What types of medical problems did early radiation workers develop as a consequence of their occupational exposure?

Br J Radiol. 2020 Aug 1; 93: 20200282.

Abstract

Within a few months of discovery, X-rays were being used worldwide for diagnosis and within a year or two for therapy. It became clear very quickly that while there were immense benefits, there were significant associated hazards, not only for the patients, but also for the operators of the equipment. Simple radiation protection measures were implemented within a decade or two and radiation protection for physicians and other operators has continued to evolve over the last century driven by cycles of widening uses, new technologies, realization of previously unidentified effects, development of recommendations and regulations, along with the rise of related societies and professional organizations. Today, the continue acceleration of medical radiation uses in diagnostic imaging and in therapeutic modalities not imagined at the turn of this century, such as positron emission tomography, calls for constant vigilance and flexibility to provide adequate protection for the growing numbers of medical radiation workers.

Introduction

Physicians, nurses, technologists, and others associated with medicine currently comprise the largest single group of workers occupationally exposed to manmade sources of radiation.1–3 This trend is particularly evident in the areas of interventional radiology/cardiology and nuclear medicine. Medical uses of ionizing radiation have increased substantially over time, especially in the last decade or so, and are especially applicable to rising cancer and cardiovascular disease.4–6 Historically, the average annual occupational effective dose estimates have trended downward for the medical radiation worker populations (with the likely exception of a leveling through the 1960s) from ~70 mSv prior to 1939 down to ~2 mSv in the late 1970s and below ~1 mSv today, with the exception of physicians who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures.7 However, for early medical radiation workers, a broad distribution of radiation doses was possible.

The evolution of radiation protection in medicine has historically proceeded in a spiral or cyclical manner through concentrated nodes of scientific activity, including: discovery, development/application, hazard recognition along with the need for control with protective measures, and optimization of protection (Figure 1 Radiation Protection Evolution). A backward glance often informs the present and springboards the future, enabling continuous improvement. Professional societies and various other organizations are essential to ensure adequate training and knowledge dissemination. This review discusses several distinct historical periods addressing selected medical radiation developments, hazard recognition, and associated evolving protection philosophies.

Radiation Protection Evolution

Before the X-ray (Pre-1895)

Prior to the initial discovery of X-rays, scientific progression (i.e. the standing on the shoulders of giants) included important milestones, such as: Gilbert’s understanding of magnetism (1600), Torricelli’s vacuums (1643), Newton’s electrical machine (1675), Franklin’s positives and negatives (1745), Volta’s pile (1800), Faraday’s electromagnet induction and attempts to explain ‘radiant matter’ (1850), through to Crook’s tubes (1879).8 With respect to radiation and potential for injury, it was recognized that lung cancers were endemic as far back as the 16th century in European underground metal miners, although clearly not yet linked with any formal conception of radiation, but was later understood to be related to breathing radon gas and its radioactive progeny.9

Decade of discovery (1895–1914)

Parallel discoveries of X-rays and radioactive material propelled the world into the previously unknown realm of ionizing radiation. German physicist Wilhelm Konrad Röntgen discovered X-rays in November, 1895.10,11 The first radiology journal (Archives of Clinical Skiagraphy [ultimately to become the British Journal of Radiology]) was published in May 1896. French physicist Henri Becquerel discovered penetrating rays emitted from salts of uranium.12 His discovery prompted Marie and Pierre Curie to separate the substance responsible for emitting the radiation. Madame Curie named this emission “radioactivity” to describe the spontaneous activity.13,14 The Curies eventually separate enough radium from tons of pitch blende ore to verify its existence as a new element by 1902.14

As each of these discoveries progressed, immediate public fascination and interest in the properties of radiation followed, along with recognition that this previously unknown form of energy would have high value in medicine with subsequent widespread and enthusiastic applications (several uncritically) in areas of imaging (coinciding with announcement) and therapy (likely within a few weeks).15,16 The high level of scientific interest resulted in the 1896 publication of 49 monographs and 1044 special papers on X-rays.17 Attempts to treat Lupus, ringworm, exuberant growths, tuberculosis, epithelioma, port wine stains, and other maladies were reported early.18 By 1904, radium became a well-established treatment modality. At the same time, X-ray- and radium-euphoria was rampant in the popular culture. Fascination and commercial interests often resulted in spectacle science with no apparent initial management of associated hazards, and the widespread and unrestrained use of X-rays led to frank injury.19 Injuries were not initially attributed to X-ray exposure.

The initial uses of and experiments with X-rays and radioactive materials soon resulted in evidence of gross somatic hazard. Some exposures seemed to be desirable (imaging, therapy), but too much might represent an undesirable situation (acute injuries initially). Within barely a month of the discovery of X-rays (1896), Mr. Émil Herman Grubbé (USA) suffered from X-ray burns and dermatitis.16 In1896, Thomas A. Edison attempted to use the X-ray tube for development of a fluorescent illuminating lamp. He soon abandoned these efforts, however, explaining later“…I started to make a number of these lamps, but I soon found that the x-rays had affected poisonously my assistant, Mr Dally, so that his hair came out and his skin commenced to ulcerate. …I then concluded it would not do, and that it would not be a very popular kind of light, so I dropped it…”.20 In March 1896, Edison reported eye irritation related to the use of X-rays, cautioned against their continuing use, and abandoned further study in his lab.21 Clarence Madison Dally, his assistant, later developed acute X-ray dermatitis and died of metastatic carcinoma in 1904 at the age of 39, perhaps the first to die as a result of excessive X-ray exposure.22 Other early experimenters, including William J. Morton and Nikola Tesla also reported independently on eye irritations from X-rays and fluorescent substances.19

In 1896, Elihu Thomson, a physicist, deliberately exposed his little finger to the direct beam of an X-ray tube over the period of several days to test the theory that the ray itself was the source of injury. The resulting pain, swelling, and stiffness, led him to caution against over exposure.23,24Also in 1896, before attempting to locate a bullet in the head of a child, WilliamDudley of Vanderbilt University experimented on himself by exposing his head and noting epilation within 21 d.25,26 Later that same year, Herbert Hawks, a then recent graduate of Columbia University, gave a demonstration of a powerful X-ray machine in New York and subsequently noted significant dermatitis and related injuries.27Becquerel and the Curies later also report on erythemas from carrying small samples of radioactive materials.

The Röntgen Society was formed in 1897 and within the first year setup a Committee “to report on the alleged injurious effects of X rays”.28 This group noted adverse effects including local inflammation of the skin and loss of hair,29 and agreed in 1898 to collect information on the alleged and various effects of X-rays.30

Several protection pioneers developed the earliest guidance and recommendations to prevent injury. As early as December 1896, Wolfram Conrad Fuchs in Chicago recommended X-ray exposures be kept as short as possible, not placing the X-ray tube closer to the body than 30 cm, and rubbing the skin with petrolatum jelly prior to exposure. Others also suggested reduction of exposure time and frequency as the most obvious ways to limit operator exposure, along with filtration of the X-ray beam and the use of collimation.19 In hindsight, the doses and dose rates from early machines were rather significant (Table 1) and both short-term (e.g. dermatitis, skin ulceration, epilation, eye irritation) and longer-term (e.g. cataracts, skin carcinomas, and other cancers) adverse biological and clinical effects became evident.32

Table 1.

