la radioprotection; • encourager la recherche et les publications scientifiques dédiées à la science et à la pratique de la radioprotection; • promouvoir les programmes éducationnels dans les disciplines qui soutiennent la science et la pratique de la radioprotection; • aider à la définition des normes professionnelles concernant la radioprotection, et • soutenir les activités pertinentes des autres sociétés, associations, organisations nationales ou internationales. Les membres de l’association proviennent de tous les horizons de la radioprotection, y compris les hôpitaux, les universités, l’industrie nucléaire génératrice d’électricité et tous les niveaux du gouvernement. L’association publie le Bulletin quatre fois par an et le fait parvenir à tous les membres. Le prix d’un abonnement pour les non-membres, par exemple une bibliothèque, peut être obtenu auprès du secrétariat. Les membres sont classés selon cinq catégories: membres à part entière (y compris les membres retraités), avec tous les privilèges; membres associés et étudiants, avec tous les privilèges sauf le droit de vote; membres honoraires, avec tous les privilèges; et membres corporatifs. Les membres corporatifs ont droit d’avoir leur nom et leur adresse indiqués dans chaque Bulletin, de recevoir un exemplaire du Bulletin, de recevoir un exemplaire de l’annuaire de l’association contenant les noms et adresses de tous les membres de l’association, d’avoir un kiosque à tarif réduit lors des conférences annuelles, d’avoir un espace publicitaire à tarif réduit dans le Bulletin. Les formulaires de demande d’adhésion peuvent être obtenus sur le site Web ou auprès du secrétariat. Q I am a member of the radiation safety committee at a university in another country. Some of our employees would like to complete their studies in Canada to obtain a master’s degree in radiation protection. Could you tell us which universities offer such degrees in Canada? A McMaster University in Hamilton, ON, offers a master’s degree in health and radiation physics. It is a one-year program that is “relatively course intensive and is designed to provide the education, training and professional development required for a career in Health Physics.” You will find more information on the department’s website at www.science. mcmaster.ca/medphys. As far we know that is the only careergeared health physics masters in Canada. Q Je doute qu’il y ait du radon dans notre maison, mais comment pourrais je le faire vérifier par une agence fédérale sans frais de ma part? Vous pouvez consulter notre annuaire Aassociation des entreprises sur le site web de notre : http://www.crpa-acrp.com/ Since you asked ... Puisque vous l’avez demandé ... biz_directory. I work for a company that does Q steel stud and drywall construction. Some time ago, we installed some lead shielding for X-ray rooms (which passed inspection), and we have just been asked to do it again for another clinic. Since it has been a while, we are wondering if specific certification is required to do the installation, or if there are any new rules and regulations regarding the installation of lead shielding? The design is being done by our engineers, but we are looking for guidelines for properly installing the lead shielding. Every Province has its own requireAshielding ments for the installation of lead for diagnostic machines. X-ray Contacts for the various provincial regulatory bodies can be found on the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee (FPTRPC) website, which is hosted by Health Canada at CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Answers from the Communications committee to some of the most frequently asked questions Le comité de communication répond aux questions les plus souvent posées www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/fptradprotect/2008_2010-plan-eng.php#prov. Health Canada also publishes safety codes that include extensive guidance in this regard, and many provinces have adopted these requirements. All of these can be found in Health Canada’s main directory of radiation-related safety codes at www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/index-eng.php. The business directory section of the CRPA website (www.crpa-acrp.com/ biz_directory) contains a list of consultants who may be able to provide technical assistance should you require it. Vol 32 No 1 / 5 6 / Vol 32 No 1 CRPA / ACRP Bulletin President’s Message / Message du Président Comparativement à des mandats de présidence antérieurs, celui-ci est plutôt tranquille. Aucun événement extraordinaire n’a encore eu lieu : Le congrès de l’IRPA est encore loin, la CCSN est stable et l’ACRP n’a pas été poursuivie. Cependant, des activités importantes se développent en raison, surtout, du travail acharné du comité organisateur local d’Ottawa, de tous les comités permanents et du conseil d’administration. Je vous présente ici un bref rapport de ces activités. D’ores et déjà, tous les résumés des présentations du congrès annuel devraient avoir été reçus, et le comité scientifique devrait avoir décidé qui offrira des présentations. Outre la séance internationale extraordinaire ainsi que les séances de présentations scientifiques et pratiques habituelles, le congrès offrira cette année, de nombreuses possibilités de perfectionnement professionnel, dont un atelier sur l’instrumentation et la détection, une séance de formation d’une demi-journée sur le TMD et trois visites techniques. L’une de ces visites nous fera connaître le passé du « Diefenbunker », une autre mettra en valeur les réalisations modernes du Centre de cancérologie de l’Hôpital d’Ottawa, et la dernière nous fera voir les opérations reliées au cobalt et à la médecine nucléaire de Nordion et de Best Theratronics. De nouveaux membres se sont greffés au comité d’accréditation et de certification, qui a adopté une nouvelle structure, un nouveau président et un nouveau nom : le comité des professionnels de la radioprotection. Avec ces changements viennent de nouvelles initiatives et de nouvelles activités. Parmi ces tâches, le comité s’efforce de préparer un code d’éthique pour les professionnels de la radioprotection de l’ACRP. Comme d’habitude à cette époque de l’année, le comité de traduction est extrêmement occupé avec les traductions des documents nécessaires pour le congrès et l’AGA. Le comité des candidatures a effectué du bon travail cette année : nous avons des candidats très compétents pour chaque nouveau poste du conseil d’administration. Le comité des déclarations publiques de l’ACRP, formé des anciens présidents de l’association, a la mission difficile de mettre à jour les objectifs de celle-ci. Ces objectifs datent maintenant de 30 ans. Nous espérons que cette mise à jour des objectifs assurera une présence accrue dans les activités de notre association au sujet des nouvelles préoccupations du public sur les autres domaines de la radioprotection, soit les lasers, les champs électromagnétiques, les rayons UV, les diodes électroluminescentes, etc. Tous les autres comités poursuivent leurs Compared with other presidency terms, my term seems to be pretty quiet. Nothing extraordinary is happening. The International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) congress is far away, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is stable, and CRPA has not been sued. Important things are unfolding, however, due in large part to the hard work of the Ottawa local organizing committee, to all standing committees and to the board of directors. My goal is to present to you a succinct report of these activities. At the time of writing, all the abstracts for our annual conference should have been received, and the scientific committee will have decided who the presenters are. Besides the extraordinary international session, and the usual scientific and practical presentations sessions, this year’s conference is very rich about professional development opportunities. Among other events, we will have an instrumentation and detection workshop, a half-day transportation of dangerous goods (TDG) training session, and three technical tours. One tour will revisit the past at the Diefenbunker, while the other two tours will showcase the more up-to-date accomplishments of the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre and Nordion and Best Theratronics Cobalt and Nuclear Medicine Operations. The registration-certification committee has new members, a new structure, a new chair, and a new name: the Radiation Safety Professionals Committee. With these changes came new initiatives and new activities. Among other tasks, the committee is working to prepare a code of ethics for CRPA radiation safety professionals. As usual at this time of the year, the translation committee is extremely busy preparing documents for the conference and the AGM. The nominations committee did good work this year; we have very strong candidates for each new position on the CRPA board of directors. And I would like to make special mention of the student liaison committee, which works hard to organize the student paper contest for the annual CRPA Anthony McKay Award. The CRPA position statements committee, comprised of former CRPA presidents, has the difficult mission of updating the CRPA objectives. The current objectives are now 30 years old. We hope our updated objectives will bring public concerns about newer types of radiation suite à la page 29 . . . continued on page 28 . . . CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 32 No 1 / 7 Editor’s Note / Message du rédacteur en chef Et si votre travail dépendait d’une image? La traversée des Grands Lacs et du fleuve Saint-Laurent par les générateurs de vapeur que la société Bruce Power veut faire décontaminer en Suède afin d’en recycler les composantes est loin de faire l’unanimité. La page couverture du journal montréalais The Mirror (édition du 10 mars 2011) illustre assez bien le problème d’image que les professionnels du nucléaire doivent surmonter. En effet, l’illustration de Richard Suicide contenait tous les clichés possibles : des poissons à trois yeux, un bateau baptisé « Nuke-U 666 » brillant dans le noir, des déchets radioactifs qui flottent… Pourtant, l’article de Patrick Lejtenyi intitulé « Swimming with plutonium: Ontario’s Bruce Power nuclear plant is shipping hundreds of tonnes of radioactive waste up the St. Lawrence » était presque équilibré puisqu’il donnait aussi la parole à l’industrie. Mais est-ce trop peu, trop tard? En effet, pourquoi lire l’article alors que l’illustration en couverture dit tout? L’image, qui prend la forme d’une métaphore à l’écrit, est un puissant outil de persuasion. PLoS ONE, une revue scientifique en ligne, a publié un article de Boroditsky et de Thibodeau de l’Université de Stanford intitulé « Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning »1. On y découvre que l’utilisation habile de métaphores sert grandement le pouvoir de persuasion des populations que nous sommes appelés à influencer. Êtesvous surpris de ce constat? N’avez-vous jamais entendu le transport routier de déchets radioactifs être qualifié de « bombe atomique roulante »? Et pourtant, on ne traite pas les camions citernes contenant de l’essence de « bombes au napalm roulantes »! L’utilisation de la métaphore choc est d’autant plus dévastatrice que l’accès à l’information professionnelle et équilibrée est plus facile que jamais sur le web et que vous pouvez vous-même, en tant que professionnel, y apporter votre grain de sel ou faire le contre-poids. La CCSN effectue depuis un an un travail de communication exemplaire : il est possible de suivre son fil de presse et d’accéder facilement aux comptes-rendus des réunions, ainsi qu’aux études scientifiques et aux évaluations de risques pertinentes. On remarque d’ailleurs que son président, Michael Binder, n’hésite pas à répondre du tac au tac à toutes les allégations médiatiques, peu importe l’importance du journal, ce qui ne manque pas de surprendre les médias locaux! 