EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 60 / No 1 (January-March 2025) Radioprotection, 60 1 (2025) 4-8 Full HTML
Open Access
This article is a note for:
[https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2024043]

Issue
Radioprotection
Volume 60, Number 1, January-March 2025
Page(s) 4 - 8
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2024058
Published online 14 March 2025

Article traduit en Français: Laurier D, Schneider T, au nom des intervenants et des panélistes. Un atelier sur l'avenir de la radioprotection. Radioprotection 2024, 59(4), 256–260, https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2024043

© D. Laurier et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2025

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Notice

This article is the English version of the article : « Laurier D, Schneider T, au nom des intervenants et des panélistes. 2024. Un atelier sur l’avenir de la radioprotection. Radioprotection 59(4): 256–260 ». Originally published in French in the journal Radioprotection. The authors have ensured and validated the translation into English of the original article. Due to the importance of the subject of the future of radiological protection, the editors have decided to also publish in English the results of this workshop which was held in France.

1 Why was this workshop organised?

With the publication of the paper “Keeping the ICRP recommendations fit for purpose” (Clement et al., 2021), theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has embarked on a review and revision of the System of Radiological Protection that will consider, and where necessary, update the 2007 general recommendations in ICRP Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007). In this perspective, an open and transparent involvement of, and dialogue with, organisations, individuals, and of all interested parties has been initiated.

While it is recognized that the System is robust and has performed well, it must adapt to address changes in science and society to remain fit for purpose. Currently, several issues are under investigation by a series of ICRP Task Groups to integrate recent relevant scientific and societal developments. In this process, special attention is dedicated to identifying the possible improvement of radiological protection of people and the environment together with addressing issues relevant for its implementation.

On the occasion of a meeting of the ICRP Main Commission (MC) in France, a one-day workshop on the future of radiological protection was organised on the 19th of March 2024, at the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) in Fontenay-aux-Roses. This workshop was jointly organised by IRSN, the Nuclear Protection Evaluation Centre (CEPN) and ICRP, and gathered more than 100 participants, onsite and online. The aim was to provide an opportunity to present recent developments at ICRP and to exchange views and experience with representatives of the French radiological protection community about the revision of the System of radiological protection.

2 What was presented during this workshop?

A welcome address was presented jointly by the three organisers, Jean-Christophe Niel as Director General of IRSN, Werner Rühm as Chair of ICRP, and Thierry Schneider as Director of CEPN.

Session 1 provided a detailed overview on the organisation and status of ICRP by Christopher Clement (ICRP Scientific Secretary & Chief Executive Officer), a summary of the missions and activities of ICRP by Simon Bouffler (ICRP Vice-Chair), and a perspective on the future of Radiological Protection by Werner Rühm (ICRP Chair).

Session 2 provided an overview on the ongoing work of ICRP on effects and doses. Consideration of radiation effects in the System was presented by Dominique Laurier (ICRP MC and C1 Chair) with a focus on Task Group (TG) 123 “Classification of Harmful Radiation-induced Effects on Human Health for Radiological Protection Purposes” by Ludovic Vaillant (ICRP C1 and TG Chair), and external and internal dosimetry in the System was presented by François Bochud (ICRP MC and C2 Chair) with a focus on TG95 “Internal Dose Coefficients” by François Paquet (ICRP C2 Vice-Chair and TG Chair).

Session 3 provided an overview of the ongoing work of ICRP on the application of the System. The System of protection in medical activities was presented by Aurélie Isambert (ICRP C3) and Kimberly Applegate (ICRP MC and C3 Chair) with a focus on TG126 “Radiological Protection in Human Biomedical Research” by Isabelle Thierry-Chef (ICRP C3 and TG Chair). The application of ICRP Recommendations was presented by Thierry Schneider (ICRP MC and C4 Chair) with a focus on TG127 “Exposure Situations and Categories of Exposure” by Yann Billarand (ICRP C4 and TG Chair). A specific presentation was given on radiological protection of the environment, with a focus on TG99 “Reference Animal and Plant (RAP) Monographs” by Christelle Adam-Guillermin (ICRP C1 and TG Co-Chair) & Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace (ICRP C4 Secretary and TG Chair).

