Journal Of Radiological Protection Research Articles

National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) 2024 annual meeting: advanced and small modular nuclear power reactors**The authors have confirmed that any identifiable participants in this study have given their consent for publication.

On 25-26 March 2023, the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) held its 2024 annual meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. The NCRP dates from 1929, and this meeting celebrated the 60th anniversary of receiving a U.S. Congressional Charter. For this annual meeting the NCRP felt it was essential to provide a briefing about advanced and small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The Journal of Radiological Protection is delighted to publish the following synopsis of material presented at the U.S. NCRP meeting. This synopsis is divided into five sections. The first section provides an overview of the whole meeting together with summaries of two context setting overview papers. The following four sessions of this synopsis are specific to advanced and small modular nuclear power reactors. The meeting also included keynote presentations by three of NCRP annual award recipients. The meeting topical areas were Technology Overview and Critical Issues. The individual papers laid the groundwork to understanding reactor technologies, terminology, and the fundamental concepts and processes for electrical generation. The perspectives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and states, through the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors were provided. The papers included a discussion of diverse topics including potential emergency preparedness considerations, radiological survey requirements, an evaluation of the future of nuclear power, the economics of reactors (both large and small), and the critical issues identified by the recent National Academies of Sciences' study on advanced reactors. The summary papers were developed to briefly document the major points and concepts presented during the oral papers presented at the 2024 NCRP Annual Meeting. The meeting heralded the dawn of a new era for commercial nuclear power.

Assessment of the level of annual intake of tritium into the air from the surface of the lake Kyzyltash

Сайт «Озёра России». URL: https://ozera.info/lakes/ about/gvr/list-lakes/kyzyl-tash (Дата обращения 25.03.2022 г.) Екидин А.А., Антонов П.Л., Жуковский М.В. Оценка загрязнения атмосферы тритием при испарении воды с поверхности промышленных водоемов // Вопросы радиационной безопасности. 2012. № 3. С. 3-10. Андреева М.А. Озера среднего и Южного Урала. Челябинск, 1975. 270 с. Толстикова В.С. Кузнецов В.Н. Ядерное наследие на Урале: исторические оценки и документы. Екатеринбург, 2017. 400 с. Баторшин Г.Ш., Мокров Ю.Г., Алексахин А.И. Концепция вывода из эксплуатации водое мов-хранилищ ЖРО ФГУП «ПО «Маяк». VII Международный промышленный форум «АТОМЭКО – 2013». М., 2013. Радиационная обстановка на территории России и сопредельных государств в 2020 г. Ежегодник. Обнинск, 2021. 239 с. Чеботина М.Я., Николин О.А., Смагин А.И., Мурашова Е. Тритий в водоёмах производственного и комплексного назначения в районе ПО «Маяк» на Урале // Водное хозяйство России. 2011. № 4. С. 75-84. Vostrotin V.V., Yanov A.Y., Finashov L.V. Tritium in environmental objects in the area affected by FSUE Mayak Production Association in 2014-15 // Journal of Radiological Protection. 2021. Vol. 41, № 2. P. S56-S66. DOI 10.1088/1361-6498/ abe8c8. Иванов Н.Н. Об определении величины испаряемости // Известия Всесоюзного географического общества. 1954. Т. 86, № 2. вып. 1. С. 189–196. Сайт компании ООО «Расписание Погоды». URL: https:// rp5.ru. (Дата обращения 25.03.2022). Busigin A., Kalyanam K.M., Sood S.K. Estimation of the tritium release rate from a spill of tritiated water // Fusion Technology. 1992. Vol. 21, No 2P2. P. 512-517. DOI: 10.13182/FST92-A29798. Yoshinori S. Lake water mixing and tritium balance in lake Chuzenji // Geographical Review of Japan. 1983. Vol. 56-10. P. 667-678. The paper presents the results of research of the levels of tritium volume activity in lake Kyzyltash, a water storage reservoir for liquid radioactive waste from Mayak Production Association. Insufficient knowledge of the ways of migration of tritium from the reservoir and their quantitative assessment in modern conditions does not allow to fully objectively assess and predict the impact of the object of “nuclear heritage” on the population of Ozersk and the environment. The research was aimed at obtaining scientific results, which will be the starting point for the formation of a tritium monitoring program for industrial reservoirs by Mayak Production Association. The purpose of the study was assessement of the dynamics of tritium volume activity in the lake Kyzyltash, assessment of water balance parameters and the level of tritium intake into the air from its surface during the ice-free period. A total of 33 water samples were collected. The average tritium volume activity in 2021 made 1,57Е+04 Bq/l, SD – 1,1Е+03 Bq/l that more than 2 times exceeds the intervention level. A trend of decrease in the average monthly tritium volume activity in the reservoir during the observation period was revealed. In the course of calculations, it was stated that in the course of evaporation during the ice-free period the 196 TBq of tritium entered the air from lake Kyzyltash surface that is comparable with releases from all the Russia facilities (179 TBq) except Mayak Production Association. The obtained values of evaporated tritium make 13% from atmospheric tritium releases of Mayak Production Association in 2020. A total of ~12,2 million m3 had evaporated from the water reservoir surface in the study period. The model of dependence of tritium volume activity from time in lake Kyzyltash in 2021 and using of exponentially decreasing function allowed defining water balance of lake Kyzyltash in the ice-free period with 6,3 million m3 deficiency. Research of the model parameters allow prediction of sanitary and hygienic characteristics of the water reservoir from the point of view of radiation safety and calculation of water balance of the reservoir in certain periods of time.