1 Thibodeau, Paul H. et Boroditsky, Lera (2011). « Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning ». PloS One, vol. 6, n° 2. (Site web consulté le 28 mars 2011 à l’adresse http://www.plosone.org.) What if your work depended on an image? Crossing the Great Lakes and the Saint Lawrence Seaway with Bruce Power steam generators destined for recycling in Sweden is far from being without controversy. The recent cover of the Montreal Mirror (March 10, 2011) captures the image problem nuclear energy professionals have to overcome. In the cover illustration by Richard Suicide, all the clichés are there: three-eyed fish, the so-called “Nuke-U 666” boat shining in the dark, floating radioactive waste, and so on. Nonetheless, the article, “Swimming with plutonium: Ontario’s Bruce Power nuclear plant is shipping hundreds of tonnes of radioactive waste up the St. Lawrence,” by Patrick Lejtenyi, is almost balanced, given that it also presented the industry point of view. But is it too little too late? Why bother to read the article when the cover shot says it all! Images, which we call metaphors when written down, are powerful tools of persuasion. PLoS ONE, an online scientific journal, published an article by Boroditsky and Thibodeau of Stanford University entitled “Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning.”1 The article shows us how the clever application of metaphor can be used to great effect to persuade the populations we are tasked with influencing. Does this observation surprise you? Haven’t you ever heard radioactive waste transport trucks being described as “atomic bombs on wheels”? But then, why do you never hear gas transport trucks being referred to as “napalm on wheels.” The use of shock metaphor is even more powerful now that professional, balanced information is easier to find than ever on the Internet, and you can add your two cents or argue the point as a professional. Over the last year, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has done 1 PLoS ONE: «Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning,” www.plosone.org, website viewed on March 28, 2011. suite à la page 29 . . . continued on page 28 . . . CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 32 No 1 / 9 Résumé La radiographie industrielle au Canada est effectuée dans des conditions parfois extrêmes, à l’aide de sources à très haute activité, et exige souvent de travailler de longues heures près d’appareils de radiographie pendant leur transport et leur mise en service. Par conséquent, les radiographes ont tendance à recevoir les doses les plus élevées de rayonnements en milieu de travail au Canada. La sécurité est une préoccupation courante : les incidents typiques surviennent surtout lorsque des appareils sont défectueux ou endommagés, et les incidents où l’erreur humaine est en cause sont possibles en raison de multiples facteurs comme la conception d’appareils, la formation du personnel et les enjeux par rapport au programme de radioprotection (ALARA). La CIRSA, Canadian Industrial Radiography Safety Association, a répondu, depuis 2005, au besoin de l’industrie de parler d’une voix commune afin de promouvoir de bonnes pratiques de radioprotection, d’influencer l’industrie et la culture de changement de protection de manière positive, et d’améliorer la relation de l’industrie avec la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire et d’autres organismes de réglementation. Elle compte poursuivre son travail en tant que groupe de représentation pour l’association de radiographie industrielle en préconisant une approche d’équipe avec l’organisme de réglementation; en demandant des règlements clairs et concis lorsque des amendements aux règlements sont proposés; en travaillant avec les éducateurs du secteur industriel pour fournir des renseignements précis aux nouveaux travailleurs; et en améliorant la communication avec les opérateurs pour promouvoir plus efficacement la culture de sécurité. 10 / Vol 32 No 1 CIRSA a common voice to positively influence the industrial radiography industry by Alan Brady, President, Canadian Industrial Radiography Safety Association (CIRSA) CIRSA, the Canadian Industrial Radiography Safety Association, was born in 2005 out of the industry’s need to speak with a common voice to promote good radiation safety practices, to positively influence the industry and change safety culture, and to improve the industry’s relationship with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and other regulators. Overall, CIRSA’s objectives, as found in the mission statement, are as follows: To be the leading radiation safety advocacy group and source of communication for the industrial radiography industry. This is achieved by promoting a strong radiation safety culture, member support, radiation safety awareness, providing direction and fostering cooperative working relationships with regulatory bodies, while at the same time, maintaining a common voice for the industry. CIRSA currently has three membership categories: corporate, individual, and commercial. Corporate members are those companies that currently hold a valid Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission licence to conduct industrial radiography (usetype 812). They have all the rights and privileges of full members, including the ability to vote on association issues and to represent the industry on the executive committee. Individual members are workers who are actively involved in the radiography industry. Commercial members are companies such as source distributors and providers of such services as calibrations and leak test sample measurement. These CRPA / ACRP Bulletin latter categories are not voting members, but otherwise enjoy all the rights and privileges of membership in the association. Until 2010, the only membership category was corporate: individual and commercial memberships were introduced in January 2010. As of May 2010, CIRSA represents 49 of the 130 radiography licensees in Canada. A formal Constitution has been developed to guide the association in its daily operations. An executive committee composed of nine members meets monthly. CIRSA hosts two meetings per year: one in the spring and one in the fall. These are timed to coincide with the industry’s slow times to encourage as much participation from corporate members as possible. CIRSA sees itself as one of a number of stakeholders improving radiation safety in Canada, along with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, licensees, workers, our clients, and the public. CIRSA has worked hard to be recognized as the main radiation safety group for industrial radiographers in Canada. CIRSA has been a steady advocate for the needs of the Canadian industrial radiography, and obtained official recognition from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in 2008. Going forward, CIRSA is working to further these industry goals: • To ensure CNSC and industry have the same goals • To improve the consultation process • To include radiographers from all areas of the country What is industrial radiography? • To improve the website and promote it as the main method of communication with members • To promote the industry’s needs and improve perceptions of the industry at the CNSC/Industry Focus Group that was formed in 2008 • To focus on goals that are common to CNSC, CIRSA, and the industry The formation of the CNSC / industry working group in 2008 was a major step toward cooperation between these groups. CIRSA plans to continue its work as the association and advocacy group for the industrial radiography industry by promoting a team approach with the regulatory body; advocating for clear, concise regulations when regulatory amendments are proposed; striving to improve communications with the regulator; working with industry educators to provide specific information to new workers; and improving direct communication with operators to better influence and promote good safety culture more efficiently. The purpose of radiography, and non-destructive testing generally, is to examine materials for flaws and determine their level of integrity without taking them apart. Industrial radiography differs from medical radiography in that the subject matter is not biologically based, but composed of materials such as steel, aluminum, and concrete used to manufacture or fabricate a multitude of everyday components. Industrial radiography is conducted under some very extreme conditions. Cold weather, long work hours, driving, working at heights or in confined spaces, and nighttime work are all challenges radiographers face in their daily work. Industrial radiographers have among the highest occupational radiation doses in Canada, in part because of the quantity of work performed. Canadian radiographers use very high-activity sources and work very long hours near radiography devices during transportation and operation. Over the seven-year period from 2001 to 2008, the distribution of incident types was mostly around device malfunctions and damage. Many incidents were caused by operator error due to a number of factors, including device design, training, and radiation safety program (ALARA) issues. Radiographers conduct their examination of materials according to codes that dictate the limits of flaws or discontinuities that are allowed, depending on the intended use of the materials. Radiographers use highactivity radioactive sources that emit moderately highenergy gamma rays (460 keV–1.25 MeV) to penetrate through the material being examined to expose a piece of film and create a radiograph. In certain applications, they also use electromagnetic X-rays in the range of 10 kV–15 MV with 5–10 mA to produce higher resolution radiographs. A number of different factors contribute to the type of radiography performed, including the density of the material being examined and how quickly the operator wishes to conduct the examination. Radiographers operate according to the requirements of the same regulations as other nuclear substance and radiation devices licensees. These include: • General Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations • Radiation Protection Regulations • Nuclear Substance and Radiation Devices Regulations • Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations • Transport Canada Clear Language Regulations • International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (TS-R-1 – 1996) CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 32 No 1 / 11 12 / Vol 32 No 1 CRPA / ACRP Bulletin ICRP News NEWS First Announcement ICRP Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection October 24–26, 2011 Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center North Bethesda, Maryland by Chris Clement, International Commission on Radiological Protection The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), an independent organisation that issues recommendations on protection against ionizing radiation, will hold its next meeting together with its standing committees in North Bethesda, Maryland, in October 2011. This meeting, held every two years, brings together the scientists and policy makers from around the world who are members of ICRP. Their recommendations form the basis of radiation safety standards, regulations, policies, guidelines, programs, and practice worldwide. In parallel with this meeting, a unique event is being organized: the first ICRP Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection. With participants from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia, this symposium will be of interest to anyone who works in the field of radiological protection. At the symposium, speakers will discuss the overall System of Radiological Protection recommended by ICRP described in ICRP Publication 103. This will be an opportunity for anyone with an interest in radiological protection to hear about the system directly from those who developed it. Participants will learn North B Marylaethesda, nd not only about how the system operates, but also its ethical foundations, the logic behind it, and how it has been applied in practical situations. The opening plenary session will provide useful information on the System of Radiological Protection and insight into the ongoing work of ICRP in relation to other key radiological protection organisations. Other sessions will cover topical issues such as protection against radon in homes and workplaces, protection of medical patients, environmental protection, and radiological protection related to security screening. Presentations will be made by Main ICRP Commission and Committee members, senior members of other international organizations, and officials and industry representatives from around the world. Time for open discussions will ensure an interactive exchange of ideas. This symposium will be made possible in part through support from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Please contact Christopher Clement, ICRP Scientific Secretary, at [email protected] if your organisation would also be interested in supporting this groundbreaking event. For more information, visit www.icrp.org. CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 32 No 1 / 13 Always nice to see you at the CRPA Conference! 14 / Vol 32 No 1 CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Book Review / Critique de livre The Radiance of France Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II Gabrielle Hecht (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009) Review by Michael Grey Candesco Corporation, Burlington, ON Gabrielle Hecht was born in the United States but raised in France. She is now an associate professor of history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor where her research interests focus on the history of technology in general and nuclear technology in particular. The Radiance of France is a reprint (with a new afterward) of her 1998 social and cultural history of the postwar French nuclear industry. She is currently working on a new work entitled Uranium from Africa and the Power of Nuclear Things. The radiance of France (or, alternatively, the grandeur of France) was a commonly used term in the postwar era that referred to the country’s golden age. That radiance had taken a beating through two world wars and the depression, but nuclear technology was seen as one way of restoring French radiance in the postwar years. As the author notes, the term “le rayonnement de la France” does have a double meaning when used to refer to the country’s postwar nuclear ambitions. The Radiance of France considers the period from 1945 through 1970, which begins with the development of the French gas-graphite reactor and ends with the decision to abandon further work on a domestic reactor design and license the American pressurized light water reactor design. Some discussion of technical issues is included, but the book focuses on the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) and the Électricité de France (EDF); the relationship between those two organizations; and their relationships with the government, their host communities (particularly Marcoule and Chinon), their workforce, and the three major French labour organizations. There is some discussion of the French nuclear weapons program but no mention at all of the French breeder reactor program even though construction of the Phenix breeder reactor began at Marcoule near the end of the period the book covers. There is no discussion of radiation safety per se but a health physicist might find the description of early working conditions interesting (or maybe horrifying). This book is regarded as a groundbreaking work in social and cultural history of technology but it is written for the professional historian or serious student of this field—I frequently had to turn to Wikipedia for an explanation of terms and concepts that were unfamiliar to me. It also seems to presume some knowledge of postwar French society and politics, but the seventy pages of notes included at the back of the book provide a great deal of assistance in these areas. I’m a history-buff so I enjoyed The Radiance of France, but I have to admit that it was not an easy read. Dr. Hecht’s study is strictly limited to France, but comparisons to Canada, AECL, Ontario Hydro, and the CANDU reactor are obvious and 1. University of Toronto historian Robert Bothwell has written two books on the history of Canada’s nuclear industry during this period: Eldorado—Canada’s National Uranium Company (1984) and Nucleus—The History of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (1988), but I believe that both are out of print. CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Résumé Le rayonnement de la France de Gabrielle Hecht est une deuxième impression (avec nouvelle postface) de son livre lancé en 1998 qui raconte l’histoire sociale et culturelle de l’industrie nucléaire française après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Le livre examine la période entre 1945 et 1970, qui commence avec l’invention du réacteur graphite-gaz français et se termine avec la décision d’abandonner le travail sur un réacteur domestique en faveur du brevet pour la conception américaine du réacteur à eau pressurisée. L’ouvrage se concentre sur le Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) et Électricité de France (EDF). Il discute un peu du programme des armes nucléaires de la France, mais il n’y a aucune mention du réacteur nucléaire de recherche Phénix, dont la construction a débuté à Marcoule vers la fin de la période couverte par le livre. Le rayonnement de la France ne contient aucune discussion sur la radioprotection en tant que telle, toutefois, un spécialiste de la radioprotection pourrait trouver intéressante (ou possiblement horrifiante) la description des conditions de travail de l’époque. Bien que l’étude de Hecht se limite à la France, des comparaisons avec le Canada, l’EACL, l’Ontario Hydro et le réacteur CANDU sont évidentes et inévitables. L’ouvrage se termine avec une postface décrivant les développements récents au sein de l’industrie nucléaire de la France, mais plus de détails auraient été souhaitable, surtout parce que les industries nucléaires de la France et du Canada ont connu une grande divergence quant à leur développement depuis 1970. inevitable.1 The book ends with a short afterward that describes the recent development of the French nuclear industry, but I would like to have seen more, particularly since the French and Canadian nuclear industries have developed in very different ways in the years since 1970. Vol 32 No 1 / 15 Summary of the 2010 FPTRPC Annual Meeting October 20–23, 2010 • Ottawa, ON By Wayne Tiefenbach Saskatchewan Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety Regina, SK The Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee (FPTRPC) meets annually to discuss emerging issues in radiation protection, review the progress of its working groups, and set priorities for the coming year. The meetings are held over four days and include training sessions, reports from a number of working groups, and presentations from members and their organizations, or from external non-governmental organizations. The following article summarizes the most recent annual meeting in Ottawa in October 2010. Delegates were welcomed to the 2010 FPTRPC meeting by the three co-chairs: Wayne Tiefenbach (Saskatchewan), Kevin Bundy (acting Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission chair), and Theresa Schopf (Health Canada). Wayne Tiefenbach chaired the Wednesday meeting and the wrap up business meeting; Kevin Bundy chaired the Thursday meeting; and Theresa Schopf chaired the Friday meeting. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) president, Michael Binder, who welcomed delegates to the Thursday meeting at the CNSC office, talked about the importance of this inter-jurisdictional collaboration. He presented the history of CNSC and their mission—to protect the health, safety, and security of persons and the environment, and to implement Canada’s international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. He invited the provinces and territories to celebrate the 65th anniversary of CNSC in 2011. President Binder asked representatives from the provinces if they were satisfied with their collaboration with CNSC and reminded delegates that he is open to suggestions that could improve the manner in which CNSC interacts with them. (You can find a PDF of Binder’s presentation online at http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Presentations/ President/2010/October-21-2010-President-Binder-presentation-to-FPTRPC_e.pdf.) Beth Pieterson, director of General Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, welcomed delegates to the Friday meeting and reiterated the importance of these meetings from Health Canada’s perspective. Due to the distances participants have to travel, most of the work of the FPTRPC is done by working groups and subcommittees. The annual meeting is an opportunity for the working groups to report back to the main committee. At this year’s meeting, it was decided that working groups and subcommittees should be comprised only of government representatives, FPTRPC delegates, or their replacements. The working groups will still be able to use outside resource experts as reviewers and advisors, but these resource experts will not have voting rights on the working groups. 