3 What was discussed during this workshop?

Two panel discussions were organised on the effects and doses and on the application of the System, with interventions from representatives of the national agency for the management of radioactive wastes (ANDRA, Elisabeth Leclerc), the national association of local information committees and commissions (ANCCLI, Yves Lheureux), the French nuclear safety authority (ASN, Géraldine Pina), the French alternative energies and atomic energy commission (CEA, Laurence Lebaron-Jacobs), IRSN (Jean-Christophe Gariel), the French society of radiology (SFR, Marie-France Bellin) and the French radiation protection society (SFRP, Patrick Devin).

The discussions were constructive and lively. The major topics of discussion are summarized below:

  • Keep the System stable: Several panellists insisted on the importance of keeping the System stable and practicable. Stability and simplicity of implementation were considered necessary for good operational application of the System. For the users, the System should be practicable and understandable. The maintenance of the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model as a key basis of the System (Laurier et al., 2023; Bertho and Bourguignon, 2023) was presented as one example of stability. In this perspective, the potential use of new indicators of risk, such as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for detriment (Vaillant et al., 2023) or quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for medical interventions (MacKillop and Sheard, 2018) should be assessed.

  • Clarify priorities: The process to update the general recommendations has led to the launching of more than 30 ICRP Task Groups. In addition, some cross-sectional issues are considered in parallel, such as the contribution to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (Rühm et al., 2024), and the consideration of uncertainties. The identification of a few main overarching goals would help in clarifying the ongoing works and their expected impact on the System.

  • Coordinate with other radiological protection actors: Some discrepancies were noted between ICRP and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in recent years (for example, on cataract formation, radon dose coefficients, etc.). Improved coordination of actions and positions with other international organisations, such as the UNSCEAR, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), should help the transposition of the recommendations in international and national regulation and in the practices of radiation protection.

  • Better explain the meaning of dose limit for the public: Dose limits and dose reference levels are not always well understood by the public, which may create confusion. This applies to different exposure situations including very long-term specificity of radioactive waste disposals. In this context, better explanation and clarification on the role and domain of application of dose limits and reference levels, including the comparison with various exposure levels or comparison of radiation-related risks with the risks related to other stressors may be worthwhile.

  • Improve the consideration of uncertainties: Uncertainties remain about radiation-related health effects in the low dose range. Lack of certainty also exists in the elaboration of scenarios for future health risks and potential exposures. Sources and magnitude of uncertainties should be better considered in ICRP work, without making the System more complex (Clarke, 1999).

  • Develop flexibility: Flexibility could help to better address the various exposure situations and allow the application of the System everywhere. The interest of introducing flexibility should be further investigated while ensuring an adequate level of protection.

  • Review research on radiation effects: Identify the research needs to assess the health impact of combined exposure situations was highlighted together with the integration of radiation in a more holistic approach (Laurier et al., 2021). Improving the characterisation of effects beyond cancer, such as cardiovascular diseases, neurological defects, transgenerational effects are key challenges for the future. In addition, it is necessary to better consider the role of individual factors in the application of the System, notably in the medical sector (Harrison et al., 2023).

  • Reinforce justification and optimisation in medicine: Explaining the benefits as well as the risks associated with diagnostic imaging procedures for justification and optimisation of protection is important, with the aim to go toward a better assessment of the benefit-risk balance (Housni et al., 2023). This should be accompanied by the development of approaches to communication with patients and their families to achieve a better understanding of the benefit-risk balance in the use of ionizing radiations in medicine (e.g., The Bonn Call for Action, IAEA and WHO 2014).

  • Adapt to evolutions: The recent evolutions call for considering new technological developments, as well as ethical and societal changes, over time. Specific attention should be devoted to the contribution of artificial intelligence (AI) to the application of the System. In the therapeutic field, new treatment techniques (e.g. Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT), FLASH, etc.) raise new questions to ensure radiological protection of patients. These technologies have the potential to bring benefit to the patients though it is important for tracking their health effects. The revision process should consider any major changes in the “nuclear landscape”, such as the quick and recent development of nuclear energy and the development of new reactors (i.e., Small Modular Reactors (SMR) and Advanced Modular Reactor (AMR)) in many different countries (Bourguignon, 2023).

