Radiation-emitting Devices Research Articles

Assessing elementary understanding of electromagnetic radiation and its implementation in wireless technologies among pre-service teachers

The research on the knowledge and perceptions of electromagnetic radiation among teachers who will teach these topics in primary and secondary education is relatively limited. According to existing literature, electromagnetic radiation is a challenging and complex concept for students to comprehend. Despite the widespread use of radiation-emitting devices like cell phones and wireless networks, the misuse of the term “radiation” has resulted in various misconceptions. This study aimed to examine the elementary understanding of electromagnetic radiation and its application in wireless technologies among prospective primary and secondary education teachers from different specialties. 427 pre-service teachers participated in the survey, and the data was gathered through a closed questionnaire. The study’s overall conclusion was that teachers’ knowledge regarding electromagnetic radiation was insufficient. The curricula of their departments, their interests in high school courses, and their gender significantly affect their understanding of electromagnetic radiation and its application to wireless technologies.

Radiation Monitoring Using Personal Dosimeter Devices in Terms of Long-Term Compliance and Creating a Culture of Safety

IntroductionRadiation-emitting devices are commonplace in the hospital with their ability to produce imaging for diagnoses, However, they hold a risk for device operators due to radiation exposure. Hospital systems have programs where physicians exposed to radiation are required to wear dosimeters to help record total radiation over time. Dosimetry readings over standardized recommendations can lead to hospital image issues and disciplinary action for physicians. This study aimed to discover the true values recorded on dosimeters with radiation exposure and discuss effective ways to encourage compliance with dosimeter usage.MethodologyThe study was completed over a course of 12 months with physicians from three different hospitals. Selection criteria included physicians considered to be “radiation workers” including those who operate x-ray machines, fluoroscopy units, unsealed and sealed isotopes, or those exposed to other sources of gamma or high-energy beta radiation. Two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were implemented. The first cycle was the first six months of the study and the second cycle was the second six months of the study. The first PDSA cycle had planned dosimeter reading check-ins every month. After this cycle ended, physicians were sent a survey anonymously asking if they had ever intentionally left behind their dosimeter. In the second PDSA cycle, a planned policy change was put into action where penalties for physicians who went over the recommended dosage were stopped. A monthly educational meeting where a discussion on the risks of radiation as well as protective mechanisms was implemented instead. The same monthly check-ins for dosimeter reading monitoring were employed again with the same survey regarding dosimeter adherence and usage being sent out at the end of the second cycle. Run charts were created to determine whether the policy change showed statistically significant differences in dosimetry readings.ResultsProtocol changes led to statistically significant (p<0.05) differences in radiation exposure recorded throughout the hospital systems. The primary PDSA cycle readings showed that hospital systems one (n=118), two (n=71), and three (n=32) had readings of 3.90 mSv, 2.55 mSv, and 2.02 mSv, respectively, which were all under the annual recommended dose limit of 10 mSv maximum per six months. However, an average of 94.4% (n=221) of physicians across all hospitals admitted to not using the dosimeter. In the second PDSA cycle after the policy change, the radiation doses were higher with an increase in the average cumulative dose at hospital system one of 255%, 328% at system two, and 323% at system three. Hospital systems one and two were both over the yearly limit of 20.0 mSv (7.70 mSv over for system one and 1.86 mSv over for system two) while system three remained under. The number of physicians who stated they always used the dosimeter during the second PDSA cycle increased to 83.9% in-hospital system one, 90.2% in-hospital system two, and 93.8% in-hospital system three.ConclusionCreating a culture of safety is critical for physician compliance. A comfortable work environment without unreasonable consequences creates an environment where physicians can focus on their health and safety while also doing what is in the workplace’s best interest. This culture can best be made with more collaboration between administrative staff and workers to create a trustworthy experience in hospital systems.

Awareness on Radiation Protection Devices Among Dental Students

Radiation protection refers to the implementation of practices to reduce radiation exposure to patients, workers and the public. The fundamental aim of radiation protection is to reduce risk of harm by ensuring that any dose received is justified and „as low as reasonably practicable‟ (ALARP). Exposure to Radiation has become common in Dentistry, patients are exposed to radiation by various radiation emitting devices such as OPG, CBCT,CT and IOPA. Apart from patients, dental surgeons and dental assistants are being exposed to radiations on a regular basis. Radiation effects on human cells cause various problems, increased risk of brain cancers, tumors of parotid gland and various problems in the head and neck region. Thus knowing about Radiation protection is important for both patients and Dentists.The Aim of this study is to create awareness and determine the understanding of radiation protection devices and its role in dentistry among dental students.Radiographic examination plays an important part of diagnosis in dental practice.Majority of the dental students within the study were aware of the radiation protection devices and its usage.