The mishandling of scientifically flawed articles about radiation exposure, retracted for ethical reasons, impedes understanding of the scientific issues pointed out by Letters to the Editor

We discuss the editorial handling of two papers that were published in and then retracted from the Journal of Radiological Protection (JRP).1,2 The papers, which dealt with radiation exposure in Date City, were retracted because “ethically inappropriate data were used.”3,4 Before retraction, four Letters to the Editor pointing out scientific issues in the papers had been submitted to JRP. The Letters were all accepted or provisionally accepted through peer review. Nevertheless, JRP later refused to publish them. We examine the handling by JRP of the Letters, and show that it left the reader unapprised of a) the extent of the issues in the papers, which went far beyond the use of unconsented data, and b) the problems in the way the journal handled the matter. By its actions in this case, JRP has enabled unscientific, unfounded and erroneous claims to remain unacknowledged. We propose some countermeasures to prevent such inappropriate actions by academic journals in future.

Mishandling of scientifically flawed articles on radiation exposure, retracted for ethical reason, undermines the scientific issues pointed out by Letters to the Editor

We discuss the editorial handling of two papers that were published in and then retracted from the Journal of Radiological Protection (JRP). The papers dealt with radiation exposure in Date City, and were retracted because “ethically inappropriate data were used”. Before retraction, four Letters to the Editor pointing out scientific issues in the papers had been submitted to JRP. The Letters were all accepted or provisionally accepted through peer review. Nevertheless, JRP later refused to publish them. We examine the handling by JRP of the Letters, and show that it led to a cover-up of the grave issues in the papers and in handling them, which went far beyond the use of unconsented data. By its actions in this case, JRP has established a dangerous precedent that unscientific, unfounded and erroneous claims can remain unacknowledged. We propose some countermeasures to prevent such abuse of editorial power by academic journals.

Phthalates and Childhood Asthma: Revealing an Association through Urinary Biomarkers

Exposure to phthalates, substances used as plasticizers in a large number of consumer goods, can occur by ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact. Children––who are uniquely vulnerable to adverse health effects of environmental exposures because of their still-developing neuro-logical, immunological, and respiratory systems—can receive particularly high exposures due to more frequent contact with phthalate-rich surfaces such as plastic toys and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) flooring, as well as house dust, which collects phthalates (and other chemicals). Researchers now report an association between phthalate exposure and asthma and allergic disease in a cohort of 10-year-old Norwegian children [EHP 121(2):251–256; Bertelsen et al.]. The research team conducted a cross-sectional analysis of urine sample data from 623 children participating in the 10-year followup to the prospective Environment and Childhood Asthma study in Oslo. The followup included structured interviews with parents and blood tests, lung function tests, clinical examinations, and skin prick tests for allergic sensitization for children. Samples of first-morning urine were collected and assessed for three metabolites of low-molecular-weight phthalates (commonly used in personal care products) and eight metabolites of high-molecular-weight phthalates (commonly used in PVC applications such as flooring, electrical cords, car interiors, and toys). The investigators used logistic regression modeling to estimate associations between current asthma and phthalate metabolite concentrations. Hand-to-mouth activity combined with phthalate-rich surfaces such as PVC toys and dusty floors can mean particularly high phthalate exposures for children. Previous animal studies have shown an association between high-molecular-weight phthalates and allergic disease development, while epidemiological studies have shown exposure to house dust containing several of these chemicals to be associated with asthma and allergic disease. The current analysis revealed an association between asthma in children and the highest quartiles of exposure to the metabolites mono-carboxyoctyl phthalate and mono-carboxynonyl phthalate. The parent compounds of these metabolites are high-molecular-weight phthalates used primarily as plasticizers in PVC items. No association was observed between asthma and the nine other metabolites, nor was any association detected between any metabolites and allergic sensitization. Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design and measurements based on single urine samples, which do not reflect phthalate exposures over time. However, the findings do support the growing body of evidence showing an association between asthma and exposure to high-molecular-weight phthalates.