  • Protect the environment: ICRP Publication 91 (ICRP 2003) introduced the protection of the environment in the System and was further developed in Publication 108 (ICRP, 2018). One panellist during the workshop raised the case of low discharges from facilities during normal operation and questioned the need for further consideration on the protection of the environment, suggesting that in that case the protection of humans is generally enough to protect wildlife. It was highlighted that today there is an international consensus on the need to demonstrate explicitly that the environment is adequately protected from the potential harmful effects of ionizing radiation, reflected through benchmark proposals, not only by ICRP but also by several organizations (IAEA, UNSCEAR) or countries (USA, Canada). In addition, it was mentioned that considering protection of the environment is essential in some cases like existing or future post-accidental situations, where non-human species may live in area restricted for human (Takada and Schneider, 2023).

  • Develop a global/holistic approach of protection: It appears in some situations that the measures implemented to reduce radiological risks can lead to increase other risks (for instance musculoskeletal disorders, conventional safety at work, etc.). A holistic consideration of risks especially in the optimization approach could be proposed.

  • Improve communication: A recuring request was to better explain the basic features underlying the System. This includes the use of plain language, clarification of the assessment of risks at low doses, comparison of radiation-related risks with other risk factors, improved communication about very low radiation-related risks, such as those induced in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant or a radioactive waste disposal within normal operational conditions.

  • Enhance transparency: Better explaining the different steps and parameters involved in the construction of the System should improve the transparency of the ICRP recommendations as well as the quality assurance in the assessment of doses and risks.

  • Engage with the civil society: The importance of the civil society was clearly demonstrated in some specific exposure situations such as post-accidental situations (Raisio et al., 2023). The role of the civil society should be reinforced in ICRP activities by better involving representatives of civil society in the TGs as well as by organising a dedicated dialogue with them during the consultation process, based on the example of the Fukushima dialogues (Ando et al., 2023). Local Information Committees and Commissions (CLIs) as exist in France could contribute to better integrate the civil society in ICRP activities. To help this process, ICRP should facilitate access to documents and reports (reduced cost, translation in different languages, etc.).

  • Encourage a good radiological protection culture: To develop the radiological protection culture, training young professionals is necessary as well as promoting radiological protection in the context of a shortage of professionals (Rühm et al., 2023). It is also essential to build messages directed to radiological protection professionals and to the civil society, such as people living near nuclear power plants and to use lessons learned from Fukushima to develop the radiological protection culture (Thu Zar et al., 2023). SFRP expressed its support to disseminate information on the process of review and revision of the radiological protection System currently carried by ICRP and to facilitate the participation of the French community of radiological protection in this process.

  • Reinforce the reference to ethics: ICRP Publication 138 on the ethical foundations of the System (ICRP, 2018) is central for the application of the System and should be reinforced in the forthcoming publications. Specific considerations should be devoted to address the challenges associated with long-term issues such as those related to contaminated sites or waste management, or the ethics in radiological protection for patient imaging and therapy.

Funding

This report did not receive any specific funding.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

Not applicable.

Author contribution statement

Both authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

Website links

ICRP, ICRP website: www.icrp.org

Groupe, travail sur la commission internationale de protection radiologique: https://www.irsn.fr/groupe-travail-sur-commission-internationale-protection-radiologique-gt-cipr

