230
18 Radiological Assessment and Public Health Response
if resources are scarce or for decorporation if resources are plentiful. If the contamination consists of solely alpha- or beta-emitting radioactivity then the qualitative
factors and external quantitative factors will still suffice to make this assessment.
The lung count (performed by holding a radiation detector on contact with the
chest or back) results are measured in the number of counts above background, which
is the quantity that is scored; the score reflects the amount of inhaled radioactivity in
the lungs in terms of CDG. In general, a person whose qualitative and quantitative
scoring indicates that they appear to have inhaled more than 1 CDG will be sent
for decorporation therapy, a person with less than 0.2 CDG will be sent home and
advised to contact their personal physician when the opportunity permits, and others
will be sent for further assessment using one of the methods described earlier in this
chapter.
Sensitivity and accuracy: This method is intended to be a “quick and dirty” screening
performed by inexperienced personnel. As such, it is not intended to be highly accurate and it defaults in favor of recommending the assessed for treatment. Since this
methodology is intended for use by personnel with minimal training using standard
hand-held radiation detectors it is not highly accurate; a high degree of accuracy is
not required for a quick screening.
Limitations: Because this methodology is intended to be a quick screening assessment
implemented by personnel with minimal training using hand-held radiation detectors
it is not intended to be either accurate or precise. However, it compensates for this
by making conservative assumptions (i.e. more people will be referred for further
assessment or for decorporation therapy who do not require these than those who
will be referred to their personal physicians who require further attention).
References
1. Boecker G, Hall R, Inn K, Lawrence J, Ziemer P, Eisele G, Washholz B, Burr W (1991) Current
status of bioassay procedures to detect and quantify previous exposures to radioactive materials.
Health Phys 60(Supplement 1):45–100
2. British Institute of Radiology (2001) Medical management of radiation accidents: management
of the acute radiation syndrome. British Institute of Radiology
3. Goans R, Holloway E, Berger M, Ricks R (1997) Early dose assessment following severe
radiation accidents. Health Phys 74(4):513–518
4. Guskova A, Baranov A, Gusev I (2001) Acute radiation sickness: underlying principles and
assessment. In: Gusev I, Guskova A, Mettler Jr F (eds) Medical management of radiation
accidents, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
5. International Atomic Energy Agency (1998) Diagnosis and treatment of radiation injuries.
Safety reports series no. 2. IAEA, Vienna
6. Korir G, Karam P (2018) A novel method for quick assessment of internal and external radiation
exposure in the aftermath of a large radiological incident. Health Phys 115(2):235–261
7. Ledney D, Elliott T (2010) Combined injury: factors with potential to impact radiation dose
assessments. Health Phys 98(2):145–152
8. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2008) Report No. 161,
Management of persons contaminated with radioactivity, vol 1. NCRP, Bethesda
18 Radiological Assessment and Public Health Response
if resources are scarce or for decorporation if resources are plentiful. If the contamination consists of solely alpha- or beta-emitting radioactivity then the qualitative
factors and external quantitative factors will still suffice to make this assessment.
The lung count (performed by holding a radiation detector on contact with the
chest or back) results are measured in the number of counts above background, which
is the quantity that is scored; the score reflects the amount of inhaled radioactivity in
the lungs in terms of CDG. In general, a person whose qualitative and quantitative
scoring indicates that they appear to have inhaled more than 1 CDG will be sent
for decorporation therapy, a person with less than 0.2 CDG will be sent home and
advised to contact their personal physician when the opportunity permits, and others
will be sent for further assessment using one of the methods described earlier in this
chapter.
Sensitivity and accuracy: This method is intended to be a “quick and dirty” screening
performed by inexperienced personnel. As such, it is not intended to be highly accurate and it defaults in favor of recommending the assessed for treatment. Since this
methodology is intended for use by personnel with minimal training using standard
hand-held radiation detectors it is not highly accurate; a high degree of accuracy is
not required for a quick screening.
Limitations: Because this methodology is intended to be a quick screening assessment
implemented by personnel with minimal training using hand-held radiation detectors
it is not intended to be either accurate or precise. However, it compensates for this
by making conservative assumptions (i.e. more people will be referred for further
assessment or for decorporation therapy who do not require these than those who
will be referred to their personal physicians who require further attention).
References
1. Boecker G, Hall R, Inn K, Lawrence J, Ziemer P, Eisele G, Washholz B, Burr W (1991) Current
status of bioassay procedures to detect and quantify previous exposures to radioactive materials.
Health Phys 60(Supplement 1):45–100
2. British Institute of Radiology (2001) Medical management of radiation accidents: management
of the acute radiation syndrome. British Institute of Radiology
3. Goans R, Holloway E, Berger M, Ricks R (1997) Early dose assessment following severe
radiation accidents. Health Phys 74(4):513–518
4. Guskova A, Baranov A, Gusev I (2001) Acute radiation sickness: underlying principles and
assessment. In: Gusev I, Guskova A, Mettler Jr F (eds) Medical management of radiation
accidents, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
5. International Atomic Energy Agency (1998) Diagnosis and treatment of radiation injuries.
Safety reports series no. 2. IAEA, Vienna
6. Korir G, Karam P (2018) A novel method for quick assessment of internal and external radiation
exposure in the aftermath of a large radiological incident. Health Phys 115(2):235–261
7. Ledney D, Elliott T (2010) Combined injury: factors with potential to impact radiation dose
assessments. Health Phys 98(2):145–152
8. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2008) Report No. 161,
Management of persons contaminated with radioactivity, vol 1. NCRP, Bethesda