18 / Vol 32 No 1 CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Working Group Reports and Assigned Tasks A. Provincial Radiation Dosimetry Review Subcommittee The Provincial Radiation Dosimetry Review Subcommittee reviews annual dosimetry testing compliance results and the minutes of the CNSC / National Dose Registry (NDR) Liaison Committee. They also develop policies for handling overexposures when more than one jurisdiction is involved. At the FPTRPC meeting, the subcommittee discussed their reviews of the annual National Research Council Canada (NRC) reports on the calibration of dosimeters for X-ray energies. These reviews revealed no deficiencies for the three approved service providers. There were no new service provider applications. B. Medical X-ray Utilization Working Group The Medical X-ray Utilization Working Group is monitoring the Medical Dose Registry-NRC/Agfa study and will improve liaison with the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR). The working group reported on a study of CT dose in colonoscopies performed in the province of Quebec. The study, which involved 16 facilities, 82 examinations (37 women and 45 men), 175 acquisitions, and 20 protocols, revealed that there is a wide variation in dose, practices are not standardized, some facilities use higher doses than CAR-recommended doses, and basic optimization measures are needed. Delegates expressed concern that, upon installation, digital radiography (DR) and computed radiography (CR) systems are not being optimized to reduce dose as much as technically possible. Studies show that more can be done to reduce patient exposure—reductions of up to 60% are attainable without affecting image quality. Members of the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee (FPTRPC) at the meeting in Ottawa last October. From left to right, Back Row: Evan Vandoros, Christian Lavoie, Scott MacLean, Lothar Doehler, Coleman Sinclair, Al Samms, and Invar Fife. Middle Row: Mary Hill, Cara Benoit, Joe Bradley, Colleen Rodgerson, Leo Tse, and Richard Tremblay. Front Row: Gabriel Mansour, Gary Hughes, Kevin Bundy, and Wayne Tiefenbach. Recent Health Canada (HC) research involves the development of tools to evaluate the imaging performance of digital equipment and the development of a protocol to evaluate performance, practice, and resulting dose for adults and children from CT equipment. (PER) to track and maintain records of radiological procedures of individual patients over their lifetime. This includes assigning the radiation doses of individual procedures, with consideration for patient specific parameters where possible, and recording patient lifetime exposure history. C. Canadian Medical Dose Working Group D. Canadian Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) Working Group The name of this working group was changed from Population Dose Medical Working Group to the Canadian Medical Dose Working Group. In addition to updating terms of reference, the group will be pulling together data to determine an average Canadian medical dose and a protocol for periodic updates. Ingvar Fife, a working group member, reported that a new radiological information system access for patients was almost in place and that the first data should come into the system in February 2011. Consideration is being given to the development of a patient exposure registry CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Due to changes made by the CNSC to the Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations and the revised Canadian Radon Guidelines, amendments are required in the Canadian Guidelines for the Handling of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM), Section 6, on transportation, and sections that make reference to radon levels. Draft revisions were circulated to delegates prior to the meeting. The NORM working group will finalize the amendments and circulate the final draft for delegate approval. Vol 32 No 1 / 19 The NORM working group will work with the Joint Documents working group to develop NORM transportation guidelines for industry. (See “Joint Document Working Group” for more information.) E. Radiation Standards Working Group The Radiation Standards working group is monitoring published International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) industrial radiography guidance documents, providing a position statement on the harmonization of pregnant worker dose limits for posting on the FPTRPC website, monitoring the status of the IAEA Basic Safety Standards (BSS), and finalizing a regulatory jurisdiction document (including both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation sources). The working group has already developed a guidance document, Dosimetry Guidance for Personnel Occupationally Exposed to Ionizing Radiation, for multibadge use in occupationally exposed settings. The document discusses service providers, the National Dose Registry (NDR), and personal monitoring for external radiation. This is a joint document that attempts to capture expectations of different jurisdictions. CNSC staff dosimetrists and Health Canada staff have already commented on the document, but CNSC has suggested the document should be peer reviewed prior to publication. F. Business Plan & Communications Working Group Due to significant overlap of responsibilities the Business Plan and Communications working groups were merged into one group. This group is responsible for tracking the mandate statements of the other working groups and subcommittees, providing an annual update of the FPTRPC business plan for posting on the website; preparing a summary of the annual meeting for circulation to other professional associations, working with the webmaster to ensure the website is current, and assigning an FPTRPC 20 / Vol 32 No 1 delegate to present a paper at the annual meeting of the Canadian Radiation Protection Association (CRPA). At the FPTRPC meeting, the committee reported that the business plan has been updated and a current version will soon be posted on the FPTRPC website. The business plan will include URL links in the contact list, radon contacts, and the terms of reference for each of the working groups. G. Joint Document Working Group The Joint Document working group circulated the Laser Hair Removal Devices draft guidelines to FPTRPC members last year for comments. After receiving feedback, the group made changes to the guidelines and sent them out again. The final version of the guidelines is expected to be approved this spring. The Joint Document working group also drafted the NORM Transportation Guidelines and circulated them among the NORM working group and to some NORM stakeholders (CNSC transport, Health Canada, Department of National Defence, and an oil and gas industry representative). The document still requires major rewriting. Other documents currently under review by the Joint Document working group are the IAEA Safety Standards (DS408), Radiation Safety in Industrial Radiography, and potentially Health Canada’s Guidelines for Tanning Salon Owners, Operators and Users. H. Electromagnetic Field Working Group The working group reported that three documents on extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation that were recently removed from the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control website have been posted on the government of Saskatchewan website: www.lrws.gov. sk.ca/radiation. The members of the Electromagnetic Field working group gave reports on the following electromagnetic field (EMF) issues: CRPA / ACRP Bulletin • Industry Canada conducts market surveillance and audits for wireless devices and broadcasting antenna systems. Their audit of field measurements for cell towers found that, for the vast majority of radio communication and broadcasting installations in areas accessible to the general public, the radio frequency field levels are a very small fraction of the regulatory limits as per Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 (SC-6). • Health Canada provided a summary of the revisions to SC-6. Although there were no changes to the exposure limits, there were significant changes to make the code easier to understand and use. An electronic copy of SC-6 can be obtained by emailing publications@ hc-sc.gc.ca. • Health Canada also reported that their study of compact fluorescence lamps concluded that the contribution of dirty electricity (high-frequency EMFs induced back into the home’s electrical system) is estimated to be minor or insignificant. • Health Canada found no convincing scientific evidence of a health risk relating to EMFs at levels below SC-6 limits, including airport full-body scanners and Wi-Fi sources. • The working group is considering the possible endorsement of a video about Wi-Fi being produced by Health Canada. The working group will also investigate the need for Wi-Fi guidelines for Canada and will continue to monitor the literature from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). I. Mammography Working Group The Mammography working group reported that the Health Canada Canadian Mammography Quality and Accreditation working group is finalizing Radon Presentations the draft of a new safety code for mammography, which will replace both Safety Code 33 (SC-33) and Canadian Mammography Quality Guidelines. The draft was expected to go for translation in November 2010, and national consultation in the spring of 2011. The working group also reported that development of the Quebec quality control software for mammography, CQ_ MAMMO, is progressing as planned and should be in place in the next few months. Phase 2 should be completed in 2011. Moving forward, the working group will work with CAR to develop a quality assurance and quality control strategy, to work with Health Canada to amend SC-33, and to investigate Health Canada’s capacity to conduct a cross Canada mammography survey. As part of its National Radon Program, Health Canada has been working to increase radon education and awareness. Close to 300,000 radon brochures and fact sheets have been distributed since January 2009. This has helped increase awareness about the potential risks associated with radon. There has been a significant increase in the number of Canadians testing their homes for radon and remediating as required. Health Canada completed the first year of its two-year Cross-Canada Residential Radon Survey and Federal Building Testing Project. Year two will be completed in the spring of 2011. In the federal building project, approximately 10% of the federal buildings tested had radon levels higher than the recommended limit. The interim report on buildings and residences was posted on the Health Canada website (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/ radiation/radon/survey-sondage-eng.php)in December 2010. Health Canada, in conjunction with the US National Environmental Health Association-National Radon Proficiency Program (NEHA-NRPP), is developing a certification program for radon measurement and mitigation professionals. A memorandum of understanding between Health Canada and NEHA-NRPP is in place and describes their relationship and the proposed program. Hope is that a certification program will be in place by the end of the fiscal year. The issue of radon originating from countertops was also discussed. Research studies