CT Scans: Balancing Health Risks and Medical Benefits

Computed tomography (CT) has been a boon for medical care. By generating detailed anatomical pictures, the technology can improve diagnoses, limit unneeded medical procedures, and enhance treatment. However, CT scans also dose patients with ionizing radiation, a known human carcinogen, posing a potential downside for public health. Mounting health worries over radiation risks are now driving efforts to limit avoidable CT scans and to reduce radiation doses where possible. “There’s a national focus on this issue right now,” says Marilyn Goske, a professor of radiology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and chairwoman of the Image Gently campaign, a pediatric education and awareness campaign from the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging. In December 2011 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report concluding that ionizing radiation contributes more to the development of breast cancer than any other type of routine environmental exposure.1 About half the U.S. annual exposure to ionizing radiation comes from natural sources, including cosmic rays, but most of the rest comes from medical imaging and from CT scans in particular.1 The IOM cited research by Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, a senior investigator in the Radiation Epidemiology Branch of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), whose calculations suggest that the CT scans performed in the United States in 2007 might produce up to 29,000 cancers in the future, about 6% of them in the breast and the remainder in the lungs, brain, and other organs.2 But the spotlight on CT safety has also drawn a backlash from those who say the risks are overblown. On 13 December 2011 the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) issued a statement claiming that risks from CT imaging are “too low to be detectible and may be non-existent.”3 The AAPM added that “speculative predictions about cancer incidence and death” should be discouraged because they generate sensationalist media coverage that deters some patients who need CT scans from having them. Donald Miller, acting chief of the Diagnostic Devices Branch of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health, cites 2 basic principles for decreasing CT radiation risks. One is justification, which refers to prescribing a CT exam only when it is medically necessary. The other is optimization, which refers to adjusting and operating a CT scanner so that images adequate for diagnosis are obtained at the lowest possible dose. Justification is more difficult to address, Miller says, because it involves case-by-case decisions made by individual clinicians. More attention has been paid to optimization, he says, but both principles are equally important.

The Information Imperative: Is It Time for an Informed Consent Process Explaining the Risks of Medical Radiation?

We believe that the radiology community should take the initiative to adopt guidelines and require that all imaging facilities use some form of active information process describing the risks of medical radiation.

Second cancer risk, concomitant exposures and IRMER(2000)

