Southport '99 Sixth International Symposium

Review

Posted 23 July 1999

SOUTHPORT '99

The 6th SRP International Symposium

Achievements & Challenges: Advancing Radiation Protection into the 21st Century

M C Thorne
AEA Technology - Environment, 424.4 Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RA

The Sixth International Symposium of the SRP was held in Southport from 14-18 June 1999. It was co-sponsored by the French, German-Swiss and Netherlands Societies for Radiological Protection and attracted some 300 attendees from about 20 countries. As with previous Symposia, the scientific content was broad, covering topics ranging from fundamental radiobiology to instrument construction and calibration. Altogether approximately 130 papers were presented either orally or as posters. A feature of the meeting was that each oral session began with one or two keynote papers. These were intended to provide a context for the specialised contributed papers that followed, or that were presented in the corresponding poster session. This reflected a deliberate aim to provide underpinning knowledge on all aspects of radiation protection, as well as to provide information on the latest developments.

In a brief review, it is impossible to do justice to all the material that was presented. For details, the reader is referred to the proceedings [1], which were made available to participants at the time of registration. A further innovation at this Symposium was the issue of a CD containing the majority of the papers in electronic form.

The opening session addressed regulations and standards. The keynote presentation for this session and for the Symposium as a whole was by R H Clarke. He presented his innovative suggestions for development and simplification of the system of radiological protection in a paper on controllable dose very similar to that published in the June 1999 issue of this journal. This stimulated considerable discussion, as did a later paper in the same session on criteria for de-licensing UK nuclear sites.

Education and training is becoming a topic of increasing interest to the sponsoring Societies, as issues of certification and CPD become more important in demonstrating professional competence. A European perspective on these matters was provided by D Teunen of DG XI and the international dimension was emphasised by two papers on educational issues from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Croatia, respectively.

In the session on natural radiation, W Kraus and G M Kendall presented a comprehensive overview in a keynote paper and supporting poster. A R Denman brought together much of the work that he and his colleagues have undertaken in evaluating the value of radon remediation strategies in Northamptonshire. In the associated poster session, there was vigorous discussion on a number of issues including the radiological impact of uranium mining residues and their remediation, as well as the radiation shielding characteristics of traditional African dwellings.

Medical exposures of patients was another highly international session, with all the speakers from overseas (though one of them was presenting work undertaken in Newcastle). The keynote paper, by H W Roser and J Roth, had a decided Swiss emphasis, but C Zuur provided an overall European dimension in her account of the EURATOM Medical Exposure Directive. A paper by R J Vetter and K L Classic highlighted the extensive range of medical research studies performed on patients at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, the ethical issues that arise in such studies and the way in which those issues have been addressed.

Although the call for papers for the Symposium had emphasised the intention to hold a parallel session on non-ionising radiations, the response to this call had been very limited. For this reason, only a brief oral session was included immediately before the session on operational control of exposure to ionising radiations. This brief session included two overview papers, one by S G Walker on optical radiation hazards and one by P Chadwick on the hazards of other types of electromagnetic radiation.

In the context of operational control, R Coates provided a UK based overview, with an emphasis on nuclear fuel cycle activities. In addition, M S Colalancia provided a wide-ranging account of the work of BNFL Inc. in relation to US DOE cleanup activities. If there was a disappointment in this session, it was the small amount of material submitted relating to radiological protection on operating commercial nuclear power plants.

As is usual in these meetings, the session on epidemiology and radiobiology aroused considerable interest. The keynote paper by C Streffer was an informative mingling of review material and recent research results from his own laboratory. The summary of results from the second analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers by C Muirhead was timely and M P Little reported on his latest analysis of age and time variations in cancer risk after irradiation in childhood. This related not only to the Japanese A-bomb survivors, but also to five other exposed groups. Papers by R Wakeford and D J Higson served as a useful introduction to a discussion session on important topics such as the validity of the linear, no-threshold dose response relationship, the significance of hormesis and the possibility of defining a regime in which doses are of no regulatory significance.

The two sessions that attracted the most papers related to radionuclides in the environment and to radiation dosimetry. G A M Webb choose to discuss a topic of increasing interest, the need to ensure protection of the environment as a whole, rather than assuming that if man is protected all other species are adequately protected. Other papers explored radiological impacts of past activities in Russia, approaches to the evaluation of remediation strategies for radioactively contaminated sites, impacts of discharges from Sellafield and the UK approach to dealing with radioactive material in metal scrap.

In the dosimetry session, technique development received substantial attention. M A Bero described the considerable progress that has been made in using ferrous sulphate xylenol orange in gelatin gel for 3D dosimetry applications using optical readout techniques and R C Yoder described an aluminium oxide based dosimetry system optimised for readout by a pulsed optically stimulated luminescence process. On internal dosimetry, J L Finlayson provided an entertaining and informative account of the investigations undertaken following detection of a potential high intake of uranium dioxide by a worker.

The final session, on emergency preparedness, again covered a wide-range of issues. This is well illustrated by the very different topics of the two keynote papers. H Brunner discussed developments and changes in national emergency preparedness programmes and international collaboration since Chernobyl. In contrast, P Gourmalon addressed the question of the degree to which biological dosimetry is useful in cases of individual overexposure. On this matter, he argued that our current concept of biological dosimetry is inadequate and should be replaced by the concepts of bioindicators of diagnosis and bioindicators of prognosis. This seemed an important reorientation of thinking that should be pursued further.

As Chairman of the Scientific Programme Committee and a member of the Organising Committee, it would not be appropriate for me to evaluate the degree of success of the Symposium. The most that I will venture is that oral and poster sessions were well attended, and that discussions in the bar of the Royal Clifton Hotel continued far into the night throughout the week.

Reference

1. Thorne, M C (Ed.), Southport '99 - Proceedings of the 6th SRP International Symposium: Achievements & Challenges: Advancing Radiation Protection into the 21st Century, Society for Radiological Protection, 21 Wigmore Street, London, W1H 9LA, ISBN 0-7058-1784-9, 1999.