have found that radon levels from countertops are extremely low, but some granite counter tops will have higher emissions. If someone is concerned, they should conduct a radon test in their home. J. Radon Working Group The Radon working group monitors its radon implementation plan and communicates updates to stakeholders. They are expected to improve estimates of exposure to Thoron gas, to develop a position statement on the optimal length of time required to accurately measure radon levels, and to establish a task force to review alternative methodologies (such as Pb-210 alpha tracks in glass) for radon testing. At the meeting, the Radon working group reported that the policy is that the longer the testing period for radon, the better. Testing times of 1 year are not practical. Canada Mortgage and Housing (CMHC) data has indicated that testing periods shorter than three months may be acceptable, however, three months of continuous monitoring makes more sense, especially if that testing is carried out in the fall/winter when house windows are kept shut. Once a house has undergone remediation, the remediation system should be left on and a three-month test should be done to confirm that remediation worked. The group also mentioned that the Canada Labour Code has been amended to include the new radon guideline for indoor air of 200 Bq/m3. Issues Discussed by Delegates There is concern that X-ray devices not approved by Health Canada are entering Canada. These unapproved devices are used mainly by dentists who rely on the advice of marketing representatives. Some dentists also purchase devices online. In one case, parts were imported and assembled in Canada. A project has been established to enhance the coordination of products between the Medical Devices Bureau and Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada. All medical devices licensed for sale in Canada can be searched in the Health Canada database, Medical Device Active Licence Listing (MDALL), at www.mdall.ca. At the CAR International Symposium in Montreal last spring, one of the issues discussed was the management of patients who have different types of radiological examinations requested by clinicians. It was reported that 10–20% of imaging radiographs were not necessary. CAR guidelines, Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guidelines: A Guide for Physicians, have already been published and will be available electronically in the near future. It was noted that some guidelines by l’Association des radiologists du Québec are available in Quebec. There was some concern that radiation biology training in medical schools was not sufficient and that over-utilization of CT scans may be occurring in Canada. The Ontario Ministry of Labour is establishing a memorandum of understanding with a private radio-analytical laboratory to provide business continuity in case the Radiation protection Monitoring Service (RPMS) laboratory becomes unavailable. There is also an agreement with the Radiation Safety Institute of continued on page 22 . . . CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 32 No 1 / 21 Issues Discussed CNSC by Delegates Staff Presentations . . . continued from page 21 Canada to provide radiation protection awareness courses to Ontario Ministry of Labour staff who are required to enter nucleargenerating facilities to respond to a worker complaint or work refusal. Quebec has a new centre for clinical expertise in radiation protection. Le Centre d’expertise clinique en radioprotection (CECR) complements le Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec et l’Institut national de santé publique du Québec, and will work in collaboration with l’Association des physiciens et ingénieurs biomédicaux du Québec, l’Ordre des technologues en radiologie du Québec, l’Association des radiologistes du Québec, and l’Association des médecins spécialistes en médecine nucléaire du Québec. Its mandate will be to conduct site visits, establish a dose monitoring mechanism to ensure maintenance of radiation protection quality, contribute to the adequacy of radiological exam protocols through the application of a user’s guide, carry out the appropriate studies with l’Institut national de santé publique du Québec and the partners, and make the appropriate recommendations to the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Election of a Provincial Co-chair Wayne Tiefenbach announced that at the end of this meeting he was stepping down as provincial co-chair of FPTRPC, a position he has held for 12 years. Gary Hughes, from Alberta, was elected by the provincial and territorial delegates to assume the provincial cochair role. Congratulations, Gary! 22 / Vol 32 No 1 President Binder stated that CNSC is working to establish benchmark limits for contaminants other than uranium, e.g. selenium, in uranium mine tailings. We heard an update on the CNSC nuclear substance regulation licensing process. The Directorate of Nuclear Substance Regulation (DNSR) has over 2,700 active licences and 238 active certificates. An overview of dosimetry licensing services was presented. The role of CNSC Dosimetry Services is to issue licences, amend licences when necessary, and audit and inspect licensees. The process for amending licences has recently been accelerated and improved. The procedures outlined in the licences have been updated and reflect current work practices. A new licence format is now used that references the dosimeter type and model used. Licensees have expressed concern regarding estimation of dose from multiple dosimeters and dose change requests for individuals who work under the Nuclear Control and Safety Act (NSCA) and provincial jurisdictions at the same time. As mentioned in the working group reports, these concerns are being addressed. CNSC’s role in responding to radiation-portal monitors used in waste management facilities, scrap metal recycling facilities, landfill sites, and border crossings was addressed. A brochure and poster on alarm response guidelines for radiation portal monitoring systems have been prepared and is on the CNSC website (http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/ pubs_catalogue/uploads/March-2011-Info0814-Alarm-Response-Guildelines-InfoBrochure_e.pdf). CNSC is in the process of reviewing the overall strategy for dealing with the discovery of orphan sources. An overview of a nuclear power reactor was given, starting with fission and including the type of fuel used and the different safety systems (e.g., shutdown systems for CANDU nuclear power plants, emergency core cooling and containment) involved in the operation of a reactor. Regulatory Document 337 (RD-337) establishes quan- CRPA / ACRP Bulletin titative limits for risk (dose) to protect public health and safety. A summary was presented of the alpha event that occurred during the Bruce A Refurbishment Project at Bruce Power. During refurbishment at Bruce A, Unit 1, a routine airborne sample detected long-lived alpha-emitting particulates in a filter resulting in work stoppage. Work was resumed with tenting and HEPA filtration systems. Once the test results were confirmed, Bruce informed CNSC of potential alpha uptakes by its workers. Bruce has since shared this “operating experience” (OPEX) with the rest of the industry. A recovery plan for radiation protection was developed by Bruce Power to address alpha hazards, and Bruce Power is currently reviewing past activities to assess potential alpha risks. So far the results of the bioassays have indicated that all doses are below regulatory limits for nuclear energy workers, and approximately 60% of results are expected to be < 1 mSv. An overview of the results of the CNSC Tritium Studies Project was presented. Tritium concentration of 100 Bq/L was recommended as a design objective for new Class I nuclear facilities to protect potable groundwater resources. (Health Canada reported that it was not its intention at this time to reduce the drinking water guideline for tritium to 100 Bq/L.) The details of this new design objective will be developed in a CNSC regulatory document. It is anticipated that this regulatory document will be prepared in 2011 and will be open for public comment following the normal public regulatory consultative process for draft regulatory documents. CNSC reported that there has been a big push to post documents pertaining to radiation issues on their website. In addition, all CNSC public presentations are available on the website (e.g., see reference to the online PDF of President Binder’s presentation on page 18). CNSC’s new Laboratory, which will include a new calibration facility, should be operational in 2011. Health Canada Staff Presentations Staff presented a review of Health Canada’s position on the limit for Tritium in drinking water and an overview of the McMaster University Tritium workshop. The presentation and discussion were in response to the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Committee (ODWAC) recommendation of a limit of 20 Bq/L for tritium in drinking water. Health Canada reviewed the rational for its existing recommendation and renewed its standard of 7,000 Bq/L for tritium in drinking water, which is consistent with WHO recommendations and with other jurisdictions in the world. Health Canada is preparing guidelines on the safe operation of laser pointers and handheld lasers. The health implications of new technology, and specifically strong handheld lasers, were discussed. Health Canada will provide the provinces and territories with this information once it has been compiled. A summary and update on the Sun Awareness Program was presented, including a summary of the tanning bed regulation review. Currently, biological research is being conducted to potentially identify early biological effects (carcinogenic bio-markers) of exposure. Questions were raised about tanning beds and the issue of children as young as 11 years old using them. An update on the regulation of tanning beds in Canada and an overview of recent developments was provided. The work plan and timelines of a new FederalProvincial-Territorial working group on tanning beds were discussed. This working group was established in response to interest from several provinces and to recent studies and policy initiatives, including the 2009 WHO reclassification of tanning beds as carcinogenic to humans and the introduction in March 2010 of a federal private-members bill to strengthen the wording on tanning bed labels. Sommaire de l’assemblée annuelle 2010 du Comité de radioprotection fédéral-provincial-territorial Du 20 au 23 octobre 2010, Ottawa (Ontario) Le Comité de radioprotection fédéral-provincial-territorial (CRFPT) se rencontre annuellement pour discuter des nouveaux enjeux en radioprotection, revoir le progrès de ses groupes de travail et établir des priorités pour l’année à venir. Les rencontres, qui ont lieu sur une période de quatre jours, comprennent les rapports d’un certain nombre de groupes de travail, des séances de formation et des présentations de la part de membres et de leurs organismes, ou d’organismes externes non ministériaux. Cet article résume l’assemblée annuelle la plus récente qui a eu lieu à