In this issue we publish a Commentary by Dr Roger Harrison [1] on second cancer risk following radiotherapy. Harrison looks at the evidence from various sources, including an NRPB summary, and the complexity of comparing risk in the radiotherapy patient population with that in the normal population. He also addresses the particular problem of ‘‘concomitant dose’’ in radiotherapy planning and verification that has been highlighted by other authors in articles in BJR, particularly Waddington and Mackenzie [2] and Munro [3]. The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposures) Regulations (IRMER(2000)) [4] require justification of all medical exposures [Reg:6(1)]. Under the optimization regulation [Reg:7], the Practitioner is also required to ‘‘ensure that exposures of target volumes are individually planned, taking into account that doses to non-target volumes and tissues shall be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) and consistent with the intended radiotherapeutic purposes of the exposure’’. Neither of these regulations distinguishes between the radiotherapeutic dose and the ‘‘planning and verification doses’’ required by the total process. Also, ALARP has such a different meaning for radiotherapy exposures from that for diagnostic exposures that it is almost inappropriate as a concept. (We may need to develop our own language specifically for protection in radiotherapy, but more of that later.) A specific interpretation is put on these regulations in the Medical and Dental Guidance Notes [5]. In situations where the clinician is required to consider the extra dose from planning and verification exposures independently, ‘‘The IRMER Practitioner responsible for the treatment exposure (the Clinical Oncologist) can justify the concomitant exposures at the outset or during the radiotherapy course, but in doing so must be aware of the likely exposures and the resulting dose so that the benefit and detriment can be assessed. This can be achieved by including likely concomitant (extra-target) exposures within site-specific protocols with a total effective dose agreed’’. Waddington and McKenzie [2] chose to follow the Guidance Notes to demonstrate the possibility of expressing concomitant exposures using ‘‘effective dose’’, and have presented an excellent paper analysing that part of the ‘‘dose’’ from verification images; and at the same time justifying the need to record these doses by looking at the potential for cancer induction. Harrison [1] has taken this a stage further to analyse in more depth the radiation induced cancer issue for radiotherapy patients. One of his conclusions is that to specify and document individual concomitant exposures separately would seem to be unnecessary. This Editorial aims to stimulate further debate on these subjects, which are partly about the need for radiotherapy departments to comply with IRMER(2000) [4], but also about the need for all staff to gain a better understanding on cost-benefits of radiotherapy. It is extremely important that the radiotherapy community addresses this subject and arrives at a consensus that will benefit the patient. In the summary of the current position, which follows, absorbed dose (shortened to ‘‘dose’’) has been used throughout. The use of ‘‘effective dose’’ is questionable in radiotherapy for several reasons: the radiotherapy patient population is a highly selected subgroup of the general population with different longevity; also tissue weighting factors will be different because dose gradients and doses are much greater in radiotherapy than in diagnostic radiography. Therefore it is avoided here.

Development of the draft 2005 recommendations of the ICRP: a collection of papers - Part 2

In 1997, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) initiated a project intended to lead up to the replacement of its 1990 Recommendations (Publication 60)with a view to producing new, consolidated Recommendations 10-15 years after those of 1990. In order to stimulate comprehensive discussion, an open and iterative consultation process was used. An initial set of conceptual proposals to be considered by the Commission,and two later progress reports describing how and why ideas evolved in interaction with the radiological protection community, were published in the Journal of Radiological Protection (JRP). These three papers are reproduced here with kind permission by the Institute of Physics Publishing. As a result of consultation on the initial conceptual proposals and subsequent debate, the Commission has now drafted a proposed text for its 2005 Recommendations. This is intended not as a radical revision, but as a more coherent statement of current policy and as implification in its application. The summary of that draft is also reproduced here, while the full text, which is subject to public consultation until 31 December 2004, can be down loaded from the Commission's web site, www.icrp.org.

Control of low-level radiation exposure: what is the problem and how can it be solved?

The carcinogenic risks of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation used by ICRP have been challenged as being, at the same time, both too high and too low. This paper explains that the epidemiological evidence will always be limited at low doses, so that understanding the cellular mechanisms of carcinogenesis is increasingly important to assess the biological risks. An analysis is then given of the reasons why the challenges to ICRP, especially about the linear nonthreshold response model, have arisen. As a result of considering the issues, the Main Commission of ICRP is now consulting on a revised, simpler approach based on an individual oriented philosophy. This represents a potential shift by the Commission from the past emphasis on societal-oriented criteria. These proposals have been promulgated through IRPA, and an open literature publication was published in the Journal of Radiological Protection in June 1999. On the basis of comments received and the observations presented at the IRPA 10 Conference, the Commission will begin to develop the outline of the next recommendations. It is now more than 10 y since ICRP distributed, for comment, a draft of what was to become the publication of the 1990 recommendations. The Commission plans to develop its new recommendations on a time scale of the next 4 or 5 y. In this paper, many of the issues that will need to be addressed in the development of the recommendations will be identified. These issues will cover biological effects, dosimetric quantities, and the establishment of those levels of dose at which different protection requirements will be put into place. Concepts of exclusion and exemption will need to be clarified as well as the meaning of how to achieve what the proposal identifies as "as low as reasonably practicable." Finally, the Commission has decided to develop an environmental radiation protection philosophy that will need to be developed as part of the new recommendations.