Dose rates for radiation workers in the early part of the 20th century (adapted from Inkret et al31, Table 1)

At the turn of the century, William Rollins,33 a Boston area dentist, performed many investigations into biological injuries by X-rays, including animal studies that noted X-ray injuries were not limited to skin but also appeared at depth within the animals’ bodies. Later, he proposed that if 7 min of exposure to X-rays did not fog a photographic plate, then the radiation was not of harmful intensity!33–37 Still, he is considered the premier protection pioneer in the USA33,37 because he also recommended protective tube housings, the use of leaded glass goggles (1 cm thick), collimated and shielded tubes, shielding for parts of the body not being exposed, the use of pulsed fluoroscopy, as well as selective filtration, all concepts that could be considered forward thinking. He warned of the hazards of ozone and oxides of nitrogen produced by the X-ray apparatus, suggesting means of exhaust and ventilation. By 1904, lead rubber protection for X-ray tubes was available and being employed.28

At a 1907 meeting of the American Roentgen Ray Society, as a practical forerunner of personal monitoring, Rome Vernon Wagner, an X-ray tube manufacturer, reported that in an effort to control his personal exposures he carried a photographic plate in his pocket and developed the plate each evening to determine if he had been exposed.38 Still, by 1911 at least 94 cases of apparent X-ray-induced skin carcinomas and sarcomas were reported, and there was growing concern that exposure to radiation could cause sterility, bone disease, and cancer.39 At the Brussels Congress of Radiology and Electricity in 1911, there was an effort to define measurements of radiation particularly with regard to the use of radium. Although scientific societies and medical users were beginning to be concerned with the safe use of X-rays, the first professional radiation safety recommendations were not published until 1913 by the German Roentgen society (Deutsche Roentgen-Gesellschaft), a one page warning against cumulative effects of repeated irradiation, together with instructions for providing lead or other such shielding around the X-ray source, the need to stay as far as possible from the X-ray tube when energized, safety testing, and the condition that supporting staff could refuse radiographic work if protection arrangements were unsatisfactory.40,41 It must be remembered that at this time, there was still no unified and agreed upon system of radiation measurement available for delivery or protection.42

World War I (1914–1918)

Although X-rays had already been utilized in several battlefield theatres prior to World War I (e.g. the war at Sudan-1896, the Graeco-Turkish War-1897, the Tirah campaign-1897, the Spanish-American War-1898, the Second Boers (Afrikaners) War-1899),43,44 the ”War to end all Wars” saw widespread development and application. The use was further precipitated by the 1913 development at the Research Laboratory of the General Electric Company (Schenectady, NY) of the hot-cathode X-ray tube by Coolidge,45 allowing for stable and reproducible operation46 and production of large amounts of radiation compared with the earlier gas X-ray tubes.42 Significant use of radiography in hospitals and on the WWI battlefields with several types of vehicles, dynamos, film processing, and X-ray equipment was quickly created out of urgent need.36 Marie Curie herself developed more than 200 radiological systems47 as well as an X-ray vehicle design (voiture radiologique) equipping 18 of them for the French Army.44 Marie and her daughter Irène Joliot-Curie also opened and operated a school for female X-ray technicians in 1916.48 Marie died of aplastic anemia in 1934 conceivably related more to her “occupational” exposure to X-rays on the battlefields than to prolonged exposures to pitchblende, radium and polonium.

Following significant exposures of X-ray operators and radiologists during WWI, acute injuries (skin and eyes) as well as cases of leukemia and aplastic anemia were reported in the medical worker population.28 As of 1913, users understood that standardization in measurement was ultimately necessary and critical. The Röntgen Society therefore initiated a Committee on Röntgen Measurement and Dosage, and a British national radium standard was placed at the National Physical Laboratory.28 However, the idea of “dose“ was still ambiguous and included ideas such as skin color changes, photographic radiometers, electroscopes, Pastille dose, etc.

By the turn of the century, faster photographic plates and improved techniques were available that assisted in reducing some of the acute hazards.46 Advocates for protection remained vigilant in the face of overwhelming evidence of the potential for injury. Heinrich Albers-Schönberg (himself an early victim of chronic X-ray dermatitis) suggested restrictions on exposure frequency (no more than 3 times a day), a distance of 30 cm from the tube to the patient, a leaded tube housing, and additional lead shielding for the operator.46 Note that this may be the earliest delineation of the basic radiation safety principles of time, distance, and shielding. There were even early calls by the news media for state licensing of radiographers.49

In 1915, the British Röntgen Society, recognizing the plight of the radiologists who operated often primitive unshielded equipment,50 passed a resolution proposed by Mr Cecil R. C. Lyster “that the safety of operators should be secured by universal adoption of strict rules, and that the Society should take steps to ensure this.” Later that year, the Society produced recommendations for the protection of X-ray operators,28,51 a code of practice that noted the harmful effects produced by X-rays (cumulative and latent), importance of qualified medical practitioners, shielding and collimation, avoidance of operator exposures (protected spaces), not holding anything in the beam, shielded X-ray tubes, and tests of available shielding. Such guidance signified an active organizational interest in X-ray protection. Rules at the time included and emphasized electrical hazards (significant in those days), ventilation (perhaps from ozone production from primitive equipment at that time), limited work hours, and recommended extra vacation for radiation workers. In 1917, the British Association for the Advancement of Radiology and Physiotherapy (BARP) was formed which became the British Institute of Radiology in 1924.

Interwar period (1919–1938)

During the interwar period, national and international collaborations became important and advanced the protection of workers. The American Roentgen Ray Society established the first standing committee on X-ray protection in 1920 and they adopted radiation protection recommendations similar to the 1915 British Roentgen Society.19 The British X-ray and Radium Protection Committee52,53 updated its recommendations for radiation safety in 1921, importantly addressing staff safety, the expanding role of radium in medical therapy. The recommendations to protect X-ray operators included maximum work schedules, required amounts of leisure time, and special accommodations for the workers. Radiographers/radiologic technologists and radiologists began to be recognized as discrete professions. The Society of Radiographers in the UK and the American Society for Radiologic Technology were both founded in 1920 and the American Registry of X-ray technologists gave the first certification examination in 1922. The American College of Radiology was founded in 1923.

The First International Congress of Radiology held in 1925 at Westminster, established an X-ray Unit Committee which was requested to setup an International Committee on X-ray Units (eventually becoming the International Commission on Radiological Units – ICRU).42 ICRU importantly proposed quantities and units of radiation and radioactivity, recommended measurement procedures and provided physical data necessary for application,54 and in 1926, an X-ray laboratory was established at the US National Bureau of Standards.42

During this period, important advances in individual monitoring took place. Edith Hinkley Quimby, a New York radiological physicist, applied herself to developing appropriate safe-handling techniques for radioactive material.55 She devised a highly practical film dosimeter that incorporated metal filters to minimize energy dependence of the film during routine use of film badges and standardization of interpretation.56 Robert Landauer, Sr., similarly recommended the use of easily obtainable dental film packets for monitoring purposes.57

In an ongoing collaborative manner, the Second International Congress of Radiology setup the International X-ray and Radiation Protection Committee (IXRPC) in 1928 (later becoming the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)).42 Perhaps as important, participants designated the roentgen (R) as a unit for measuring radiation. This finally provided a physical basis for quantitative measurement, permitting documentation of standardized radiation exposures. Development of ionization chambers (e.g. Victoreen) and other survey devices soon followed.37 The concepts of dose and measurement were originally elaborated by William Lawrence Bragg,58 and later expanded by Louis Harold Gray.59,60

In 1929, Lauriston S. Taylor, the only US member of the IXRPC, after consultation with the presidents of several US radiological societies (Radiological Society of North America, the American Roentgen Ray Society, and the American Radium Society), established a single group in the USA called the Advisory Committee on X-ray and Radium Protection. This committee wrote recommendations for radiation protection which were published by the National Bureau of Standards.42 Eventually, this organization would become the National Committee on Radiation Protection and subsequently be Congressionally chartered in 1964, but remain independent, as the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).