Ottawa, en octobre 2010. L’auteur fait d’abord état des coprésidences du comité : Wayne Tiefenbach (Saskatchewan), Kevin Bundy (président intérimaire, Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN)) et Theresa Schopf (Santé Canada). Il souligne des points du discours prononcé par le président de la CCSN, Michael Binder, qui mettait en relief l’importance de cette collaboration entre juridictions, tandis qu’il accueillait les délégués lors de la rencontre du jeudi au bureau de la CCSN. Il mentionne Beth Pieterson, directrice de la Direction générale de la santé environnementale et de la sécurité des consommateurs à Santé Canada, qui, à son tour, accueillait les délégués à la rencontre du vendredi. Il poursuit son article en soulignant encore une fois l’importance de ces rencontres pour Santé Canada. L’auteur poursuit son article en résumant les diverses présentations, y compris celles effectuées par le personnel de la CCSN et de Santé Canada, et les rapports présentés par les divers groupes de travail : • Le Sous-comité provincial de revue de dosimétrie de rayonnement • Le Groupe de travail sur l’utilisation médicale des rayons X • Le Groupe de travail sur les doses en médecine • Le Groupe de travail sur les matières radioactives naturelles • Le Groupe de travail sur les normes de radioprotection • Le Groupe de travail sur le plan d’activités et les communications • Le Groupe de travail sur les documents communs • Le Groupe de travail sur les ondes mégamétriques • Le Groupe de travail sur la mammographie • Le Groupe de travail sur les niveaux d’intervention en matière de radon Pour l’assemblée de 2011, il a été convenu que les groupes de travail et les sous-comités devront être composés uniquement de représentant(e)s du gouvernement et de délégué(e)s du CRFPT ou de leurs représentant(e)s. Bien que les groupes de travail pourront continuer à recourir aux services d’experts-conseils externes en tant qu’évaluateurs et en tant que conseillers, ces experts-conseils n’auront pas droit de vote au sein des groupes de travail. Enfin, l’auteur nous informe que Wayne Tiefenbach quittera son poste à la coprésidence provinciale du CRFPT, tandis que Gary Hughes, de l’Alberta, lui succédera. Radiation Safety Regulations The provinces of Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador are in the process of producing new radiation regulations. In New Brunswick, the former Radiation Protection Regulations have been repealed and a new Public Health Act was proclaimed in November 2009 that includes radiation health hazards. Health Canada created a small group to review its Radiation Safety Regulations, but the group’s work is presently on hold while the Canadian Public Health Act is being renewed. CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 32 No 1 / 23 Emergency Response The Federal Nuclear Emergency Plan (FNEP), currently in its 4th version, describes the federal government’s preparedness and planned coordinated response in the event of a nuclear emergency. Health Canada coordinates the federal government’s nuclear emergency response activities through the FNEP— monitors the environment for radioactivity, provides advice to the provinces and territories on protective actions, and proactively develops emergency response plans. At the FPTRPC meeting, delegates discussed the role of the FNEP in relation to the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and the 2010 G8/G20 in Toronto. Security personnel at these events were trained to use high-efficiency gamma detectors, and about 1,200 people were trained to use X-ray security equipment. Health Canada continues to offer opportunities for training in nuclear emer- gency response to provincial governments. In addition, Health Canada has developed a Canadian network for bio-dosimetry analysis of overexposed workers or emergency responders. These dosimetry tools can be used in the event of accidental exposure; when the reading from physical dosimeters are compromised, missing, or in dispute; before and after time spent in space; and in the event of a radiological terrorist attack (e.g., dirty bombs). ICRP Scientific Secretary Report The ICRP Scientific Secretariat reported on the status of ICRP’s radiation protection documents. He stated that the most recent ICRP publication on this issue was Publication 103, from 2007. He reported on the ICRP constitution; on ICRP’s program of work; and on the group’s current work on radiation effects, dose, radiation protection in medicine, application of standards, and 24 / Vol 32 No 1 on the environment. The ICRP statement on radon and lung cancer, available on ICRP website, indicates that the risk for cancer from radon exposure is twice what it was believed to be. He also added that the draft report on radon was released for consultation, but the comment period is over. CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Student Corner / Coin des étudiant Résumé Je me suis toujours méfiée de la croyance selon laquelle, sur un curriculum vitae, les passe-temps sont aussi importants que le dossier scolaire, mais aujourd’hui, je porte un regard nouveau sur cette rubrique du c.v. En effet, j’ai rencontré récemment un couple très sympathique. Plus âgés que moi, ils en sont à une différente étape de leurs vies. Même si je sais qu’ils sont passionnés par leur travail, nous n’avons pas discuté de nos emplois respectifs. Nous avons plutôt parlé de jardinage, de rénovations, d’animaux de compagnie et de projets de bénévolat. Ils étaient plaisants et intéressants en raison de leurs activités à l’extérieur du travail. Qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour moi? Que je vais mettre mes livres de côté de temps en temps pour reprendre mes passe-temps que sont le tricot, le cyclisme, les voyages et le visionnement de vieux épisodes de la série Battlestar Galactica. Et vous? Hobbies Make Us Fun and Interesting People Outside of Work by Leah Shuparski, McMaster University I have always viewed the claim that, on your CV, hobbies are as important as your grades, with a high index of suspicion. It seems like a joke started by career and guidance counsellors to encourage students to apply for jobs they haven’t a hope of getting, and perpetrated by recruiters and human resource professionals. But lately, I’ve started to come around to that idea. I had the chance to meet a wonderful couple recently; they are older than I am and at a different stage in their lives. After our lovely chat over tea and cake, I left their house thinking I would be quite happy to be like them when I’m older. We didn’t really discuss what they did for a living. It may have come up once or twice, but only in passing. We talked about gardening, their (extensive) renovations to their 100-year-old home, pets, and CRPA / ACRP Bulletin volunteer projects. It wasn’t that they didn’t love their work—I know they are quite passionate about their “day jobs.” It’s just that they are fun and interesting people because of what they do outside of work. So what does that mean for me? I am putting down my schoolbooks (within reason, of course), picking up my knitting needles, and putting on my bike helmet. I have started to pack my travel bags, and Battlestar Galactica demands a re-watch. What about you? Vol 32 No 1 / 25 Health Physics Corner Oh no! A vial of moderator water breaks in a technician’s pocket! What should you do? by Emélie Lamothe, Health Physics Specialist Hi and welcome back. Last issue’s question reminds me of when my children were small. One day, they decided to make a batch of cookies while I was working in the garden. In the process, they managed to break a cup, spill the milk, spread flour throughout the house, and set off the fire alarm. It took awhile to clean up, but the cookies came out great. Last Issue’s Question A technician took a sample of moderator water for analysis, and put it in his pocket. The water had very little in the way of radionuclides, except for tritium: it was 444 GBq / kg water. If the vial broke and 10 ml of the 20 ml contents were absorbed through his skin, how much dose would he be expected to eventually receive, assuming no intervention (e.g., no increased fluid intake)? What actions should a health physicist take on discovering this uptake? Answer Some data: The density of water is 1 g/cc. This means that 1 kg of water = 1 L of water. The dose conversion factor (DCF) for tritium oxide (HTO) is 2.0 E-11 Sv/Bq. Let’s begin by figuring out how much tritium there is. Therefore, 10 ml of 444 GBq/L water has: (1) This Issue’s Question You have been asked to develop a dosimetry program for radiation hazard XYZ. What would your dosimetry program look like? What things must you include? Have fun! Remember, this column’s for you. Send your answers and suggestions for future issues by email to the CRPA Secretariat or to me at [email protected]. 26 / Vol 32 No 1 If this is all absorbed, given a 10-day effective half-life, the committed dose for a 70-kg man is: (2) Actions: (1) Ensure the worker has completed a full shower and changed clothing. This is to prevent further exposure from taking place. CRPA / ACRP Bulletin (2) Have the worker perform a whole body count and initiate a large-volume urine bioassay to determine whether any other radionuclides were absorbed. (3) Start a program of increased fluid intake. Such a program should be undertaken only under medical supervision, since for some individuals increasing fluid intake can be dangerous. Counsel the individual, using critical-incident stress debriefing techniques. (4) Ensure bioassay samples are being taken at regular intervals: sample 1–2 hours after the exposure, re-sample in an hour, then sample every 24 hours. (5) Ensure that the contamination from the incident has been contained, and that notifications have been made as per facility procedures for a significant unplanned exposure. (6) Alert dosimetry experts. Initiate an investigation to discover causes of this exposure and to recommend methods to prevent re-occurrence. Coin des spécialiste en radioprotection Oh non! Un flacon de l’eau de modérateur se brise dans la poche d’un technicien Que faire? par Emélie Lamothe, spécialiste en radioprotection Bonjour et bienvenue à nouveau. La question du dernier numéro m’a fait penser au temps où mes enfants étaient plus jeunes. Un jour, ils avaient décidé de préparer une recette de biscuits pendant que je travaillais au jardin. Ce faisant, ils ont réussi à briser une tasse, à renverser le lait, à étendre de la farine partout dans la maison et à déclencher l’avertisseur d’incendie. Malgré qu’il ait fallu quelque temps pour tout nettoyer, les biscuits étaient délicieux. On vous a demandé de créer un programme de dosimétrie traitant des dangers de rayonnements XYZ. À quoi pourrait ressembler votre programme de dosimétrie. Que devriezvous inclure? Amusez-vous! Souvenez-vous que cette rubrique s’adresse à vous! Envoyez vos réponses et vos suggestions pour les prochains numéros au secrétariat de l’ACRP ou encore faites-les-moi parvenir par courriel à l’adresse [email protected]. Réponse Question du dernier numéro Un technicien prend un échantillon de 20 ml d’eau virole pour analyse et le place dans sa poche. L’eau a une