The impact of selected modifiable lifestyle factors on male fertility in the modern world.

IntroductionThe modern man during his reproductive period is exposed to the negative influence of widespread lifestyle-related habits. The available studies show a significant decline in the quality of young men's sperm, which results in male and female infertility factors being given equal consideration. The progressive decline of sperm quality has lowered the spermiogram parameters proposed by the World Health Organization.Material and methodsWe performed a review of the literature on the most common unhealthy habits in the modern world, such as obesity, mobile phone usage, smoking and alcohol intake, and their reported effects on male fertility. Several papers including original, review and meta-analysis were searched using the ScienceDirect and Web of Science databases.ResultsAll the factors under analysis contribute to a significant deterioration of sperm quality, mainly through decreased sperm concentration, vitality, motility and morphology.ConclusionsLifestyle-related factors are a significant cause of male infertility in the world today. Studies have shown that sperm quality is essentially determined by: obesity, nicotine addiction, heavy exposure to electromagnetic compatibility radiation-emitting devices and alcohol consumption. Weight loss and cessation or limitation of unhealthy lifestyle-related factors might represent the best course of action for any couple trying to achieve pregnancy.

Environmental etiology of gastric cancer in Iran: a systematic review focusing on drinking water, soil, food, radiation, and geographical conditions.

The aim of this systematic review study was to investigate the causal relationship between environmental factors and gastric cancer (GC) in Iran. In a narrow definition, the environment includes water, soil, air, and food. This definition was the main criterion for the inclusion of articles in this study. In addition, exposure to radiation and geographical conditions were considered as less investigated environmental factors in the literatures. International (PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Cochran) and national (Scientific Information Database) databases were searched for articles on GC and environmental risk factors in Iran. Twenty-six articles were found to meet the inclusion criteria after title, abstract, and full text review. Risk factors identified for GC include consumption of red meat; high fat, fried, and salted meat; smoked, salted, and fried foods; somedairyproducts; roasted and fried seeds; strong and hot tea; and un-piped and unchlorinated drinking water, as well as exposure to radiation, loess sediment, soft and grassy soil, soil containing low concentration of molybdenum, and proximity to volcanos. Fresh fruits and vegetable, fresh fish, and honey consumption were recognized as protective agents. Given the risk factors identified, strategies to prevent GC would be educating people to choose a healthy diet and to cook and store food properly, providing access to safe drinking water, taking into account topographical and geographical conditions in choosing a right location to build residential areas, and regulating the use of radiation-emitting devices.

TU-AB-204-04: Partnerships

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) and the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA's mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand FDA's pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices 2.Understand FDA's current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products 3.Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose

TU-AB-204-03: Research Activities in Medical Physics

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) and the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA's mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand FDA's pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices 2.Understand FDA's current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products 3.Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose

TU-AB-204-00: CDRH/FDA Regulatory Processes and Device Science Activities

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) and the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA's mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand FDA's pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices 2.Understand FDA's current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products 3.Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose

TU-AB-204-02: Device Adverse Events and Compliance

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) and the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA's mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand FDA's pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices 2.Understand FDA's current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products 3.Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose

TU-AB-204-01: Device Approval Process

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) and the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA's mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand FDA's pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices 2.Understand FDA's current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products 3.Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose

Dose-dependent metabolic alterations in human cells exposed to gamma irradiation.

Radiation exposure is a threat to public health because it causes many diseases, such as cancers and birth defects, due to genetic modification of cells. Compared with the past, a greater number of people are more frequently exposed to higher levels of radioactivity today, not least due to the increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiation-emitting devices. In this study, ultra-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-QTOF-MS)-based metabolic profiling was used to investigate radiation- induced metabolic changes in human fibroblasts. After exposure to 1 and 5 Gy of γ-radiation, the irradiated fibroblasts were harvested at 24, 48, and 72 h and subjected to global metabolite profiling analysis. Mass spectral peaks of cell extracts were analyzed by pattern recognition using principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). The results showed that the cells irradiated with 1 Gy returned to control levels at 72 h post radiation, whereas cells irradiated with 5 Gy were quite unlike the controls; therefore, cells irradiated with 1 Gy had recovered, whereas those irradiated with 5 Gy had not. Lipid and amino acid levels increased after the higher-level radiation, indicating degradation of membranes and proteins. These results suggest that MS-based metabolite profiling of γ-radiation-exposed human cells provides insight into the global metabolic alterations in these cells.