Many latent effects from the war time use of X-rays began to appear in the early 1920s and by the mid-1920s, the concern of radiologists over their own radiation injuries was at a near panic level. Professional societies began to take more serious interest in pragmatic protection practices, or in limiting medical use altogether.42 Other potential risks were also beginning to be recognized. Hermann Joseph Muller’s experiments61,62 demonstrated that exposure to X-rays appeared to cause genetic mutations in fruit flies (Drosophila). By the late 1920s, the plight of the “Radium Girls” was taken up by the general media, pointing to significant medical impacts on young workers who dipped paint brushes into radium paint and sharpened the bristles with their mouths, some ingesting significant quantities of radium which accumulated in their bodies and markedly increased the occurrence of osteosarcomas and carcinomas of the mastoid cells, aplastic anemia, leukemia, bone fracture, and radium jaw.19,63–66

An understanding of radiation biology and dosimetry was severely inadequate during this period. Although lacking measurement techniques (e.g. there were essentially no instruments of a clinical nature that could measure the relatively low levels of scattered radiation to determine shielding adequacy) and with only an elementary understanding of radiobiology (mostly skin erythema67), certain precautions were prescribed. Based on available information at the time, it was determined that the threshold erythema dose (TED) causing initial observable injury was equivalent to about 650 R under typical conditions.

Initially, on the basis of finding no evidence of injury to a few hospital X-ray technicians who were working in radiation fields up to as much as 0.1 TED per month, an acceptable value of 0.01 TED per month was proposed. In a step of prudence, however, in 1921, the British developed the first formal attempt at operator dose restriction, setting a tolerance dose of X-rays, equivalent to 1/10 of the erythema dose per year (about 65 R, or roughly ~1R per week, or 500 mSv per year).53 At that time, the safety emphasis still included limiting working hours, large rooms, well-ventilated spaces, above-ground suites, proper shielding, 6 weeks of vacation, and periodic blood tests. Several countries (e.g. USA, Sweden, Italy, France, and Germany) adopted this initial pattern of protection.42 Many of these early recommendations also included emphasis on electrical shock and artificial resuscitation, because electrocution was a real and present danger even in hospitals (X-ray rooms were typically laden with open high voltage lines).

In 1924 at the American Roentgen Ray society meeting, Arthur Mutscheller recommended the use of a tolerance dose (considered to be that level of radiation to which an individual could be continuously exposed without demonstrable ill health effect or harm) approach for protection based on 1/100 of the quantity known to produce a skin erythema per month (equivalent to about 0.2 R per day), noting at this exposure level recovery would happen swiftly with no apparent injury.19 Others, including Alfred Ernest Barclay and Sydney F. Cox as well as Rolf Sievert also put forth tolerance dose concepts at that time.37 Recommendations also considered the hazards of toxic chemicals from burning X-ray film as well as protective measures for both patients and those occupationally exposed. With regard to radioactive material precautions for workers, George Miller MacKee68 decried in 1927 that improvements in X-ray and radium protection were still needed, noting that “[t]here is really no excuse for injury to a physician by radium”, and suggesting the use of caution signs, distance, tongs, shielded containers, as well as surveying for loose sources.

The IXRPC recommended tolerance dose in 1934 as an upper limit for exposure of workers69,70 and the fourth International Congress on Radiology set a quantitative permissible dose level of 0.2 R per day for those in normal health (1 R per week).70 By this time, the US Advisory Committee had already adopted a lower 0.1 R per day for the whole body and 5 R per day to the fingers, as suggested in 1932 by Gioacchino (Gino) Failla (noted physicist and pioneer of the use of gold-filtered radon implants at Memorial Hospital in New York).55,71 Additional recommendations included pre-employment physicals, 6 weeks of vacation, and periodic blood counts. To insure the dose limits were not exceeded, a typical industrial safety factor of 10 was applied, resulting in a general working standard of about 0.01 R/day.42 By the end of the 1930s basic exposure limits, recommendations for X-ray protection, and some for radium protection were in place. However, war had again caught up with the world and several professional committees went into an inactive state until the fall of 1945.

World War II (1939–1945)

The protection concerns surrounding the development of the atomic bomb during World War II added new dimensions, both qualitatively and quantitatively to occupational radiation protection.50 For obvious reasons, this era saw the development of radiation protection (health physics) as a science in its own right.72 The Manhattan Engineering District project development of the atomic bomb and the associated development of Health Physics produced enormous advances in radiation protection, survey instruments, monitoring techniques, and radiobiological research, all under war-time secrecy.73,74 The previously recommended limit of 0.1 R per day71 formed the basis of initial protection recommendations as the first nuclear reactor operated in Chicago (1942), the uranium enrichment and plutonium production facilities were developed in Tennessee and Washington, and the initial atomic bomb was developed and tested in New Mexico (1945).75 The use of nuclear weapons led to the first long-term epidemiologic studies that would profoundly influence radiation protection concepts, recommendations and regulations for the next 70 years.

The potential for medical worker radiation exposure expanded significantly with development of high voltage X-ray production devices (e.g. betatrons, linear accelerators) and reactor-produced high activity radioactive isotopes available for therapeutic uses. With recognition of ingestion hazards (especially evident with radium), the 1941 NBS Handbook H2776 reaffirmed the recommended limit of 0.1 R/day for external exposure of radiation workers, and set a maximum permissible body burden of 0.1 µCi for ingested radium. This first internal dose standard was set to be lower than the amount of radium remaining in any of the luminous radium dial painters who had suffered from bone cancer as noted in the pioneering work of Robley D. Evans.19,65,66 A maximum permissible airborne concentration equivalent to 10 picocurie of radon per liter was recommended to limit radionuclides in the workroom atmosphere.

In 1944, Edith Quimby elaborated a radiation protection philosophy for workers and argued the importance of setting some sort of “permissible dose” on the basis of calculated risk – a balance of known good against the possibility of harm – and then to establish procedures to make sure that no individual received more radiation than this permitted dose.77 A working check list for a safety program that she developed during this period included important (still quite relevant today) considerations, such as: why is radiation being used at this time? (justification); Who is being exposed? (any special precautions required); What part of the body is being exposed? (sensitive organs and scatter are important); Is the apparatus employed the best for the purpose? and Has the entire examination been carefully planned to give the minimum total exposure? (an early aim of optimization).

Post war (1946–1960)

Following the war, new considerations for radiation protection were provided by the release of much of the information generated from the wartime research. These included concepts of absorbed dose, dose-equivalent, and relative biological effectiveness, amongst the explosion of ideas and approaches. The addition of new machines along with new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, including nuclear medicine applications as Manhattan Project reactor-produced isotopes were beginning to be distributed to civilian researchers, required expansion of the profession of health physics (radiation protection).50 Important standardization was necessary and forthcoming from professional societies. In fact, the NCRP, many of whose members had worked with radiation during the war efforts, produced about a dozen detailed reports during this critical period75 with the ICRP soon following. Topics include whole body exposure, critical organs, neutron exposure, internal exposures, and the need for a standard or reference human for modeling dose distribution in the body.

