Canadian Radiation Protection Association - CRPA-ACRP

Transcription

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
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
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
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
ph: 306-343-8519
tel: 613-253-3779
fax: 1-888-551-0712
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
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.
PO Box 83
Carleton Place, Ontario K7C 3P3
tel: 613-253-3779
fax: 1-888-551-0712
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
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
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 . . .
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 . . .
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
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)
Vol 32 No 1 / 11
12 / Vol 32 No 1
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.
Vol 32 No 1 / 13
Always nice to see you at the CRPA Conference!
14 / Vol 32 No 1
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.
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
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
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:
• 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
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-
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.
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.
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
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.
(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)
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.
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
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.
Ph: (306) 343-8519
Email: [email protected]
28 / Vol 32 No 1
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
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.
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 :
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
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
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
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
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

Canadian Radiation Protection Association - CRPA-ACRP

Transcription

Documents pareils

De l`utilité de définir 1 Jansky = 10-26 W m-2 Hz

The Department of Health and Social Services, in conjunction with

Política y Compromiso de Gestión de la Calidad, Seguridad y el

praticiens de la lutte contre les infections

Cartographie et Géodésie Nationale

Technology Safety Planning with Survivors

Livres - CSNSM

4.3 La construction des savoirs relatifs aux médicaments

BLOOD CLOTS: Do you know the facts?

Qualification de la Technique de Mesure PIV en vue d`une

Rapport - Intosai

Safety Integrated for Process Automation

Safety Integrated pour l`automatisation de processus