No abstract available

No abstract available

[en] The concept of risk is associated with the concepts of event, harmful consequence, and probability. Initiating events and their possible developments, together with their associated probabilities, induce a probability space on the space of consequences. The risk is defined as a probability density function (or distribution) on the space of harmful consequences. The risks involved in nuclear power plants are taken as an example. Possible presentations of the risk (e.g. radiation-dose space and health-effects space) are discussed and the relationship between them is analysed. The relationship of some presentations in common use (such as the presentation of the risk in the Rasmussen report) to the above definition of the risk is also discussed. Some of the implications of the definition are explored further and the different receptors of risk, social and personal risks, and the possibility (or impossibility) of comparing risks are discussed. Ways of refining the description of the risk in risk assessments are outlined as an application of the definition. It is argued that personal risk, social risk, and correlations between consequences are necessary. (author)

No abstract available

[en] An exposition is presented of the principles of a socio-cultural risk theory based on the statement 'Risk is structured uncertainty'. It deals with hazards of human behaviour, risk as a challenge, hazards in nature and in culture, in science and enterprise, to close with a few words on today's crisis and uncertainty. (Auth.)

No abstract available

[en] The purpose is to provide a source of information that can be used to assist personnel in the planning, training, and execution of radiological work using the principles of ALARA. This document is not intended to replace HNF or WHC Control Manual requirements. The ALARA Tools-List provides detailed information on the use and procurement of engineered controls, mockup training guidelines, and good radiological work practices that have been proven to be ALARA

[en] Evaluations of radiation risk often include a spectrum of extreme and unrealistic views. Ethical analysis of risks in terms of uncertainty, equity, consent, and compensation often can help to provide more just, moderate, and realistic evaluations. In particular, ethical analysis argues for several propositions. (1) Although all evaluations of radiation risk ought to include economic analyses, these analyses could be ethically weighted to reflect values such as equitable risk distribution, compensation and consent. Evaluations ought to reflect the fact that such ethical factors are just as important in determining risk acceptability as risk magnitude. (2) Although technical assessment is necessary for a rational societal risk evaluation, it is not sufficient. Therefore rational risk evaluation needs also to include components such as evaluation of democratic preferences, citizen negotiation, and alternative assessments, so that the procedures, not merely the outcomes, of risk evaluation satisfy ethical constraints. (3) Although it is reasonable for good scientists to limit false positives, ethical risk evaluators also need to limit false negatives and to protect the most vulnerable parties in situations of uncertainty. (4) Although economically realistic evaluations, in a society of limited resources, ought not to presuppose an infinite value for health and safety, neither ought risk evaluations to presuppose a zero value for even small threats to health and safety, particularly if compensation or consent is inadequate. Citizen consent and compensation are often necessary to justify risk tradeoffs. (author). 50 notes

[en] The national centre for radiation research and technology (NCRRT) is carrying scientific research and technological Activities related to ionizing radiations. About 800 workers are now working in the plant and about 10% of them are working usually in the so-called radiation controlled and supervised areas radiation levels around the irradiation facilities as well as the annual occupational radiation doses during 1985-1989 are reported. The mean annual collective dose is 0.13 man-sievert. The highly exposed group recorded an individual average annual dose of about 3.1 mSv, with the maximum individual annual dose of 7.7 mSv. About 90% of the radiation workers are dosed below 5 mSv/y. The mortality risk is calculated and compared with other industries

[en] As biomedical/clinical engineers expand their managerial expertise into nontraditional areas, it makes sense that they pursue areas where their formal training in physics and mathematics can be applied. Radiation safety requires having the educational background to understand atomic structure, the nature of radioactivity, mathematics, biology, chemistry, and instrumentation. Program management requires having the administrative experience to manage people, data, files, documentation, and budgets. Radiation safety program management also requires an understanding of how best to prepare for a surprise inspection, similar to but technically more specific than other inspections and surveys previously experienced by the BME/CE professional