In 1948, the British X-ray Radium Protection Committee suggested maximum permissible dose (MPD) of 0.5 R per week and, during fluoroscopic continuous exposures, and maintained less than 4-6 R per second. In 1950, the ICRP lowered its recommended MPD from 0.2 R/d to 0.3 R/week (Table 2)79 and included recommendations for maximum permissible concentrations in the body for about 10 radioactive isotopes.92 Similarly in 1953, the NCRP expanded the recommendations on maximum permissible amounts in the human body to include dozens of additional radioisotopes.

Table 2.

Chronology of external whole-body occupational radiation protection standards

In an important worker-protection development, the NCRP80,81 accepted the use of absorbed dose rather than exposure as a preferred way to express protection limits. In addition, NCRP noted that there might be some degree of risk at any level of exposure and the risk to the individual is not precisely determinable. NCRP stated that however small the risk, it is believed not to be zero, leading to the recommendation “exposure to radiation should be kept at the lowest practicable level in all cases” (later revised by ICRP to “as low as reasonably practicable” and eventually to ”as low as reasonably achievable,” the ALARA principle).

Although radium implants had been used for decades, by the early 1950s the hazards to operators, surgical theater staff and others was recognized as a very serious problem and brachytherapy experienced a marked decline. In 1956, Keith Mowatt and Keith Stevens93 described the technique of afterloading that markedly reduced operator’s doses. In 1960, Ulrich Henschke described intracavitary afterloading for cervical cancer.94 Other reductions in operator dose were realized in X-ray fluoroscopy procedures as older fluoroscopes (requiring dark adaptation and close distances for the physician) were replaced with image intensifiers and television viewing.95

While some radioactive isotopes were able to be synthesized prior to the war using cyclotrons (e.g. 130I and 131I in small amounts), after World War II, it became possible to create large amounts of radioactive elements in nuclear reactors. These new isotopes (e.g. 32P, 60Co, 137Cs, 125I, 103Pd, and many others) were much safer to handle and administer than radium or radon seeds and were employed for therapeutic purposes, also effectively reducing staff exposures.2 For example, in the late 1950s chromic phosphate (32P) was substituted for gold (198Au) colloid which had caused higher absorbed doses to nursing staff and other hospital patients.96 While a revolution in imaging and treating thyroid cancer was enabled by the more general availability of 131I, the development of Tc-99m generators and “kits”97 revolutionized medical imaging. These also introduced new exposure scenarios for medical staff.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) was established in 1955 to assess levels and effects of exposure to ionizing radiation and to report those to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. The 1958 UNSCEAR Report noted the principal sources of radiation exposure to humans were natural background and medical radiology.98 In 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an autonomous UN organization, was formed in response to an earlier “Atoms for Peace Speech”, an address by US President Dwight Eisenhower to the UN General Assembly, seeking to promote the peaceful uses of atomic energy.99 The IAEA continues to base its advice on recommendations of ICRP, typically in a manner suitable for direct inclusion in national legal standards.

National and international efforts for standardizing protection continued and in 1956, the British Medical Research Council recommended a lifetime limit of 200 R whole body and 50 R for gonads.100 Soon after, the NCRP and ICRP recommended an annual occupational dose limit of 5 rem per year,81 and in 1958, the NCRP recommended, for accumulated dose to a radiation worker, the maximum permissible dose (MPD) to the most critical organs, accumulated at any age shall not exceed 5 rem multiplied by the number of years beyond age 18, and the dose in any 13 consecutive weeks shall not exceed 3 rem.75 Similarly, in 1958, the ICRP recommended limiting occupational exposures to 0.1 rem/wk, 3 rem/13 wk and 5(N-18) rem accumulated working lifetime dose.82

By the mid- to late 1960’s, UNSCEAR noted that the most significant stochastic effect was cancer and not hereditary issues as had been previously assumed and this changed emphasis in radiation protection.101,102 Further, epidemiologic studies were revealing radiation-related increased cancers at lower doses than previously seen, and evidence for dose–response relationships for leukemia and solid cancers was emerging. Investigations of the early radiologists and medical practitioners in the United Kingdom, USA, China and Japan confirmed that occupational exposures to relatively low dose radiation over a period of many years did cause detectable increases in leukemia.101,103,104

This era saw the maturation and branching of radiology into several specialties (diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy) each with their own radiation protection issues. This happened not only for physicians but for technologists as well. In 1958, the European Union of Medical Specialists was formed, which would later lead to a number of discrete certifying boards with radiation protection included as required material. The Royal College of Radiology was founded in 1975. Relevant professional societies (including the American, European and other national societies for radiology, radiation oncology and nuclear medicine) played important roles in both developing and communicating information about radiation protection to their practitioners.

1970s to 1990s – Early Modern Era

The 1970s through 1990s, or early modern era, saw immense growth and complexity in the medical applications of radiation and radioactive material.105 CT was invented in 1972 at the British EMI laboratories by Godfrey Hounsfield and Allan Cormack106–108 and had a great impact on medical imaging, especially with the introduction of fast and multislice systems as computing power increased. The doses to operators were markedly reduced compared with other imaging methods such as fluoroscopy; however, patient doses were significantly higher than for standard screen-film X-ray procedures.109 This era also saw the development of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning techniques110 with concomitant rise in nuclear medicine staff doses.4,111–114 By the mid-1970s the majority of diagnostic tests carried out in nuclear medicine departments made use of 99mTc-labelled radiopharmaceuticals which compared to other radionuclides resulted in lower doses to technologists.115,116 Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures began to increase in the late 1980s. By the early 1990s, reports of fluoroscopically induced skin injuries reappeared in the literature after an absence of more than 50 years.117,118

Protection of staff and patients improved with the use of personal protective equipment (e.g. lead aprons and thyroid collar shields),7,119 developments in the accuracy and quality of radiation instrumentation, radiation dosimetry and improvements in imaging and equipment design and operation.120–122 Development of tissue-equivalent phantoms during this period allowed more accurate estimates of radiation dose in human tissue. Better understanding of patient dose related to specific procedures resulted in improved control of patient doses.123,124 Dose delivered to the breast during mammography had been a concern since the beginning of the use of this technology for screening for breast cancer. Dose control was significantly improved by a better understanding of dosimetry for low-energy X-rays and the introduction of quality assurance procedures.125–127

In its 1977 recommendations for radiation protection, ICRP expressed the need to take precautions when assessing the benefit and necessity of performing a procedure that would result in radiation exposure to a developing fetus. “Because of the risk of radiation injury to any embryo or fetus, the possibility of pregnancy is one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether to make a radiological examination involving the lower abdomen in a female of reproductive capacity.”128 However, at this time no specific recommendation was made for restricting radiation dose to the fetus. Recommendations for limiting the fetal radiation dose later appeared in ICRP Publication 60.85

The important topic of effective facility design to reduce radiation exposure of medical staff was addressed in reports issued by the NCRP published in 1976 and 1977,87,129,130 these reports provided data on radiation interactions with various possible shielding materials and a methodology for designing effective shielding for X- and γ-rays ranging in energy to 100 MeV in both diagnostic and therapeutic radiation facilities. These reports were updated and superseded in the early 2000s.

