R.M. Sievert

Bio: R.M. Sievert is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Commission. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 6019 citations.

Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection

Abstract: The International Commission on Radiological Protection has been functioning since 1928 when it was established, under the name of International X- ray and Radium Protection Commission, by the Second International Congress of Radiology held in Stockholm, Sweden. It assumed the present name and organizational form in 1950 in order to cover more effectively the rapidly expanding field of radiation protection. Recommendations are presented which represent concepts and practices evolved from recent discussions at formal and informal meetings of the Commission and its Committees. (auth)

The European commission

Abstract: 2 1 The innovative transport systems and the CityMobil project 10 1.1 The research questions 10 2 The state of art in the field of automatic transport systems 12 2.1 Case studies and demand studies for innovative transport systems 12 3 The design and implementation of surveys 14 3.1 Definition of experimental design 14 3.2 Questionnaire design and delivery 16 3.3 First analyses on the collected sample 18 4 Calibration of Logit Multionomial demand models 21 4.1 Methodology 21 4.2 Calibration of the “full” model. 22 4.3 Calibration of the “final” model 24 4.4 The demand analysis through the final Multinomial Logit model 25 5 The analysis of interaction between the demand and socioeconomic attributes 31 5.1 Methodology 31 5.2 Application of Mixed Logit models to the demand 31 5.3 Analysis of the interactions between demand and socioeconomic attributes through Mixed Logit models 32 5.4 Mixed Logit model and interaction between age and the demand for the CTS 38 5.5 Demand analysis with Mixed Logit model 39 6 Final analyses and conclusions 45 6.1 Comparison between the results of the analyses 45 6.2 Conclusions 48 6.3 Answers to the research questions and future developments 52

sources and effects of ionizing radiation

Abstract: NOTE The report of the Committee without its annexes appears as Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 46. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The country names used in this document are, in most cases, those that were in use at the time the data were collected or the text prepared. In other cases, however, the names have been updated, where this was possible and appropriate, to reflect political changes. Scientific Annexes Annex A. Medical radiation exposures Annex B. Exposures of the public and workers from various sources of radiation INTROdUCTION 1. In the course of the research and development for and the application of atomic energy and nuclear technologies, a number of radiation accidents have occurred. Some of these accidents have resulted in significant health effects and occasionally in fatal outcomes. The application of technologies that make use of radiation is increasingly widespread around the world. Millions of people have occupations related to the use of radiation, and hundreds of millions of individuals benefit from these uses. Facilities using intense radiation sources for energy production and for purposes such as radiotherapy, sterilization of products, preservation of foodstuffs and gamma radiography require special care in the design and operation of equipment to avoid radiation injury to workers or to the public. Experience has shown that such technology is generally used safely, but on occasion controls have been circumvented and serious radiation accidents have ensued. 2. Reviews of radiation exposures from accidents have been presented in previous UNSCEAR reports. The last report containing an exclusive chapter on exposures from accidents was the UNSCEAR 1993 Report [U6]. 3. This annex is aimed at providing a sound basis for conclusions regarding the number of significant radiation accidents that have occurred, the corresponding levels of radiation exposures and numbers of deaths and injuries, and the general trends for various practices. Its conclusions are to be seen in the context of the Committee's overall evaluations of the levels and effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. 4. The Committee's evaluations of public, occupational and medical diagnostic exposures are mostly concerned with chronic exposures of …

The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection

Abstract: 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 3. BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 4. QUANTITIES USED IN RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 5. THE SYSTEM OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF HUMANS 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS 7. MEDICAL EXPOSURE OF PATIENTS, COMFORTERS AND CARERS, AND VOLUNTEERS in BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH 8. PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know

Abstract: High doses of ionizing radiation clearly produce deleterious consequences in humans, including, but not exclusively, cancer induction. At very low radiation doses the situation is much less clear, but the risks of low-dose radiation are of societal importance in relation to issues as varied as screening tests for cancer, the future of nuclear power, occupational radiation exposure, frequent-flyer risks, manned space exploration, and radiological terrorism. We review the difficulties involved in quantifying the risks of low-dose radiation and address two specific questions. First, what is the lowest dose of x- or γ-radiation for which good evidence exists of increased cancer risks in humans? The epidemiological data suggest that it is ≈10–50 mSv for an acute exposure and ≈50–100 mSv for a protracted exposure. Second, what is the most appropriate way to extrapolate such cancer risk estimates to still lower doses? Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently appears to be the most appropriate methodology. This linearity assumption is not necessarily the most conservative approach, and it is likely that it will result in an underestimate of some radiation-induced cancer risks and an overestimate of others.