teneur très faible en radionucléides, sauf en tritium : celui-ci a une concentration de 444 GBq/ kg d’eau. Si le flacon se brise et que 10 ml du contenu est absorbé par la peau du technicien, quelle est la dose qu’il aura éventuellement reçue, en tenant pour acquis qu’il n’y a aucune intervention (par exemple aucune augmentation de la consommation de liquides par le technicien)? Quelles actions un spécialiste de la radioprotection devrait-il entreprendre suite à la découverte de cette absorption? Question du présent numéro Quelques données : La densité de l’eau est de 1 g/cc. Cela veut dire que 1 kg d’eau = 1 L d’eau. Le facteur de conversion de dose (FCD) pour l’eau tritiée est de 2,0 E-11 Sv/Bq. Calculons d’abord la quantité de tritium. Ainsi, 10 ml d’eau à 444 GBq/L contient : (1) Si le tout est absorbé, et puisque la période d’absorption efficace est de 10 jours, la dose absorbée engagée pour un homme de 70 kg sera : (2) CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Actions à entreprendre : (1) S’assurer que l’employé ait pris une douche complète et qu’il ait changé ses vêtements. Cela a pour but d’éviter toute exposition supplémentaire. (2) Demander à l’employé d’effectuer un comptage pour le corps entier et d’initier un test biologique de l’urine pour déterminer si d’autres radionucléides ont été absorbés. (3) Commencer un programme d’augmentation de la consommation de liquides. Un tel programme ne devrait être entrepris que sous surveillance médicale. En effet, pour certains individus, il peut être dangereux d’augmenter la consommation de liquides. Conseiller l’individu à l’aide de techniques de verbalisation de stress applicables après un incident traumatisant. (4) S’assurer que des tests biologiques soient faits à intervalles réguliers : 1 à 2 heure(s) après l’exposition; de nouveau, une heure plus tard; et ensuite à chaque 24 heures. (5) S’assurer que l’élément contaminé soit conservé dans un endroit fermé, et que des avis soient émis conformément aux procédures des installations en cas d’exposition importante non planifiée. (6) Aviser les experts en dosimétrie. Amorcer une enquête pour découvrir les causes de cette exposition et pour recommander des méthodes afin d’éviter que l’incident ne se reproduise. Vol 32 No 1 / 27 Submission Procedures Authors submitting manuscripts for consideration are asked to follow these guidelines. President’s Message 1.Submit manuscripts (in English or French) electronically as attachments (in Microsoft Word®). 2.Include the title of the paper, author(s) name(s) and affiliation(s), and email address to which correspondence should be sent. 3.Include an abstract of no more than 200 words and a biographical note of not more than 50 words for the author and any co-authors. 4.Submission of a manuscript implies that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere. Once accepted for publication in the Bulletin, consent from the editor must be obtained before a manuscript, or any part of it, may be published elsewhere in the same form. . . . continued from page 7 safety—lasers, electromagnetic fields, UV radiation, light emitting diodes, etc.—to the activities of our association. Finally I must talk about the activities of the board of directors. We had two meetings since my previous report to you; one was face-to-face in Toronto and one was a teleconference. One of the most important of issues discussed was posting the request for bids for the secretariat position. Also discussed, we now have $500,000 coverage for director/officers liability insurance, and we are still trying to define the CRPA vision statement. This statement should convey in a few words what we want CRPA to be in the next few years. I find the CNSC vision statement very inspiring: CNSC wants to be “one of the best nuclear regulators in the world.” I hope we can find something similarly challenging. Sandu Sonoc President, CRPA 5.Authors are invited to submit manuscripts at any time during the year to Editor (c/o CRPA Secretariat) ph: 613-253-3779 email: [email protected] Editors’s Note Deadlines Materials must be received by the editor no later than the following dates: Number 1......................January 15 Number 2......................April 15 Number 3......................July 15 Number 4......................October 15 Advertising While advertisements are sought after and accepted to offset the production costs of the Bulletin, the newsletter is published primarily for, and on behalf of, CRPA / ACRP members. Therefore inclusion of advertisements is entirely at the discretion of the association. CRPA / ACRP reserves the right to reject, omit, or cancel any advertisements that are not in keeping with the professional nature of the Bulletin or in any other way inappropriate for our members. Advertorials Advertorials are a new advertising feature for the Bulletin and are available at the same rate as display advertising. If a client requires assistance with writing, editing, or production of their advertorial, these services can be negotiated with the production company responsible for producing the Bulletin. For more information, contact Michelle Boulton at [email protected]. Publishing Office For rates, technical specifications, deadlines, and any information about advertising, contact the publishing office. Michelle Communications Ph: (306) 343-8519 Email: [email protected] 28 / Vol 32 No 1 . . . continued from page 9 a fantastic job with regard to public relations: you can follow its wire service and easily access its meeting reports, scientific studies, and relevant risk assessments. Furthermore, the commission’s president, Michael Binder, always has an immediate response to any media allegations, regardless of the size of the newspaper—this can come as quite a surprise to a fair few local media outlets. The moral of this story? Try to get involved in the discussion yourself. As a local professional, you have significant credibility among those close to you, as well as in private, professional, and public circles. I’m sure you have been inundated by a constant stream of questions regarding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, and your job has been to put matters into perspective, to compare the damage caused by nuclear accidents to damage caused by natural disasters, to explain the difference between direct exposure and contamination, to explain what iodine-131 and cesium-137 are, and so on. A member of the Canadian Radiation Protection Association (CRPA), Lysanne Normandeau, appeared on Télévison de Radio-Canada to provide listeners with understandable explanations and to reassure them. Thank you Lysanne! I won’t talk too much about what is happening in Japan, since, in my view, it is too early to talk about it with any authority. However, the Bulletin Editorial Board will follow the event closely and may offer articles on the subject in due course. Those members of CRPA who have a knack for writing, get your pens ready! Let us know how you are approaching this nuclear crisis in Japan, what you are doing to clarify matters, and what you have learned from the crisis. We will publish the best articles submitted. But for this Bulletin, we present Alan Brady, who talks about the Canadian Industrial Radiography Safety Association (CIRSA), Wayne Tiefenbach, who summarizes the latest discussions of the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee, and Chris Clement, who presents the 2011 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Symposium. Have a good read. And don’t forget, a picture is worth a thousand words, so choose a good one. Stéphane Editor-in-chief, CRPA Bulletin CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Processus de soumission Message du Président Les auteurs désirant soumettre des manuscrits pour considération sont priés de suivre ces lignes directrices. . . . suite de la page 7 activités quotidiennes, avec une mention spéciale pour le comité des relations avec les étudiants, qui travaille fort à l’organisation du concours de présentations étudiantes pour le prix Anthony-McKay 2011 de l’ACRP. Enfin, je dois mentionner les activités du conseil d’administration. Nous avons eu deux réunions dans la période depuis mon précédent rapport. L’une a eu lieu sur place, à Toronto, tandis que l’autre prenait la forme d’une conférence téléphonique. Au cours de ces réunions, le conseil a résolu les problèmes courants de l’ACRP. L’un des plus importants était l’offre pour le poste de secrétariat. Nous disposons maintenant d’une couverture de 500 000 $ d’assurance responsabilité civile pour les membres du conseil d’administration. De plus, nous cherchons toujours des idées d’énoncé de vision pour l’ACRP. Cet énoncé doit transmettre en quelques mots ce que nous attendons de l’ACRP dans les années à venir. Par exemple, l’énoncé de vision de la CCSN est très inspirant : « La CCSN s’efforce d’être le meilleur organisme de réglementation nucléaire au monde ». J’espère que nous pourrons trouver quelque chose d’aussi ambitieux. 1.Soumettre les manuscrits (en anglais ou en français) par attachement électronique (sous format Microsoft Word®). 2.Inclure le titre de la communication, le(s) nom(s) et l’affiliation de l’(des) auteur(s) et l’adresse courriel à laquelle la correspondance devrait être envoyée. 3.Inclure un résumé d’un maximum de 200 mots et une note biographique d’un maximum de 50 mots pour l’auteur et tout co-auteur, s’il y a lieu. 4.La soumission d’un manuscrit implique qu’il n’est pas considéré ailleurs pour publication. Une fois sa publication acceptée dans le Bulletin, il est essentiel d’obtenir le consentement du rédacteur en chef avant qu’un manuscrit, ou toute partie d’un manuscrit, puisse être publié ailleurs sous le même format. 