Progress towards new recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection

There has been a hundred-year history of the uses of radiation in medicine and industry. Throughout that time there has also been advice on the need to protect people from the hazards associated with exposure. This paper traces the evolution of protection standards through the differing phases that are identified. These phases reflect changes both in scientific understanding of the biological effects of exposure and of the social and ethical standards to be applied. An analysis is then given of the reasons why the challenges to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), especially about the linear non-threshold response model, have arisen. As a result of considering the issues, the Main Commission of ICRP is now consulting on a revised simpler approach which is based on an individual-oriented philosophy and represents a potential shift by the Commission from the past emphasis on societal-oriented criteria. These proposals have been promulgated through the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and an open literature publication was published in the Journal of Radiological Protection in June 1999. On the basis of comments received and the observations presented at the IRPA 10 Conference, the Commission will begin to develop the outline of the next recommendations.

Issues in the control of low‐level radiation exposure*

The carcinogenic risks of exposure to low level ionizing radiation used by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) have been challenged as being, at the same time, both too high and too low. This paper explains that the epidemiological evidence will always be limited at low doses, so that understanding the cellular mechanisms of carcinogenesis is increasingly important to assess the biological risks. An analysis is then given of the reasons why the challenges to ICRP, especially about the linear non‐threshold response model, have arisen. As a result of considering the issues, the Main Commission of ICRP is now consulting on a revised, simpler, approach based on an individual oriented philosophy. This represents a potential shift by the Commission from the past emphasis on societal‐oriented criteria. These proposals have been promulgated through the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and an open literature publication was published in the Journal of Radiological Protection 1 in June 1999. On the basis of comments received and the observations presented at the IRPA 10 Conference, the Commission will begin to develop the outline of the next Recommendations. It is now more than ten years since ICRP distributed, for comment, a draft of what was to become the publication of the 1990 Recommendations. The Commission plans to develop its new Recommendations on a time scale of the next four or five years. In this paper, many of the issues that will need to be addressed in the development of the recommendations will be identified. These issues will cover biological effects, dosimetric quantities and the establishment of those levels of dose at which different protection requirements will be put into place. Concepts of exclusion and exemption will need to be clarified as well as the meaning of how to achieve what the proposal identifies as ‘As Low as Reasonably Practicable’ (ALARP). Finally, the Commission has decided to develop an environmental radiation protection philosophy that will need to be developed as part of the new Recommendations.

Controllable dose: SRP International Committee WorkingParty summary report

Following the publication `Control of low-level radiation exposure: time for a change?', distributed by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and subsequently modified by the author, Roger Clarke, and published in the Journal of Radiological Protection (R Clarke 1999 JRP 19 (2) 107-15), the Society for Radiological Protection (SRP) formed a Working Party (WP) whose remit is to discuss the issues arising from the paper and to prepare a response on behalf of the SRP which is the IRPA Associate Society. The WP considered the paper in great detail and prepared a questionnaire on the 33 aspects considered most important. The questionnaire is attached as appendix 1, together with a compilation of the responses received. Appendix 2 contains additional proffered comment. The questionnaire was sent to approximately 1500 UK international members. Although there was only a 6% response, the views expressed were wide-ranging, reflecting the broad professional interests, industrial, medical, academic, research and regulatory, of the international membership. This paper is a distillation of the responses together with the views of the SRP Council and its partner societies in the UK. Incidentally, the questionnaire has been adopted by other countries as a tool to help guide their debate.

Journal of Radiological Protection

IOP Publishing Ltd and the Society for Radiological Protection (SRP) have joined forces to published the Society's Journal of Radiological Protection. The agreement is initially for a term of five years from 1 January 1988, and while editorial matters will remain with the Society, promotion and production will be looked after by IOP Publishing Ltd.

Revised guidance on acceptable limits of exposure during nuclear magnetic resonance clinical imaging.

Revised guidance on acceptable limits of exposure during nuclear magnetic resonance clinical imaging.

Memoranda from the British Committee on Radiation Units and Measurements. 1. Use of air kerma for photon dosimetry in air.