Through this period, both ICRP and NCRP revised and updated their basic recommendations for radiation protection as more biological information and epidemiological analysis gave increased insight to radiation effects in humans.85,86,128 These recommendations were always guided by the principles adopted by the two organizations:

• no practice shall be adopted unless its introduction produces a positive net benefit;

• all exposures shall be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account; and

• the dose equivalent to individuals shall not exceed the limits recommended for the appropriate circumstances.

New millennium

Although vision impairing radiation-induced cataracts were well-documented by 1906, it was not until about 2009 that cataract induction as a result of low dose chronic exposure was documented in radiologic technologists and operators performing interventional fluoroscopy, especially as the complexity of interventional procedures increased.131–133 This along with data from the atomic bomb survivors, Chernobyl liquidators and other groups, led the ICRP and NCRP to markedly reduce the recommended limit to the lens of the eye to a level consistent with whole body dose limits.134,135

During the period 2000–2010, medical imaging experienced almost a complete switch from film-based to digital receptors with the potential of reduced doses. There has not yet been a documented substantial reduction in operator doses in developed countries as a result of introduction of digital technologies however, there has likely been a large dose reduction to operators in developing countries many of whom were using fluoroscopy for almost all imaging to avoid the cost and shelf life issues of film.

A variety of current medical activities that involve radiation should still be considered as potentially delivering measureable external doses to staff, including: conventional or complex fluoroscopic examinations, fluoroscopic guidance for orthopedic and other surgical procedures; cardiac catheterization and other types of fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures; CT-guided interventional procedures; nuclear medicine examinations including those involving conventional radionuclides (e.g. 99mTc) and PET (e.g. 18F, and novel PET agents); as well as therapeutic administrations of radioactive materials.136–142

Increasing use of radioactive materials in diagnostic imaging, especially PET, multimodality imaging (PET/CT, PET/MR), nuclear medicine imaging (e.g. stress tests, scans), and localization studies (e.g. sentinel node, radioactive seed localization), have increased the potential for staff exposures.3 This is especially true for patient positioning, injection of dosage, and preparation of doses, both in nuclear medicine suites and outside traditional radiology departments. In addition, several institutions are building in-house cyclotron and radiopharmaceutical facilities and developing non-traditional PET isotopes such as 64Cu, 68Ga, 86Y, 89Zr, and 124I that involve emissionof high-energy γ-rays, in addition to 0.511 MeV annihilation photons. These uses present challenges for occupational exposures with respect to shielding and radiation protection issues.114,143

The ICRP and NCRP continue to produce strategic and specific guidance and recommendations associated with both patient and worker protection under the principles of justification, optimization and the use of dose constraints, or numeric protection criteria (for planned occupational exposures). A majority of both ICRP and NCRP reports apply directly or at least are pertinent and relevant to the evolving medical practice.144,145 Cardiologists and vascular surgeons are relatively new but rapidly expanding populations using interventional fluoroscopy and who benefit from expanded and detailed radiation protection education.146,147

Permissible occupational exposure levels have been significantly reduced148 since the initial discovery of X-rays and radioactive material (Table 2). Lauriston S. Taylor149 cautioned on how best to interpret such a trend (already evident as of 1957) in a 1957 lecture entitled “Radiation Exposure as a Reasonable Calculated Risk,” “…at none of these levels has there ever been developed any positive evidence of damage to the individual. In the main, these successive lowerings represent improved compromises between goal-zero, and capability. Again, capability has been made possible by technological advances.”

Casting a vision: future opportunities and challenges

The odyssey of radiation uses in medicine is a remarkable story that spans three centuries of innovations and applications. The early euphoria and unlimited enthusiasm of radiation as the cure for all maladies, however, was quelled when medical workers and practitioners developed serious medical conditions including sarcomas, cataracts, skin cancers, severe dermatitis and aplastic anemia. The international medical organizations responded, radiation protection committees were created, radiation protection guidance was recommended, and radiation exposure and dose quantities defined. Paralleling the seemingly unbounded increase in the medical benefits of accurate and improved diagnoses of disease coupled with the remarkable improvement in therapeutic modalities and patient survival, was a greater understanding of adverse health consequences occurring among medical radiation workers and patients. Radiation protection guidance evolved88,89,146,147,150 and continues to do so today.91,151

Protection guidance tries to keep pace with the rapidly changing uses of medical radiation around the world. Constant vigilance is critical as are partnerships with and programs within medical radiological societies, government agencies and manufacturers. New health studies continue to emerge, including those of medical radiation workers.119,152 New health benefits continue to emerge, both in diagnostic and therapeutic applications in radiology. The invisible rays are improving the health of the people, curing many maladies. Radiation protection committees are at the ready to assess new knowledge on potential health risks and provide guidance as needed to avoid adverse consequences without curtailing patient benefits.

As we look back to springboard toward the future, it seems fitting to conclude with a quote from the poet Edmond Spenser (The Faierie Queene) as did William Crookes in his initial descriptions of “radiant matter” in 1879 at Sheffield8,153 :

“Yet all these were, when no man did them know,

Yet have from wisest ages hidden beene;

And later times things more unknowne shall show.

Why then should witless man so much misweene,

That nothing is but that which hath seene?”

REFERENCES

1. UNSCEAR Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. Volume I. New York: United Nations; 2010. [Google Scholar]

2. NCRP Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009. [Google Scholar]

3. Gagliardi R. A, Almond P. R. A History of the Radiological Sciences: Radiation Physics. Reston, VA: Radiology Centennial, Inc; 1996. . [Google Scholar]

4. Dauer LT. Exposed medical staff: challenges, available tools, and opportunities for improvement. Health Phys 2014; 106: 217–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ, Frush DP, Hall EJ, Howell RW, et al.. Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology 2011; 258: 889–905. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101157 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. NCRP Medical radiation exposure of patients in the United States. NCRP Report No. 184. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2019. [Google Scholar]

7. NCRP Deriving organ doses and their uncertainty for epidemiologic studies with a focus on the One Million U.S. Workers and Veterans Study of Low-Dose Radiation Health Effects. NCRP Report No. 178. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2018. [Google Scholar]

8. Crookes W. On radiant matter: a lecture delivered to the British association for the advancement of science at Sheffield, Friday August 22. 1879;.

9. MRC Hazards to man of nuclear and allied radiation : Presented by the Lord President of the Council to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. 1956 London: HMSO; 1956. [Google Scholar]

10. Röntgen WC. On a new kind of rays. Nature 1896; 53: 274–6. [Google Scholar]

12. Becquerel H. Sur les radiations émises PAR phosphorescence. Comptes Rendus Academie des Sciences 1896; 122: 420–1. [Google Scholar]

13. Becquerel H, Curie P. Comptes Rendus Académie des sciences. 1901; 132: 1289. [Google Scholar]

14. Curie E. Madame Curie. New York: Doubleday, Doran and Co; 1937. [Google Scholar]

15. Grubbe EH. X-ray treatment, its origin, birth and early history. St. Paul, MN: Bruce Publishing Co; 1949. [Google Scholar]

16. Hodges H. The life and times of Emil Grubbe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1964. [Google Scholar]

17. ESR The Story of Radiology. The European Society of Radiology. Vienna: ESR Office; 2012. [Google Scholar]

18. Sharpe MM. X-Ray therapeutics. Archives of The Roentgen Ray 1901; 5;:: 85–96V. doi: 10.1259/arr.1901.0069 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Kathren R. L, Zeimer P. Health Physics: a Backward Glance. Thirteen original papers on the history of radiation protection. New York: Pergamon Press; 1980. . [Google Scholar]