Quantum microcavities as efficient radiation sources

A laser is a radiation-emitting device that typically works through the stimulated emission of photons and has uses in fields from fundamental research to medicine and the military. One of the most important parameters of a laser is its threshold, the value of input power or current above which laser generation takes place, i.e., the radiation becomes coherent. The working principle of quantummicrocavity lasers, where the light is emitted spontaneously, is different from that of conventional devices: they are based on the stimulated scattering of radiation rather than on stimulated emission, which makes it possible to reduce the laser threshold dramatically.

Role of Vitamin D in Adults Requiring Nutrition Support

The major and most well-known function of vitamin D is to maintain calcium and phosphorus homeostasis and promote bone mineralization. However, recent evidence suggests that vitamin D may be important for a variety of nonskeletal outcomes. The review synthesizes the available evidence for the role of vitamin D in skeletal health as well as its novel roles in medical conditions such as muscle function, falls, immunity, glucose homeostasis, and cardiovascular diseases. The article reviews methods for assessing vitamin D status and suggests strategies to restore vitamin D status in patients requiring enteral or parenteral nutrition who are at particularly high risk of hypovitaminosis D. Screening for hypovitaminosis D with plasma total 25-hydroxyvitamin D should be a routine part of the care of the patient requiring enteral or parenteral nutrition. Restoration of optimal vitamin D status with high-dose supplemental vitamin D is required in most cases, whereas exposure to sunlight or an ultraviolet B radiation-emitting device is most effective in patients with severe malabsorption or those requiring long-term parenteral therapy. Given the emerging role of vitamin D for a variety of acute and chronic conditions, the optimal vitamin D status in acutely ill patients as well as in patients requiring long-term nutrition therapy warrants further investigation.

Survey of Ultrasound Therapy Devices in Manitoba

In 1982 a survey was performed of 89 ultrasound therapy devices in use in medical and paramedical organizations in Manitoba. Field measurements of ultrasonic output power, intensity, and timer accuracy in the clinical operating range were made together with maximum output power and transducer operating frequency. Results of the measurements are presented and the performance characteristics of the units compared with manufacturers' performance criteria for ultrasound therapy devices as given in the Canadian Radiation Emitting Devices (RED) Act.

The impact of regulations on microwave ovens in Canada.

Abstract Background surveys of microwave ovens and literature related to the potential health hazards of microwave radiation were performed by the Radiation Protection Bureau, of Health and Welfare of Canada, to determine if there was a need for statutory regulations to control such devices. Sufficient evidence was obtained to indicate that standards of design, construction and functioning were required to ensure safety to the general population. Consequently, in 1974, the Microwave Oven Regulations were promulgated under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act of Canada. Earlier, similar microwave oven performance standards were adopted in Japan in 1970 and in the United States in 197I. The introduction of the Regulations appears to have had a marked effect by causing improved oven designs, and better manufacturing and testing procedures, resulting in substantial reductions of leakage radiation from the ovens. This paper summarizes the regulatory requirements, highlights the problems encountered in conducting the oven surveys and provides data on the number of models tested and their compliance status in Canada.

Hazards from radiation devices-a health concern

Electromagnetic radiations, ranging from microwaves to high energy X-rays are finding increasing uses in many walks of life. While nuclear energy is effectively regulated in Canada, only recently have steps been taken to investigate and control the health hazards from other radiations. The results of some of the studies on the use of radiation-emitting devices in the healing arts and the current status of safety regulations at both federal and provincial levels were discussed.

Regulatory control of ionizing radiation in Canada.

In Canada, the procurement, use, disposal and other activities involving radioactive materials are governed by the Atomic Energy Control Act. In 1970, the Radiation-Emitting Devices Act brought most other potentially harmful radiation sources under surveillence and control. The development and growth of the monitoring and control programs of the Radiation Protection Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare are described for the period 1950 through 1970.

ReviewsLegal Considerations on Ionising Radiation—Radionuclides and Radiation Emitting Devices. By HuttonG. L.. pp. vii + 93, 1966 (Springfield, Illinois, U.S.A., Charles C. Thomas), $5.50.

ReviewsLegal Considerations on Ionising Radiation—Radionuclides and Radiation Emitting Devices. By HuttonG. L.. pp. vii + 93, 1966 (Springfield, Illinois, U.S.A., Charles C. Thomas), $5.50.