Objective.Barium and iodinated contrast media are ubiquitous with upper gastrointestinal (UGI) series examinations performed on paediatric patients. The present study quantifies the impact of contrast media on organ absorbed and detriment-weighted doses for UGI examinations.Approach.A paediatric radiologist and a medical physicist created reference imaging fields for four complete UGI series examinations encompassing the newborn and 1-year-old female for both normal and abnormal disease states. Monte Carlo radiation transport simulations were performed for these four cases, with and without contrast media, using the international commission on radiological protection's voxel-based reference computational phantoms.Main results.Estimates of detriment-weighted dose and absorbed doses to the colon, heart wall, kidneys, lungs, small intestine wall, spleen, stomach wall, thymus, thyroid, and remainder tissues are reported. For fields with contrast media the organ absorbed doses and detriment-weighted dose decreased by up to 50% and 26%, respectively, with the dose for the complete examination, i.e. not per field, decreasing by up to 26% for organs impacted by the presence of contrast media.Significance.Overall, relative doses were shown to decrease for simulations that included contrast media due to selective absorption of the x-ray beam by the contrast media. This study, however, did not investigate the effects of the automatic brightness control which could result in organ absorbed doses increasing due to compensation by the fluoroscopy machine when contrast media is present in the field.

In 2015 the United Nations issued 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) addressing a wide range of global social, economic, and environmental challenges. The main goal of this paper is to provide an understanding of how the current System of Radiological Protection relates to these SDGs. In the first part it is proposed that the current System of Radiological Protection is implicitly linked to sustainable development. This is substantiated by analysing the features of the current System as set out by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its publications. In the second part it is proposed that sustainability should be considered and more explicitly addressed in the next ICRP general recommendations, as part of the currently ongoing review and revision of the current System. A few examples are given of how this could be realised, and it is proposed that this issue should be discussed and developed together with the international community interested in radiological protection.

PURPOSE:The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Development Programme is being explored in the radiation field, as an overarching framework to identify and prioritize research needs that best support strengthening of radiation risk assessment and risk management strategies. To advance the use of AOPs, an international horizon-style exercise (HSE) was initiated through the Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group (JTG) formed by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) High-Level Group on Low Dose Research (HLG-LDR) under the auspices of the Committee on Radiological Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). The intent of the HSE was to identify key research questions for consideration in AOP development that would help to reduce uncertainties in estimating the health risks following exposures to low dose and low dose-rate ionizing radiation. The HSE was conducted in several phases involving the solicitation of relevant questions, a collaborative review of open-ended candidate questions and an elimination exercise that led to the selection of 25 highest priority questions for the stated purpose. These questions were further ranked by over 100 respondents through an international survey. This final set of questions was judged to provide insights into how the OECD's AOP approach can be put into practice to meet the needs of hazard and risk assessors, regulators, and researchers. This paper examines the 25 priority questions in the context of hazard/risk assessment framework for ionizing radiation. CONCLUSION:By addressing the 25 priority questions, it is anticipated that constructed AOPs will have a high level of specificity, making them valuable tools for simplifying and prioritizing complex biological processes for use in developing revised radiation hazard and risk assessment strategies.