5.Les auteurs sont invités à soumettre des manuscrits à tout moment au cours de l’année à Rédacteur en chef (secrétariat de l’ACRP) Tél : (613) 253-3779 Courriel : [email protected] Sandu Sonoc Président, ACRP Dates limites Message du rédacteur en chef . . . suite de la page 9 La morale de cette histoire? Essayez de participer à la discussion vous aussi. En tant que professionnel local, vous disposez d’une crédibilité importante auprès de vos proches et dans les sphères privées, professionnelles ou publiques. Vous avez sûrement été submergés de questions portant sur la centrale nucléaire de Fukushima Daiichi et inlassablement, votre travail était alors de remettre les choses en perspective, de comparer les pertes liées aux catastrophes naturelles à celles provoquées par l’accident nucléaire, d’expliquer la différence entre l’exposition directe et la contamination, d’expliquer ce que sont l’iode-131, le césium-137, etc. L’une de nos membres, Lysanne Normandeau, s’est d’ailleurs illustrée à la télé de Radio-Canada en vulgarisant les explications et en rassurant les auditeurs. Merci Lysanne! Je ne m’étendrai pas trop sur le sujet du Japon, puisqu’il est à mon avis trop tôt pour pouvoir bien en parler. Par contre, le BEB suivra la situation de près et pourra nous proposer des articles sur le sujet en temps voulu. Membres de l’ACRP à la plume agile, à vos crayons! Faites-nous part de la façon dont vous traversez cette crise nucléaire au Japon, ce que vous en avez appris et comment vous arrivez à clarifier le message. Nous publierons les meilleurs textes. En attendant, le présent Bulletin vous propose un article d’Alan Brady, qui nous fait connaître la Canadian Industrial Radiography Safety Association (CIRSA); Wayne Tiefenbach résume les dernières discussions du comité fédéral, provincial et territorial en radioprotection, et qui regroupe plusieurs membres de l’ACRP; et Chris Clement nous présente le symposium de l’International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 2011. Bonne lecture et n’oubliez pas : puisqu’une image vaut mille mots, il faut savoir choisir la bonne. Numéro 1......................15 janvier Numéro 2......................15 avril Numéro 3......................15 juillet Numéro 4......................15 octobre Publicités Bien que les publicités soient recherchées et acceptées pour contrer les coûts de production du Bulletin, la lettre est d’abord publiée pour et au nom des membres de l’ACRP. Ainsi, le fait d’inclure des annonces demeure entièrement à la discrétion de l’association. L’ACRP se réserve le privilège de refuser, omettre ou annuler toute publicité qui ne serait pas pertinente à la nature professionnelle du Bulletin ou qui serait d’une manière quelconque inappropriée pour nos membres. Articles publicitaires Les articles publicitaires sont une nouvelle option de publicité dans le Bulletin et sont disponibles au même taux que les publicités par annonce. Si un client a besoin d’appui avec la rédaction, l’édition ou la production de son article publicitaire, ces services peuvent être négociés auprès de l’entreprise responsable de la production du Bulletin. Pour plus d’information, contactez Michelle Boulton à [email protected]. Bureau de publication Pour les taux, les spécifications techniques, les échéanciers et toute autre information au sujet de la publicité, contactez le bureau de publication. Michelle Communications Tél : (306) 343-8519 Courriel : [email protected] Stéphane Rédacteur en chef, Bulletin de l’ACRP Le matériel doit être reçu par le rédacteur en chef au plus tard par les dates suivantes : CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Vol 32 No 1 / 29 Coming Events / Réunions à venir • 56th annual meeting of the Health Physics Society Jun 26–30, 2011, Palm Beach, FL. For more information, visit www.hps.org/ meetings/meeting28.html. • International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection October 24–26, 2011, North Bethesda, MD. Held every two years, this meeting brings together scientists and policy makers from around the world. Their recommendations form the basis of radiation safety standards, regulations, policies, guidelines, programs, and practice worldwide. For more information, visit www.icrp.org. • Living with Radiation—Engaging with Society, IRPA 13 May 13–18, 2012, Glasgow, Scotland. For more information, visit www.irpa13glasgow.com. CRPA Corporate Members / ACRP Membres corporatifs ALARA Consultants Allan Seitz 9556-27 Ave. Edmonton, AB T6N 1B2 tel: 780-944-2557 fax: 780-944-2558 www.alaraconsultants.com F & J Specialty Products F. M. Gavila 404 Cypress Rd. Ocala, FL USA 34472 tel: 352-680-1177 fax: 352-680-1454 www.fjspecialty.com Atomix Nuclear Services Bruce Conning Unit 1, 250 Thompson Drive Cambridge, ON Canada N1T 2E3 tel: 519-624-7233 fax: 519-624-6853 www. atomixnuclear.com Gamble Technologies Janice Langaigne 6535 Millcreek Drive, Unit 58 Mississauga, ON L5N 2M2 tel: 905-812-9200 or 800-268-2735 fax: 905-812-9203 www.gtl.ca BC Centre for Disease Control Terry Spock Main Floor, 655 12th Ave W Vancouver, BC V5Z 4R4 tel: 604-707-2442 fax: 604-707-2441 www.bccdc.ca Mirion Technologies Louis Biacchi 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA USA 92614 tel: 888-419-10000 or 949-419-1000, ext 2316 fax: 949-296-1130 www.mirion.com Bubble Technology Industries Inc. Dr. Robert Noulty 31278 Highway 17 Chalk River, ON KOJ 1J0 tel: 613-589-2456 fax: 613-589-2763 www.bubbletech.ca Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists Mark Given Suite 1000, 85 Albert Street Ottawa, ON K1P 6A4 tel: 613-234-0012 fax: 613-234-1097 www.camrt.ca Canberra Co. Jim Outos West - 50B Caldari Road Concord, ON L4K 4N8 tel: 905-660-5373 fax: 905-660-9693 www.canberra.com What's Up? SPEAK OUT Do you know of an upcoming event that might be of interest to your fellow CRPA members? Send the event information to [email protected] and we can include it in the next issue of the Bulletin. Quoi de neuf? Connaissez-vous une activité qui pourrait intéresser vos collègues de l'ACRP? Faites-en parvenir les renseignements relatifs à l'adresse courriel [email protected] et nous pourrons en faire la promotion dans la section "Réunions à venir" du Bulletin. 30 / Vol 32 No 1 Danatec Educational Services Warren Bailey 201, 11450 29th St. SE Calgary, AB T2Z 3V5 tel: 403-723-3289 email: [email protected] www.danatec.com Durridge Company, Inc. Derek Lane-Smith 7 Railroad Avenue, Suite D Bedford, MA USA 01730 tel: 781-687-9556 fax: 781-687-0955 www.durridge.com Energy Solutions Canada Ron Leblond Head Office 190 Wilkinson Rd., Unit #2 Brampton, ON L6T 4W3 tel: 800-665-7736 fax: 905-450-8523 www.monserco.com CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Harpell Associates Inc. 1272 Speers Road, Unit 2 Oakville, ON L6L 2X4 tel: 905-825-2588 800-387-7168 fax: 905-825-0234 www.harpellassociates.com Hopewell Designs, Inc. Joy Garrett 5940 Gateway Drive Alpharetta, GA USA 30004 tel: 770-667-5770 fax: 770-667-7539 www.hopewelldesigns.com J L Shepherd & Associates Mary Shepherd 1010 Arroyo Avenue San Fernando, CA USA 91340-1822 tel: 818-898-2361 fax: 818-361-8095 www.jlshepherd.com Landauer, Inc 2 Science Road Glenwood, IL USA 60425 tel: 708-755-7000 fax: 708-755-7011 www.landauerinc.com Lou Champagne Systems Inc. Lou Champagne Unit 6B,1195 North Service Rd. W. Oakville, ON L6M 2W2 tel: 905-338-1176 fax: 905-338-6426 www.louchampagnesystemsinc.com Marshield— Division of Mars Metal Co. David Holden 4140 Morris Drive Burlington, ON L7L 5L6 tel: 800-381-5335 fax: 905-637-8841 www.marshield.com www.marsmetal.com National Dosimetry Services Radiation Protection Bureau Dan Karov 775 Brookfield Road, 6301D Ottawa, ON K1A 1C1 tel: 800-261-6689 fax: 613-957-8698 800-252-6272 www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/nds Radiation Measurement Systems Ernie Franzese 81 Romeo Crescent Woodbridge, ON L4L 7A2 tel: 905-856-5950 fax: 905-851-7473 email: [email protected] www.radiation-measurementsystems.com Radiation Safety Institute of Canada Maria Costa 165 Avenue Road, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M5R 3S4 tel: 416-650-9090 fax: 416-650-9920 www.radiationsafety.ca Ray-Bar Engineering Vince Wohler PO Box 415 697 Foothill Boulevard Azusa, CA USA 91702 tel: 626-969-1818 fax: 626-969-6510 www.raybar.com Stuart Hunt and Associates Trevor Beniston 20 Rayborn Crescent St. Albert, AB T8N 4B1 tel: 780-458-0291 or 800-661-4591 fax: 780-459-0746 www.stuarthunt.com Technical Management Services Robin Rivard PO Box 226 New Hartford, CT USA 06057 tel: 860-738-2440 fax: 860-738-9322 www.tmscourses.com Uni-Vert Tech Willy Rhein 3737 Notre-Dame Ouest Montreal, QQ H4C 1P8 tel: 514-573-2858 fax: 514-937-9440 www.univerttech.ca www3. sympatico.ca/rad.tech/english.html Contributors Alan Brady, current president of the Canadian Industrial Radiography Safety Association (CIRSA), made a keynote presentation to the CRPA 2010 Conference in Edmonton, Alberta, on May 26, 2010. The purpose of the presentation was to introduce CIRSA to CRPA members in the context of the conference’s stated theme: “Aiding the Radiation Safety Professional.” Alan Brady, président de la Canadian Industrial Radiography Safety Association (CIRSA), était conférencier lors du Congrès 2010 de l’ACRP, qui a eu lieu le 26 mai 2010 à Edmonton, en Alberta. Sa conférence avait pour but de présenter la CIRSA aux membres de l’ACRP dans le contexte du thème du congrès qui était : « Aider le professionnel en radioprotection. » the director of radiation protection when he left in 2008. He is currently the scientific secretary of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Chris Clement, expert de radiophysique médicale sanitaire agréé, travaille en radioprotection depuis les années 1980, d’abord dans des projets de restauration environnementale, puis avec la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire, où il portait le chapeau de directeur de la radioprotection à son départ en 2008. Aujourd’hui, il occupe le poste de secrétaire scientifique de la Commission internationale de protection radiologique (CIPR). de la dosimétrie, de l’assurance qualité, de la santé et sécurité en milieu de travail et de la protection civile. Leah Shuparski is an MSc candidate at McMaster University, studying health and radiation physics. Wayne Tiefenbach est directeur de l’Unité de radioprotection du ministère des Relations et de la sécurité en milieu de travail de la Saskatchewan. Accompagné de Kevin Bundy, président intérimaire de la Commission canadienne de sécurité nucléaire (CCSN) et de Theresa Schopf de Santé Canada, il assure depuis douze ans la coprésidence du Comité de radioprotection fédéral-provincial-territorial (CRFPT). Readers’ Corner Michael Grey is a senior analyst with Candesco Corporation in Toronto, Ontario, and pastpresident of CRPA. Leah Shuparski est étudiante à la maîtrise en radioprotection à l’Université McMaster. Michael Grey est analyste principal chez Candesco Corporation de Toronto, Ontario, et ancien président de l’ACRP. Chris Clement, a certified health physicist, has worked in radiation safety since the 1980s, first on environmental restoration projects, then with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, where he was Commission (CNSC), and Theresa Schopf, Health Canada, is a co-chair of the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee (FPTRPC). Wayne has served as the provincial co-chair for 12 years. Emélie Lamothe is a health physicist and member of CRPA. In her professional life, she has worked in the fields of research and development, dosimetry, quality assurance, health and safety, and emergency preparedness. Emélie Lamothe est spécialiste de radioprotection et membre de l’ACRP. Au cours de sa carrière, elle a travaillé dans les domaines de la recherche et du développement, This is where you get to share your ideas and opinions or to comment on something we have published in the Bulletin. Try to keep your letters to no more than 500 words, and include your name and affiliation with your letter. Send your letters to: secretariat2007@ crpa-acrp.ca Coin des lecteurs Wayne Tiefenbach is the Director of the Radiation Safety Unit, Saskatchewan Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety. He, along with Kevin Bundy, acting chair for the Canadian Nuclear Safety CRPA / ACRP Bulletin Le Coin des lecteurs vous permet de partager vos idées, d’émettre votre opinion ou encore de donner votre commentaire au sujet d’une publication antérieure du Bulletin. Nous vous demandons de limiter votre correspondance à moins de 500 mots et d’y inclure votre nom et affiliation. Envoyer vos lettres à : secretariat2007@ crpa-acrp.ca Vol 32 No 1 / 31