20. Upton AC. Cancer research 1964: thoughts on the contributions of radiation biology. Cancer Res 1964; 24: 1861–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Dyer F, Martin T, Meadocraft W. Edison: his life and inventions. Harpers 1929; 2: 581. [Google Scholar]

22. Sansare K, Khanna V, Karjodkar F. Early victims of x-rays: a tribute and current perception. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 123–5. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/73488299 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Thomson E. Some notes on roentgen rays. The Electrical Engineer 1896; 22: 520–1. [Google Scholar]

24. Thomson E. Röntgen rays act strongly on the tissues. The Electrical World 1896; 28: 666. [Google Scholar]

25. Daniel J. The X-rays. Science 1896; 3: 562–3. doi: 10.1126/science.3.67.562 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Daniel J. The X-rays. Med Record 1896; 4: 23. [Google Scholar]

27. Frei GA. Deleterious effects of x-rays on the human body. Electrical Review 1896; 29: 95. [Google Scholar]

28. Oliver R. Seventy-Five years of radiation protection. Br J Radiol 1973; 46: 854–60. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-46-550-854 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Thompson SP. Presidential address. Arch Roentgen Ray 1898; 28II. [Google Scholar]

30. Editorial Arch roentgen ray 1898; II: 61–2. [Google Scholar]

31. Inkret C, Meinhold C, Taschner J. A brief history of radiation protection standards. Los Alamos Science 1995; 23: 116–23. [Google Scholar]

32. Linet MS, Kim KP, Miller DL, Kleinerman RA, Simon SL, de Gonzalez AB, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Historical review of occupational exposures and cancer risks in medical radiation workers. Radiat Res 2010; 174: 793–808. doi: 10.1667/RR2014.1 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Kathren RL, Rollins WH. X-Ray protection pioneer. J Hist Med 1852-1929; 1964: 287–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Rollins WH. Further precautions in using the x-light in diagnosis. Bost Med Surg J 1903; 149: 387. [Google Scholar]

35. Rollins WH. Burning by roentgen rays. Int Dent J 1898; 19: 326. [Google Scholar]

36. Bland WF. Radiological Protection In: Thomas A, ed. The Invisible Light. Oxford: Blackwell Sciences; 1995. pp 79–84. [Google Scholar]

37. Brodsky A, Kathren RL, Willis CA. History of the medical uses of radiation: regulatory and voluntary standards of protection. Health physics 1995; 69: 783–823. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Kathren RL, Kathren RL, Zeimer P. The Health Physics Society: Origins and Development : Health Physics: a Backward Glance Thirteen original papers on the history of radiation protection. New York: Pergamon Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]

39. Symptamologie HO. pathogenese and therapie die rontgenkarzinoms. Leipzig: JA Barth; 1911. [Google Scholar]

40. Taylor LS. Organization for radiation protection. The operations of the ICRP and NCRP 1928-1974. Report DOE/TIC-10124. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy; 1979. [Google Scholar]

41. Cember H, Roessler G. Evolution of Radiation Safety Standards and Regulations : editor.Management and Administration of Radiation Safety Programs: Health Physics Society. 1998 Summer School. Madison: WI: Medical Physics Publishing; 1998. [Google Scholar]

42. Taylor LS. The founding and works of the National Council on radiation protection and Measurements-Some highlights. Med Phys 1995; 22: 1899–906. doi: 10.1118/1.597642 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Guy JM. British military radiology, 1879-1919 : Thomas A, The invisible light. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1995. 79–84. [Google Scholar]

44. Magiorkinis E, Vladimiros L, Diamantis A. The early history of military radiology (1896-1916): from Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen to the first World War. Balkan Military Medical Review 2010; 13: 163–9. [Google Scholar]

45. Coolidge WD. A powerful röntgen ray tube with a pure electron discharge. The Physical Review 1913; II: 409–30. [Google Scholar]

46. Brodsky A, Kathren RL. Historical development of radiation safety practices in radiology. RadioGraphics 1989; 9: 1267–75. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.9.6.2685944 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Lemon F. X rays in war. Archives of The Roentgen Ray 1914; 19: 200–3. doi: 10.1259/arr.1914.0079 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Diamantis A, Magiorkinis E, Papadimitiou A, Androutsos G. The contribution of Maria Sklodowska-Curie and Pierre Curie to nuclear and medical physics. A hundred and ten years after the discovery of radium. Hell J Nucl Med 2008; 11: 33–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Dennis J. The roentgen energy today. Dental Cosmos 1899; 41: 853. [Google Scholar]

50. Stannard JN, Kathren RL. Radiation protection and medical practice with special reference to health physicists and the health physics Society. Health Phys 1995; 69: 837–44. doi: 10.1097/00004032-199511000-00014 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Harding LK. Radiation protection--lessons from the past. Br J Radiol 1997; 70(Spec Issue 1): S10–16. doi: 10.1259/bjr.1997.0003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. BXRPC British X-ray and radium protection Committee. X ray and radium protection. Journal of Roentgen Society 1921; 17. [Google Scholar]

53. Rolleston H. Preliminary reports of the X-ray and radium protection Committee. Arch Radiol Electrother 1921;: 5–9XXVI. [Google Scholar]

54. Sowby D, Valentin J. Forty years on: how radiological protection has evolved internationally. J. Radiol. Prot. 2003; 23: 157–71. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/23/2/303 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. Trout ED, Kathren RL, Zeimer P. Health Physics before There were Health Physicists : Health Physics: a Backward Glance Thirteen original papers on the history of radiation protection. New York: Pergamon; 1980. [Google Scholar]

56. Quimby EH. A method for the study of scattered and secondary radiation in X-ray and radium laboratories. Radiology 1926; 7: 211–7. doi: 10.1148/7.3.211 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Landauer RS. The use of dental films in the determination of stray radiation. Radiology 1927; 8: 512–7. doi: 10.1148/8.6.512 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Bragg W. Studies in Radioactivity. New York: MacMillan; 1912. [Google Scholar]

59. Gray LH. Radiation dosimetry. Brit J Radiol. 1937; 10: 721. [Google Scholar]

60. Gray LH. An ionization method for absolute measurement of gamma-ray energy. Proc Royal Soc 1936; A156: 578–96. [Google Scholar]

61. Muller HJ. The measurement of gene mutation rate in Drosophila, its high variability, and its dependence upon temperature. Genetics 1928; 13: 279–357. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Muller HJ. Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 1927; 66: 84–7. doi: 10.1126/science.66.1699.84 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Kovarik W, Neuzil M, Kovarik W. The Radium Girls : Mass Media and Environmental Conflict: America’s Green Crusades. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing; 1996. [Google Scholar]

64. Moore K. The Radium Girls: The Dark Story of America’s Shining Women. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks; 2017. [Google Scholar]

65. Evans RD. Origin of Standards for Internal Emitters : Kathren R. L, Zeimer P, Health Physics: a Backward Glance Thirteen original papers on the history of radiation protection. New York: Pergamon Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]

66. Stannard J. Radioactivity and health: a history. DOE/R1/01/1830-T-59, UC-408. Springfield, VA: Office of Scientific Information, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; 1988. [Google Scholar]