PURPOSE:Task Group 121 - Effects of ionizing radiation exposure in offspring and next generations - is a task group under the Committee 1 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), approved by the Main Commission on 18th November 2021. The main goals of Task Group 121 are to (1) review and update the scientific literature of relevance to radiation-related effects in the offspring of parent(s) exposed to ionizing radiation in both human and non-human biota; (2) to assess preconceptional and intrauterine effects of radiation exposure and related morbidity and mortality; and, (3) to provide advice about the level of evidence and how to consider these preconceptional and postconceptional effects in the system of radiological protection for humans and non-human biota. METHODS:The Task Group is reviewing relevant literature since Publication 90 'Biological effects after prenatal irradiation (embryo and fetus)' (2003) and will include radiation-related effects on future generations in humans, animals, and plants. This review will be conducted to account for the health effects on offspring and subsequent generations in the current system of radiological protection. Radiation detriment calculation will also be reviewed. Finally, preliminary recommendations will be made to update the integration of health effects in offspring and next generations in the system of radiological protection. RESULTS:A Workshop, jointly organized by ICRP Task Group 121 and European Radiation Protection Research Platforms MELODI and ALLIANCE was held in Budapest, Hungary, from 31st May to 2nd June 2022. Participants discussed four important topics: (1) hereditary and epigenetic effects due to exposure of the germ cell line (preconceptional exposure), (2) effects arising from exposure of the embryo and fetus (intrauterine exposure), (3) transgenerational effects on biota, and (4) its potential impact on the system of radiological protection. CONCLUSIONS:Based on the discussions and presentations during the breakout sessions, newer publications, and gaps on the current scientific literature were identified. For instance, there are some ongoing systematic reviews and radiation epidemiology reviews of intrauterine effects. There are newer methods of Monte Carlo simulation for fetal dosimetry, and advances in radiation genetics, epigenetics, and radiobiology studies. While the current impact of hereditary effects on the global detriment was reported as small, the questions surrounding the effects of radiation exposure on offspring and the next generation are crucial, recurring, and with a major focus on exposed populations. This article summarizes the workshop discussions, presentations, and conclusions of each topic and introduces the special issue of the International Journal of Radiation Biology resulting from the discussions of the meeting.

Radiology is now predominantly a digital medium and this has extended the flexibility, efficiency and application of medical imaging. Achieving the full benefit of digital radiology requires images to be of sufficient quality to make a reliable diagnosis for each patient, while minimising risks from radiation exposure, and so involves a careful balance between competing objectives. When an optimisation programme is undertaken, a knowledge of patient doses from surveys can be valuable in identifying areas needing attention. However, any dose reduction measures must not degrade image quality to the extent that it is inadequate for the clinical purpose. The move to digital imaging has enabled versatile image acquisition and presentation, including multi-modality display and quantitative assessment, with post-processing options that adjust for optimal viewing. This means that the appearance of an image is unlikely to give any indication when the dose is higher than necessary. Moreover, options to improve performance of imaging equipment add to its complexity, so operators require extensive training to be able to achieve this. Optimisation is a continuous rather than single stage process that requires regular monitoring, review, and analysis of performance feeding into improvement and development of imaging protocols. The ICRP is in the process of publishing two reports about optimisation in digital radiology. The first report sets out components needed to ensure that a radiology service can carry optimisation through. It describes how imaging professionals should work together as a team and explains the benefits of having appropriate methodologies to monitor performance, together with the knowledge and expertise required to use them effectively. It emphasises the need for development of organisational processes that ensure tasks are carried out. The second ICRP report deals with practical requirements for optimisation of different digital radiology modalities, and builds on information provided in earlier modality specific ICRP publications.

ICRP Publication 138 defines the ethical foundations of the System of radiological protection, based on four core values (beneficence/non-maleficence, dignity, justice and prudence) and three procedural values (accountability, transparency and inclusiveness). The mission of Task Group 109 mission was to propose a practical application in the medical field. As this field was already infused with a strong culture of biomedical ethics, the first action was to identify the values and define a common language. The core values are very similar, with the autonomy of biomedical ethics, which can be seen as a corollary of dignity, and the precautionary principle, which can be understood as the implementation of prudence. In recent years, medicine has been experiencing an emphasis on the values of solidarity, honesty, and empathy. We therefore proposed a grouping of these values in order to allow a structured review of practical situations from an ethical perspective. For the sake of concreteness, the report proposes 21 realistic scenarios (11 in imaging and 10 in therapy), which are all presented and analysed in a one-page format. Sensitising questions are provided to stimulate reflection. We hope that this report will allow all professionals in the medical and radiological protection fields to discuss situations and dilemma on a common ground. To achieve this, we also propose a strategy for the implementation of education and training, based on the Bloom taxonomy. In order to assist the reader in a theoretically complex subject, key messages are distributed throughout the text, as fixed points that can easily be understood. The report will soon be made available for public consultation and we look forward to any suggestions for improvement.

Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. • Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. • Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. • An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.

Objective. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Task Group 113 is developing reference values of organ and effective dose coefficients (DCs) for radiography, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography imaging exams. In support of these efforts, our focus is on pediatric diagnostic fluoroscopy. Contrast agents used during clinical examinations are an important consideration of the work undertaken by the Task Group. This work demonstrates the importance of including organ contrast volume concentrations for the calculation of reference organ DCs in the voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG). Approach. The ICRP newborn and 15 year female reference phantoms were utilized within the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code system for the calculation of organ DCs. A pediatric radiologist with over 30 years of clinical experience defined the imaging fields for a VCUG examination consistent with clinical practice. Of these, four imaging fields were selected for investigation. The transport simulations modeled an iodinated contrast solution similar to Bracco Group's 18% weight per volume, cystografin diatrizoate meglumine and typical bladder content was supplemented to make up the remainder volume. Iodinated contrast volumes of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% concentration by volume were modeled and associated DCs for in-field organs were computed. Main results. Organ DCs were calculated for the urinary bladder wall, colon wall, ovaries, and uterus for both female phantoms under irradiation geometries representative of a VCUG examination. Some organ DCs increased with iodine volume in the bladder and other organ DCs decreased as the iodine contrast volume completely filled the bladder (100%). Significance. The study results demonstrate for the newborn phantom percent differences in organ DCs varied between 0%-10% for the organs of interest, while they varied between 0%-22% in the 15 year phantom suggesting the importance of including contrast media in Monte Carlo radiation transport simulations of the VCUG examination.

The benefits of biomedical research involving humans are well recognised, along with the need for conformity to international standards of science and ethics. When human research involves radiation imaging procedures or radiotherapy, an extra level of expert review should be provided from the point of view of radiological protection. The relevant publication of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) is now three decades old and is currently undergoing an update. This paper aims to provoke discussions on how the risks of radiation dose and the benefits of research should be assessed, using a case study of diagnostic radiology involving volunteers for whom there is no direct benefit. Further, the paper provides the current understanding of key concepts being considered for review and revision-such as the dose constraint and the novel research methods on the horizon, including radiation biology and epidemiology. The analysis revisits the perspectives described in the ICRP Publication 62, and considers the recent progress in both radiological protection ethics and medical research ethics.

Purpose: Diagnostic reference levels (DRL) and achievable doses (AD) are important tools for radiation dose optimization. Therefore, a prospective study was performed which aimed to establish a multi-parametric, clinical indication based - DRL(DRLCI) and clinical indication - AD (ADCI) for adult CT in Brazil. Methods: The prospective study included 4787 patients (50 +/- 18 years old; male:female 2041:2746) at 13 Brazilian sites that have been submitted to head, paranasal sinus, cervical spine, chest, or abdomen-pelvis CT between January and October 2021 for 13 clinical indications. The sites provided the following information: patient age, gender, weight, height, body mass index[BMI], clinical indications, scanner information(vendor, model, detector configuration), scan parameters (number of scan phases, kV, mA, pitch) and dose-related quantities (CT dose index volume-CTDIvol, dose length product-DLP). Median(AD) and 75th(DRL) percentile CTDIvol and DLP values were estimated for each body region and clinical indications. Non-normal data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: In majority of Brazilian sites, body region and clinical indications based DRLs were at or lower than the corresponding DRLs in the US and higher than Europe. Although radiation doses varied significantly for patients in different body mass index groups (p < 0.001), within each body region, there were no differences in radiation doses for different clinical indications (p > 0.1). Radiation doses for 7/13 clinical indications were higher using iterative reconstruction technique than for the filtered back projection. Conclusions: There was substantial variation in Brazil DRLCI across different institutions with higher doses compared to the European standards. There was also a lack of clinical indication-based protocol and dose optimization based on different clinical indications for the same body region.