1. Use of air kerma for photon dosimetry in airPublished Online:28 Jan 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-55-653-375SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail AboutAbstractExposure, expressed in terms of its unit the röntgen, has been widely used for the dosimetry of photons since its introduction for X radiation in 1928 and its extension to γ radiation in 1937.Although in recent years absorbed dose has to a large extent replaced exposure in clinical dosimetry, nevertheless exposure has continued to be used in deriving absorbed dose and for measurements in air generally. When in 1953 the value of 100 ergs per gram was adopted by ICRU as the value of the unit of absorbed dose, the rad, one of the reasons was so that the numerical value of an exposure expressed in röntgens would be fairly close to the numerical value of the absorbed dose to water resulting from that exposure (assuming that electron equilibrium existed at the point of measurement). Once however a change is made to SI units, i.e. the coulomb per kilogram (=3876 röntgens) for exposure, and the gray (=1 joule per kilogram =100 rad) for absorbed dose, this approximate agreement between the numerical values of the two quantities no longer exists.In view of the change to SI units and the widespread use of absorbed dose in radiotherapy, BCRU recently recommended a revised procedure for the calibration of dosemeters for use in radiotherapy where the measurement takes place in an appropriate phantom (BCRU, 1980). The main intention was to provide the user with a calibration in terms of the quantity required, namely absorbed dose to water. Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byInstructions to authors29 May 2014 | The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 68, No. 805Instructions to authors29 May 2014 | The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 66, No. 788Instructions to authors29 May 2014 | The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 66, No. 781Instructions to authors29 May 2014 | The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 65, No. 769Instructions to authors29 May 2014 | The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 64, No. 757Realisation of the ISO Narrow Spectrum Series of filtered radiations at the National Physical Laboratory19 December 2000 | Journal of Radiological Protection, Vol. 8, No. 4When did you last see your röntgen?-the SI units and their use6 December 2000 | Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 29, No. 2SI units of exposure in radiologyC. K. Bomford and S. B. Sherriff28 January 2014 | The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 56, No. 667The hazards of acupunctureC. E. Latter28 January 2014 | The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 56, No. 667 Volume 55, Issue 653May 1982Pages: 321-B24 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineJanuary 28,2014 Metrics Download PDF

Kinetic analysis of calcium transport across the placenta.