References

  • Ando R, Koyama R, Schneider T, Lecomte JF, Isse M, Koyama Y. 2023. Report on the 23rd Fukushima Dialogue “Thinking together about issues of Fukushima Daiichi treated water”. Radioprotection 58: 5–10. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Bertho JM, Bourguignon M. 2023. The linear non threshold (LNT) relationship and the evolution of the radiological protection system. Radioprotection 58: 241–242. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Bourguignon M. 2023. No revival of nuclear power without strong radiological protection! Radioprotection 58: 157–159. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Clarke R. 1999. Control of low-level radiation exposure: time for a change? J Radiol Prot 19: 107–115. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Clement C, Rühm W, Harrison J, Applegate K, Cool D, Larsson CM, Cousins C, Lochard J, Bouffler S, Cho K, Kai M, Laurier D, Liu S, Romanov S. 2021. Keeping the ICRP recommendations fit for purpose. J Radiol Prot 41: 1390–1409. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clement C, Rühm W, Harrison J, Applegate K, Cool D, Larsson CM, Cousins C, Lochard J, Bouffler S, Cho K, Kai M, Laurier D, Liu S, Romanov S. 2022. Maintenir les recommandations de la CIPR adaptées aux besoins. Radioprotection 57: 93–106. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Harrison JD, Haylock RGE, Jansen JTM, Zhang W, Wakeford R. 2023. Effective doses and risks from medical diagnostic X-ray examinations for male and female patients from childhood to old age. J Radiol Prot 43: 011518. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Housni A, ES-Samssar O, Saoud B, El Amrani N, Malou M, Amazian K, Essahlaoui A, Labzour A. 2023. Radiation protection in the operating room: need for training, qualification and accompaniment for the professionals. Radioprotection 58: 37–42. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • IAEA and WHO. 2014. Bonn Call for Action − 10 Actions to Improve Radiation Protection in Medicine in the Next Decade. Joint Position Statement by the IAEA and WHO. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available from https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/radiation/bonn-call-for-action.pdf?sfvrsn=99e624fd_2&download=true [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 2003. A framework for assessing the impact of ionising radiation on non-human species. ICRP Publication 91. Ann ICRP 33 (3). [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 37 (2–4). [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 2008. Environmental protection − the concept and use of reference animals and plants. ICRP Publication 108. Ann ICRP 38 (4–6). [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 2018. Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. ICRP Publication 138. Ann ICRP 47 (1). [Google Scholar]
  • Laurier D, Rühm W, Paquet F, Applegate K, Cool D, Clement C, on behalf of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2021. Areas of Research to Support the System of Radiological Protection. Radiat Environ Biophys 60: 519–530. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Laurier D, Billarand Y, Klokov D, Leuraud K. 2023. Fondements scientifiques de l’utilisation du modèle linéaire sans seuil (LNT) aux faibles doses et débits de dose en radioprotection. Radioprotection 58: 243–260. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • MacKillop E, Sheard S. 2018. Quantifying life: Understanding the history of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs). Soc Sci Med 211: 359–366. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Raisio H, Puustinen A, Lindell J, Wiikinkoski T, Valtonen V. 2023. Could virtual volunteerism enhance information resilience in a nuclear emergency? The potential role of disaster knowledge workers and virtual emergent groups. Radioprotection 58: 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  • Rühm W, Cho K, Larsson C-M., Wojcik A, Clement C, Applegate K, Bochud F, Bouffler S, Cool D, Hirth G, Kai M, Laurier D, Liu S, Romanov S, Schneider T. 2023. Vancouver call for action to strengthen expertise in radiological protection worldwide. Radiat Environ Biophys 62: 175–180. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Rühm W, Applegate K, Bochud F, Laurier D, Schneider T, Bouffler S, Cho K, Clement C, German O, Hirth G, Kai M, Liu S, Mayall A, Romanov S Wojcik A. 2024. Radiological protection and the UN sustainable development goals. Radiat Environ Biophys 2024. doi:10.1007/s00411-024-01089-w [Google Scholar]
  • Takada M, Schneider T. 2023. Radiation doses to non-human species after the Fukushima accident and comparison with ICRP’s DCRLs: a systematic qualitative review. Radioprotection 58: 181–196. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Thu Zar W, Matsunaga H, Xiao X, Lochard J, Orita M, Takamura N. 2023. An analysis of the desire to make radiation measurements and to dialogue with experts among the residents of Tomioka town, Fukushima Prefecture: about the implementation of the co-expertise process. Radioprotection 58: 79–89. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Vaillant L, Maitre M, Lafranque E, Schneider T, Wasselin V. 2023. Proposal of a quantitative approach integrating radioactive and chemical risks. Radioprotection 58: 147–155. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Laurier D, Schneider T. 2025. Workshop on the future of radiological protection. Radioprotection 60(1): 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2024058

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.