US physicians in multiple specialties who order or conduct radiological procedures lack formal radiation science education and thus sometimes order procedures of limited benefit or fail to order what is necessary. To this end, a multidisciplinary expert group proposed an introductory broad-based radiation science educational program for US medical schools. Suggested preclinical elements of the curriculum include foundational education on ionizing and nonionizing radiation (eg, definitions, dose metrics, and risk measures) and short- and long-term radiation-related health effects as well as introduction to radiology, radiation therapy, and radiation protection concepts. Recommended clinical elements of the curriculum would impart knowledge and practical experience in radiology, fluoroscopically guided procedures, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and identification of patient subgroups requiring special considerations when selecting specific ionizing or nonionizing diagnostic or therapeutic radiation procedures. Critical components of the clinical program would also include educational material and direct experience with patient-centered communication on benefits of, risks of, and shared decision making about ionizing and nonionizing radiation procedures and on health effects and safety requirements for environmental and occupational exposure to ionizing and nonionizing radiation. Overarching is the introduction to evidence-based guidelines for procedures that maximize clinical benefit while limiting unnecessary risk. The content would be further developed, directed, and integrated within the curriculum by local faculties and would address multiple standard elements of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education and Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

PURPOSE:To obtain clinicians' views of the need to account for radiation exposure from previous CT scans and the advisability of a regulatory mechanism to control the number of CT scans for an individual patient.METHODS:A convenience survey was conducted by emailing a link to a three-question electronic survey to clinicians in many countries, mostly through radiology and radiation protection contacts.RESULTS:505 responses were received from 24 countries. 293 respondents (58%) understand that current regulations do not limit the number of CT scans that can be prescribed for a single patient in a year. When asked whether there should be a regulation to limit the number of CT scans that can be prescribed for a single patient in one year, only a small fraction (143, 28%) answered 'No', 182 (36%) answered 'Maybe' and 166 (33%) answered 'Yes'. Most respondents (337; 67%) think that radiation risk should form part of the consideration when deciding whether to request a CT exam. A minority (138; 27%) think the decision should be based only on the medical indication for the CT exam. Comparison among the 4 countries (South Korea, Hungary, USA and Canada) with the largest number of respondents indicated wide variations in responses.CONCLUSIONS:A majority of the surveyed clinicians consider radiation risk, in addition to clinical factors, when prescribing CT exams. Most respondents are in favor of, or would consider, regulation to control the number of CT scans that could be performed on a patient annually.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has embarked on a process to review and revise the current System of Radiological Protection ('the System'). To stimulate discussion, the ICRP published two open-access articles: one on aspects of the System that might require review, and another on research that might improve the scientific foundation of the System. Building on these articles, the ICRP organized a Workshop on the Future of Radiological Protection as an opportunity to engage in the review and revision of the System. This digital workshop took place from 14 October-3 November 2021 and included 20 live-streamed and 43 on-demand presentations. Approximately 1500 individuals from 100 countries participated. Based on the subjects covered by the presentations, this summary is organized into four broad areas: the scientific basis, concepts and application of the System; and the role of the ICRP. Some of the key topics that emerged included the following: classification of radiation-induced effects; adverse outcome pathway methodologies; better understanding of the dose-response relationship; holistic and reasonable approaches to optimization of protection; radiological protection of the environment; ethical basis of the System; clarity, consistency and communication of the System; application of the System in medicine and application of the principles of justification and optimization of protection.