ArticleKinetic analysis of calcium transport across the placenta.C F Ramberg Jr, M Delivoria-Papadopoulos, E D Crandall, and D S KronfeldC F Ramberg JrSearch for more papers by this author, M Delivoria-PapadopoulosSearch for more papers by this author, E D CrandallSearch for more papers by this author, and D S KronfeldSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:01 Nov 1973https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1973.35.5.682MoreSectionsPDF (2 MB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat Previous Back to Top Next Download PDF FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Cited ByMaternal stress does not exacerbate long-term bone deficits in female rats born growth restricted, with differential effects on offspring bone healthKristina Anevska, Jean N. Cheong, John D. Wark, Mary E. Wlodek,* and Tania Romano*1 February 2018 | American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 314, No. 2Strontium biokinetic model for the pregnant woman and fetus: application to Techa River studies21 August 2015 | Journal of Radiological Protection, Vol. 35, No. 3Bone Development and Mineral Homeostasis in the Fetus and Neonate: Roles of the Calciotropic and Phosphotropic HormonesChristopher S. Kovacs1 October 2014 | Physiological Reviews, Vol. 94, No. 4Fetal Mineral HomeostasisCalcium, Phosphorus, and Magnesium Transport Across the PlacentaHyperparathyroidism in PregnancyThe Endocrinologist, Vol. 15, No. 5Calcium, Phosphorus, and Magnesium Transport Across the PlacentaFetal Mineral HomeostasisL-type Ca2+ channels in fetal and adult ovine cerebral arteriesArlin B. Blood, Yu Zhao, Wen Long, Lubo Zhang, and Lawrence D. Longo1 January 2002 | American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, Vol. 282, No. 1Characteristics of Calcium Uptake by BeWo Cells, a Human Trophoblast Cell LinePlacenta, Vol. 22, No. 8-94. Biokinetic data and models16 November 2016 | Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 31, No. 1-3Doses to the Embryo and Fetus from Intakes of Radionuclides by the Mother16 November 2016 | Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 31, No. 1-3Distributing Working Versions of Published Mathematical Models for Biological Systems via the InternetMaternal-Fetal Calcium and Bone Metabolism During Pregnancy, Puerperium, and Lactation*Endocrine Reviews, Vol. 18, No. 6Fetal calcium homeostasis10 June 2010 | Equine Veterinary Journal, Vol. 29, No. S24Parathyroid hormone-related peptide (PTHrP) regulates fetal–placental calcium transport through a receptor distinct from the PTH/PTHrP receptor24 December 1996 | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 93, No. 26Calcium-binding properties of fetuin in fetal bovine serumJournal of Experimental Zoology, Vol. 270, No. 6Oxygen exchange in the chorioallantoic membrane, avian homologue of the mammalian placentaPlacenta, Vol. 14, No. 6Hyperparathyroidism and pregnancyJournal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 4Application of Models to Determination of Nutrient Requirements: Experimental Techniques Employing TracersThe Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 122Calcium and Phosphorus Metabolism in the Premature Infant29 August 2016 | Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 2Development of endocrine pathways in the regulation of calcium homeostasisBaillière's Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 3, No. 3Is there control of solute transport at placental level?Placenta, Vol. 9, No. 1Placental transfer of calcium to the ovine fetus and its regulation28 February 2007 | Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Vol. 46, No. 2The effect of fetal thyroparathyroidectomy on the transport of calcium across the ovine placenta to the fetusPlacenta, Vol. 7, No. 5Calcium metabolism in pregnancy and the perinatal period: A reviewAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 151, No. 1Mineral and Water Exchange between Mother and FetusEndocrine Regulation of Calcium Homeostasis During PregnancyClinics in Perinatology, Vol. 10, No. 3Foetal plasma magnesium levels during maternal hypo- or hypermagnesaemia in ewes9 March 2007 | British Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 42, No. 3Nutrition and PregnancyPerinatal Calcium Homeostasis: Neonatal Hypocalcemia and Bone DemineralizationClinics in Perinatology, Vol. 4, No. 2Methylmercury movements across the perfused guinea pig placenta in late gestationToxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 39, No. 1Calcium and phosphorus metabolism in ruminants with special reference to parturient paresis1 June 2009 | Journal of Dairy Research, Vol. 43, No. 3Studies in calcium metabolism in infants with intrauterine growth retardationThe Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 86, No. 6 More from this issue > Volume 35Issue 5November 1973Pages 682-8 https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1973.35.5.682PubMed4203705History Published online 1 November 1973 Published in print 1 November 1973 Metrics

The Annual Congress and Exhibition

The Annual Congress and ExhibitionPublished Online:29 May 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-7-73-1SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail AboutAbstractThe Fourth Annual Congress and Associated Exhibition of Apparatus which was held recently at the Central Hall, Westminster, once more justified the opinion that this meeting of the Institute has become a permanent institution for our annual edification. It might perhaps appear that a twelve-month's interval was too small in which to see any fundamental change in the techniques, outlook, and status of Radiology, but in common with its allies both in the medical and physical sciences, progress in Radiology is, in fact, rapid enough to justify an annual congress. Moreover, this meeting of the Institute serves as a very convenient (and pleasurable) opportunity for asking ourselves (and more important still, others) where we stand in relation to a number of besetting problems and difficulties. We are reminded too of our international committments, for prior to the Presidential Address by Dr. Stanley Melville, a message was read from Professor Schinz, Professor of Röntgenology at Zurich, who is the President designate of the Fourth International Congress, to be held in Switzerland next summer. It appears that arrangements for that congress are well in hand, and Professor Schinz extended a warm invitation to British radiologists. Dr. Melville's address is published in this issue. Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byProtection and Measurement in Radiation TherapyHealth Physics, Vol. 108, No. 25.1 IntroductionThe History of ICRP and the Evolution of its Policies1 February 2009 | Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 39, No. 1Chapters 1 and 217 May 2016 | Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 37, No. 2-4Annex B and All references17 May 2016 | Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 37, No. 2-4A report on progress towards new recommendations: A communication from the International Commission on Radiological Protection30 May 2001 | Journal of Radiological Protection, Vol. 21, No. 2Progress towards new recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological ProtectionNuclear Energy, Vol. 40, No. 11 Introduction Volume 7, Issue 73January 1934Pages: 1-64 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineMay 29,2014 Metrics Download PDF