67. Taylor LS. Radiation Protection Standards, the Tolerance Dose. Cleveland, OH: CRC Press; 1971. [Google Scholar]

68. MacKee GM. X-rays and radium in the treatment of diseases of the skin. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1927. [Google Scholar]

69. Hendee WR. History, current status, and trends of radiation protection standards. Med Phys 1993; 20: 1303–14. doi: 10.1118/1.597153 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

70. IXRPC International X-ray and radium protection Commission (IXRPC). International recommendations for X-ray and radium protection. Fourth International Congress of Radiology, Zürich 1934; 1934. [Google Scholar]

71. NCRP Radium Protection : NBS Handbook No. 18: National Bureau of Standards: Government Printing Office; 1934. [Google Scholar]

72. Claus WD. What is health physics? Health Phys 1958; 1: 56–61. doi: 10.1097/00004032-195801000-00009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

73. Morgan K. Z. Radiation: Protection and health physics. Chicago: Yearbook Medical; 1950. . [Google Scholar]

74. Auxier J. Personnel Monitoring: Past, Present, and Future : Kathren R. L, Ziemer P, Health Physics: a Backward Glance Thirteen original papers on the history of radiation protection. New York: Pergamon Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]

75. Taylor LS. Brief history of the National Committee on radiation protection and measurements (NCRP) covering the period 1929–1946. Health Phys 1958; 1: 3–10. doi: 10.1097/00004032-195801000-00001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

76. NCRP Safe handling of radioactive luminous compound. Nbs Handbook H27. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, Government Printing Office;. 1941. [Google Scholar]

77. Quimby EH, Protection R. In: Glasser O, Quimby E, Taylor LS, Weatherwax J, Morgan R, editors. : Physical Foundations of Radiology, 3rd. New York: Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; 1941. [Google Scholar]

78. IXRPC International X-Ray and Radium Protection Commission (IXRPC). International recommendations for X-ray and Radium Protection: Fifth International Congress of Radiology, Chicago; 1937. [Google Scholar]

79. ICRP Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and of the International Commission on Radiological Units, 1950. NBS Handbook 47. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards Handbook, U.S. Government Printing Office; 1951. [Google Scholar]

80. NCRP Permissible dose from external sources of ionizing radiation: recommendations of the National Committee on radiation protection. NBS Handbook 59. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards;. 1954. [Google Scholar]

81. NCRP Maximum permissible radiation exposure to man: addendum to NBS Handbook 59, recommendations of the National Committee on radiation protection. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards; 1957. [Google Scholar]

82. ICRP Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Report No. 1. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1959. [Google Scholar]

83. ICRP Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection adopted September 17, 1965. ICRP Publication 9. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1966. [Google Scholar]

84. NCRP Radiation Protection Criteria - NCRP Report No. 39. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Washington, D.C.: NCRP Publications; 1971. [Google Scholar]

85. ICRP Recommendations of the International Commission on radiation protection. ICRP publication 26. Ann ICRP 1977; 1. [Google Scholar]

86. NCRP Recommendations on limits for exposure to ionizing radiation. NCRP Report No. 91. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 1987. [Google Scholar]

87. ICRP 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP 1991; 21(1-3). [Google Scholar]

88. NCRP Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation. NCRP Report No. 116. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 1993. [Google Scholar]

89. ICRP The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; 37(2-4): 1-332. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

90. Stewart FA, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M, Hendry JH, Kleiman NJ, MacVittie TJ, et al.. ICRP publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs — threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 2012; 41(1-2): 1–322. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2012.02.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

91. NCRP Management of exposure to ionizing radiation: radiation protection guidance for the United States (2018). NCRP Report No. 180. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements;. 2018. [Google Scholar]

92. Taylor LS. History of the International Commission on radiological protection. Health Phys 1958; 1: 97–104. doi: 10.1097/00004032-195804000-00001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

93. Mowatt KS, Afterloading SKA. A contribution to the protection problem. J Fac Radiol 1956; 8: 28–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

94. Aronowitz JN. Afterloading: the technique that rescued brachytherapy. International Journal of radiation oncology, biology. Physics 2015; 92: 479–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

95. Krohmer JS. Radiography and fluoroscopy, 1920 to the present. RadioGraphics 1989; 9: 1129–53. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.9.6.2685938 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

96. van den Brenk HAS, Clarke KH, Holman WP, Winkler C. Studies of the effect of a colloidal radioactive chromic phosphate (Cr32PO4) in clinical and experimental malignant effusions. Br J Cancer 1959; 13: 181–94. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1959.25 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

97. Eckelman WC. Unparalleled contribution of technetium-99m to medicine over 5 decades. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging 2009; 2: 364–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2008.12.013 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

98. UNSCEAR Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. United Nations General Assembly Offical Records: Thirteenth Session. Supplement No. 17. New York: United Nations; 1958. [Google Scholar]

99. Eisenhower DD. Atoms for Peace Speech. Address by Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, to the 470th Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. Tuesday, 8 December 1953, 2:45 p.m.. 1953. Available from: https://www.iaea.org/about/history/atoms-for-peace-speech [June 8, 2020].

100. MRC The hazards to man of nuclear and allied radiations. Presented by the Lord President of the Council to Parlaiment by Command of Her Majesty. London: Medical Research Council; 1956. [Google Scholar]

101. UNSCEAR Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Publication E.94.IX.11. New York: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; 1994. [Google Scholar]

102. Boice JD. Lauriston S. Taylor lecture: radiation epidemiology--the golden age and future challenges. Health Phys 2011; 100: 59–76. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181f9797d [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

103. Boice JD. Ionizing radiation : Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF, Jr, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. 3rd Ed New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. 259–93. [Google Scholar]

104. Carpenter LM. Studies of cancer among medical personnel exposed to radiation. ionizing radiation risks: present and future. American statistical association conference on radiation and health. Rad Res 1990; 124: 351–2. [Google Scholar]

105. Kase KR. 1975-Present : Gagliardi R. A, Almond P. R, A History of the Radiological Sciences: Radiation Physics. Reston, VA: Radiology Centennial, Inc; 1996. 151–86. [Google Scholar]

106. Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part 1. description of system. Br J Radiol 1973; 46: 1016–22. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

107. Cormack AM. Representation of a function by its line integrals, with some radiological applications. J Appl Phys 1963; 34: 2722–7. doi: 10.1063/1.1729798 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

108. Goodman LR. The Beatles, the Nobel Prize, and CT scanning of the chest. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48: 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2009.09.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

109. Cormack AM. Representation of a function by its line integrals, with some radiological applications. II. J Appl Phys 1964; 35: 2908–13. doi: 10.1063/1.1713127 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

110. Rothenberg LN, Pentlow KS. Radiation dose in CT. RadioGraphics 1992; 12: 1225–43. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.12.6.1439023 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

111. Myers WG. The anger scintillation camera becomes of age. J Nucl Med 1979; 20: 565–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

112. Schober O, Lottes G. Positron emission tomography and radiation exposure. Nuklearmedizin 1994; 33: 174–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

113. Kemerink GJ, Vanhavere F, Barth I, Mottaghy FM. Extremity doses of nuclear medicine personnel: a concern. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39: 529–32. doi: 10.1007/s00259-011-1973-z [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

114. Williamson MJ, Dauer LT. Activity thresholds for patient instruction and release for positron emission tomography radionuclides. Health Phys 2014; 106: 341–52. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e31829efbc4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