Purpose The concept of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) has recently gained significant attention as to its potential for incorporation of mechanistic biological information into the assessment of adverse health outcomes following ionizing radiation (IR) exposure. This work is an account of the activities of an international expert group formed specifically to develop an AOP for IR-induced leukemia. Group discussions were held during dedicated sessions at the international AOP workshop jointly organized by the MELODI (Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative) and the ALLIANCE (European Radioecology Alliance) associations to consolidate knowledge into a number of biological key events causally linked by key event relationships and connecting a molecular initiating event with the adverse outcome. Further knowledge review to generate a weight of evidence support for the Key Event Relationships (KERs) was undertaken using a systematic review approach. Conclusions An AOP for IR-induced acute myeloid leukemia was proposed and submitted for review to the OECD-curated AOP-wiki (aopwiki.org). The systematic review identified over 500 studies that link IR, as a stressor, to leukemia, as an adverse outcome. Knowledge gap identification, although requiring a substantial effort via systematic review of literature, appears to be one of the major added values of the AOP concept. Further work, both within this leukemia AOP working group and other similar working groups, is warranted and is anticipated to produce highly demanded products for the radiation protection research community.

In March 2021 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organised an online Technical Meeting on Developing Effective Methods for Radiation Protection Education and Training of Health Professionals with attendance of 230 participants representing 66 Member States and 24 international organizations, professional bodies and safety alliances. By means of a pre-meeting survey, presentations by experts, topical panel discussions and post-meeting feedback to the meeting summary, the meeting identified strengths, common weaknesses and possible solutions and actions for improving radiation protection education and training of health professionals. Available guidelines and resources for radiation protection training were also reviewed. The meeting discussion resulted in a strong consensus for the need of: (a) international guidance on education and training in radiation protection and safety for health professionals, (b) an international description of minimum standards of initial and ongoing competence and qualification in radiation protection for relevant professional groups, considering the available recommendations at international and regional levels. The proposed actions include provisions for train-the-trainer credentialing and facility training accreditation, balance betwee the online and face-to-face training, improved on-the job training, as well as improved inclusion in training programmes of aspects related to application of new technologies, ethical aspects, development of communication skills, and use of software tools for improving justification and optimisation. The need for making the ongoing training practical, applicable, and useful to the trainee was highlighted. The international consultation initiated by the IAEA was appreciated as a good approach to understand and promote coordination and collaboration at all levels, for best results in education and training in radiation protection of health professionals. Implementing such a holistic approach to education and training in radiation protection would contribute towards qualification and competence of health professionals needed to ensure application of high standards for quality and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation.

One of the principal uncertainties when estimating population risk of late effects from epidemiological data is that few radiation-exposed cohorts have been followed up to extinction. Therefore, the relative risk model has often been used to estimate radiation-associated risk and to extrapolate risk to the end of life. Epidemiological studies provide evidence that children are generally at higher risk of cancer induction than adults for a given radiation dose. However, the strength of evidence varies by cancer site and questions remain about site-specific age at exposure patterns. For solid cancers, there is a large body of evidence that excess relative risk (ERR) diminishes with increasing age at exposure. This pattern of risk is observed in the Life Span Study (LSS) as well as in other radiation-exposed populations for overall solid cancer incidence and mortality and for most site-specific solid cancers. However, there are some disparities by endpoint in the degree of variation of ERR with exposure age, with some sites (e.g., colon, lung) in the LSS incidence data showing no variation, or even increasing ERR with increasing age at exposure. The pattern of variation of excess absolute risk (EAR) with age at exposure is often similar, with EAR for solid cancers or solid cancer mortality decreasing with increasing age at exposure in the LSS. We shall review the human data from the Japanese LSS cohort, and a variety of other epidemiological data sets, including a review of types of medical diagnostic exposures, also some radiobiological animal data, all bearing on the issue of variations of radiation late-effects risk with age at exposure and with attained age. The paper includes a summary of several oral presentations given in a Symposium on "Age effects on radiation response" as part of the 67th Annual Meeting of the Radiation Research Society, held virtually on 3-6 October 2021.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has embarked on a review and revision of the system of Radiological Protection that will update the 2007 general recommendations in ICRP Publication 103. This is the beginning of a process that will take several years, involving open and transparent engagement with organisations and individuals around the world. While the system is robust and has performed well, it must adapt to address changes in science and society to remain fit for purpose. The aim of this paper is to encourage discussions on which areas of the system might gain the greatest benefit from review, and to initiate collaborative efforts. Increased clarity and consistency are high priorities. The better the system is understood, the more effectively it can be applied, resulting in improved protection and increased harmonisation. Many areas are identified for potential review including: classification of effects, with particular focus on tissue reactions; reformulation of detriment, potentially including non-cancer diseases; re-evaluation of the relationship between detriment and effective dose, and the possibility of defining detriments for males and females of different ages; individual variation in the response to radiation exposure; heritable effects; and effects and risks in nonhuman biota and ecosystems. Some of the basic concepts are also being considered, including the framework for bringing together protection of people and the environment, incremental improvements to the fundamental principles of justification and optimisation, a broader approach to protection of individuals, and clarification of the exposure situations introduced in 2007. In addition, ICRP is considering identifying where explicit incorporation of the ethical basis of the system would be beneficial, how to better reflect the importance of communications and stakeholder involvement, and further advice on education and training. ICRP invites responses on these and other areas relating to the review of the System of Radiological Protection.

1 Department of Radiology, The Metro Health System, Cleveland, Ohio, USA 2 Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA 3 Department of Radiology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA 4 Clinical Dose Optimization Service, LANDAUER Medical Physics, Glenwood, Illinois, USA 5 Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA 6 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA 7 Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA 8 Department of Radiation Physics & Safety, Atlantic Medical System Morristown, Morristown, New Jersey, USA 9 Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA 10 RJK Medical Physics, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, USA 11 Clinical Dose Optimization ServiceTM/OPTIMIZETM Division, LANDAUER Medical Physics, Glenwood, Illinois, USA 12 Upstate Medical Physics, P.C., Victor, New York, USA 13 Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA 14 Mayo Clinic, Department of Radiology, Rochester, Minnesota, USA 15 Department of Radiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 16 KLS Physics Group, LLC, Ruston, Louisiana, USA 17 Cleveland Clinic, Department of Radiology, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

La Commission internationale de protection radiologique (CIPR) a initié un examen et une révision du système de radioprotection afin de mettre à jour les recommandations générales de 2007 dans la Publication 103 de la CIPR. Il s’agit du début d’un processus de plusieurs années qui nécessite une collaboration ouverte et transparente avec les organismes et les personnes du monde entier. Bien que le système soit robuste et efficace, il convient de l’adapter à l’évolution des connaissances scientifiques et de la société afin de demeurer adapté aux besoins. Le présent document vise à encourager les discussions sur les domaines du système qui pourraient bénéficier le plus d’un examen, et à engager des initiatives de collaboration. Le renforcement de la clarté et de la cohérence constitue une priorité. Plus le degré de compréhension du système est élevé, plus il est possible de l’appliquer efficacement, ce qui se traduit par une amélioration de la protection et une harmonisation accrue. De nombreux domaines pourraient faire l’objet d’un examen, notamment : la classification des effets, avec un accent particulier sur les réactions tissulaires ; la reformulation du détriment radiologique, qui pourrait inclure les maladies non cancéreuses ; la réévaluation de la relation entre le détriment et la dose efficace, et la possibilité de définir des détriments pour les hommes et les femmes et différentes classes d’âge ; la variation de la réponse individuelle à l’exposition aux rayonnements ; les effets héréditaires ; les effets et risques pour le biote non humain et les écosystèmes. Certains des concepts de base sont également examinés, notamment le cadre permettant de réunir la protection des personnes et de l’environnement, les améliorations progressives des principes fondamentaux de justification et d’optimisation, une approche plus large de la protection des personnes et la clarification des situations d’exposition introduites en 2007. En outre, la CIPR envisage de déterminer dans quels cas l’incorporation explicite des fondements éthiques dans le système présenterait un avantage, comment mieux refléter l’importance des échanges et de l’implication des parties prenantes, et de donner des conseils supplémentaires sur l’éducation et la formation. La CIPR invite à répondre à ces questions et à d’autres liées à l’examen du système de radioprotection.