115. Colmanet SF, Samuels DL. Diagnostic radiopharmaceutical dose estimate to the Australian population. Health Phys 1993; 64: 375–80. doi: 10.1097/00004032-199304000-00004 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

116. Richards P, Tucker WD, Srivastava SC. Technetium-99M: an historical perspective. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 1982; 33: 793–9. doi: 10.1016/0020-708X(82)90120-X [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

117. Chiesa C, De Sanctis V, Crippa F, Schiavini M, Fraigola CE, Bogni A, et al.. Radiation dose to technicians per nuclear medicine procedure: comparison between technetium-99m, gallium-67, and iodine-131 radiotracers and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24: 1380–9. doi: 10.1007/s002590050164 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

118. Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ. Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures: A Review of Radiation Effects on Patients’ Skin and Hair. Radiology 2010; 254: 326–41. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2542082312 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

119. Yoder RC, Dauer LT, Balter S, Boice JD, Grogan HA, Mumma MT, et al.. Dosimetry for the study of medical radiation workers with a focus on the mean absorbed dose to the lung, brain and other organs. Int J Radiat Biol 2018; 56: 1–12. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2018.1549756 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

120. Wagner LK, Eifel PJ, Geise RA. Potential biological effects following high X-ray dose interventional procedures. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 1994; 5: 71–84. doi: 10.1016/S1051-0443(94)71456-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

121. FDA FDA Public Health Advisory: avoidance of serious X-ray induced skin injuries to patients during fluoroscopically guided procedures.. Washington, D.C.: Food and Drug Administration;. 1994. [Google Scholar]

122. Valentin J. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Annals of the ICRP 2000; 30: 7–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

123. Kathren RL, Brodsky A. Radiation protection : Gagliardi R. A, Almond P. R, A history of the radiological sciences: radiation physics. Reston, VA: Radiology Centennial, Inc; 1996. 187–221. [Google Scholar]

124. White DR. The formulation of tissue substitute materials using basic interaction data. Phys Med Biol 1977; 22: 889–99. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/22/5/008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

125. Constantinou C, Attix FH, Paliwal BR. A solid water phantom material for radiotherapy X-ray and γ-ray beam calibrations. Med Phys 1982; 9: 436–41. doi: 10.1118/1.595063 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

126. Barnes GT. Characteristics of scatter : Logan W. W, Muntz E. P, Reduced Dose Mammography. New York: Masson Publishing; 1979. . 223–42. [Google Scholar]

127. King MA, Barnes GT, Yester MV. A mammographic scanning multiple slit assembly: design considerations and preliminary results : Logan W. W, Muntz E. P, Reduced Dose Mammography. New York: Masson Publishing; 1979. . 243–52. [Google Scholar]

128. Barnes GT, Chakraborty DP. Radiographic mottle and patient exposure in mammography. Radiology 1982; 145: 815–21. doi: 10.1148/radiology.145.3.7146416 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

129. NCRP Radiation Protection Design Guidelines for 0.1-100 MeV Particle Accelerator Facilities. NCRP Report No. 51. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 1977. [Google Scholar]

130. NCRP Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation fro Medical Use of X Rays and Gamma Rays of Energies up to 10 MeV. NCRP Report No. 49. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 1976. [Google Scholar]

131. Chodick G, Bekiroglu N, Hauptmann M, Alexander BH, Freedman DM, Doody MM, et al.. Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168: 620–31. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn171 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

132. Kleiman N, Cabrera M, Duran G, Ramirez R, Duran A, Vano E. Occupational risk of radiation cataract in interventional cardiology. presentation Abstract 511/D656. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 49. [Google Scholar]

133. Vano E, Kleiman NJ, Duran A, Rehani MM, Echeverri D, Cabrera M. Radiation cataract risk in interventional cardiology personnel. Radiat Res 2010; 174: 490–5. doi: 10.1667/RR2207.1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

134. Stewart FA, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M, Hendry JH, Kleiman NJ, MacVittie TJ, et al.. ICRP publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs — threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 2012; 41(1-2): 1–322. doi: 10.1016/j.icrp.2012.02.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

135. NCRP Guidance on radiation dose limits for the lens of the eye. NCRP Commentary No. 26. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2016. [Google Scholar]

136. Harbottle EA, Parker RP, Davis R. Radiation doses to staff in a department of nuclear medicine. Br J Radiol 1976; 49: 612–7. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-49-583-612 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

137. Buls N, Pagés J, de Mey J, Osteaux M. Evaluation of patient and staff doses during various CT fluoroscopy guided interventions. Health Phys 2003; 85: 165–73. doi: 10.1097/00004032-200308000-00005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

138. Roberts FO, Gunawardana DH, Pathmaraj K, Wallace A, PL U, Mi T, et al.. Radiation dose to PET technologists and strategies to lower occupational exposure. J Nucl Med Technol 2005; 33: 44–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

139. Kim KP, Miller DL, Balter S, Kleinerman RA, Linet MS, Kwon D, et al.. Occupational radiation doses to operators performing cardiac catheterization procedures. Health Phys 2008; 94: 211–27. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000290614.76386.35 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

140. Häusler U, Czarwinski R, Brix G. Radiation exposure of medical staff from interventional X-ray procedures: a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2000–8. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1388-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

141. Olgar T, Bor D, Berkmen G, Yazar T. Patient and staff doses for some complex X-ray examinations. J. Radiol. Prot. 2009; 29: 393–407. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/29/3/004 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

142. Quinn B, Holahan B, Aime J, Humm J, Germain JS, Dauer LT. Measured dose rate constant from oncology patients administered 18F for positron emission tomography. Med Phys 2012; 39: 6071–9. doi: 10.1118/1.4749966 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

143. Holland JP, Williamson MJ, Lewis JS. Unconventional nuclides for radiopharmaceuticals. Mol Imaging 2010; 9: 7290.2010.00008–20. doi: 10.2310/7290.2010.00008 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

144. ICRP ICRP Publications. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 2019. Available from: http://www.icrp.org/page.asp?id=5 [cited 2019 December 7].

145. NCRP Publications National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 2019. Available from: https://ncrponline.org/publications/ [cited 2019 December 7].

146. NCRP Radiation dose management for fluoroscopically guided interventional medical procedures. NCRP Report No. 168. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2010. [Google Scholar]

147. ICRP Occupational radiological protection in interventional procedures. ICRP publication 139. Annals of the ICRP 2018; 47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

148. Hamada N, Fujimichi Y. Classification of radiation effects for dose limitation purposes: history, current situation and future prospects. J Radiat Res 2014; 55: 629–40. doi: 10.1093/jrr/rru019 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

149. Taylor LS. Radiation exposure as a reasonable calculated risk. Health Phys 1958; 1: 62–70. doi: 10.1097/00004032-195801000-00010 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

150. Jones CG. A review of the history of U.S. radiation protection regulations, recommendations, and standards. Health Phys 2005; 88: 697–716. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000146629.45823.da [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

151. Jones CG. The US nuclear regulatory Commission radiation protection policy and opportunities for the future. J. Radiol. Prot. 2019; 39: R51–62. doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ab1d75 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

152. Boice JD, Cohen SS, Mumma MT, Ellis ED. The million person study, Whence it came and why. Int J Radiat Biol 2019; 48: 1–14. doi: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1589015 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

153. Spenser E. The Faerie Queene. The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser. Vol II. London: Bell and Daldy; 1866. [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of Radiology are provided here courtesy of British Institute of Radiology