• communication of radiological risk information during emergency and non-emergency periods;
• impact of radiological risk communications on public’s risk perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors;
• apply this knowledge to designing effective risk communication and develop citizen-centered communication with the goal to empower citizens to make informed decisions in situations related to radiological risks;
• become familiar with and practice methods for evaluating radiological risk communication efforts.

Course introduction

Whether you are dealing with radiation protection or application of ionizing radiation, it’s crucial to be able to communicate effectively to both the public and the media about risks, benefits of ionizing radiation or protection measures against radiation.

This refresher course will provide the latest science of radiological risk communication and skills needed to design effective radiological risks communication that improves outcomes, help key stakeholders make informed decisions, increase trust among stakeholders and cope with public anxiety. Good and bad communication examples, state-of-the-art ideas and ways to use them in radiation protection practice will be introduced.

• Perko, T. (2014). Radiation Risk Perception: A Discrepancy Between the Experts and the General Population. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 133, 86-91.
• Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance; Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.
• Sjöberg, L. (2002). Are received risk perception models alive and well? Risk Analysis, 22(4), 665-669.
• Perko, T. (2016). Risk communication in the case of the Fukushima accident: Impact of communication and lessons to be learned. Integrated Environment Assessment and Management, 12, 683–686. doi:doi:10.1002/ieam.1832
• Tomkiv, Y., Perko, T., Oughton, D. H., Prezelj, I., Cantone, M. C., & Gallego, E. (2016). How did media present the radiation risks after the Fukushima accident: a content analysis of newspapers in Europe. Journal of Radiological Protection, 36, 64–81.
• Turcanu, C., El Jammal, M. H. T. P., Baumont, G., Latré, E., & Choffel de Witte, I. (2016). Satisfaction with information about ionising radiation: a comparative study in Belgium and France. Journal of Radiological Protection, 36, 122–142.
• Van Oudheusden, M., Turcanu, C., & Molyneux-Hodgson, (2018). Absent, yet present? Moving with ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ in radiation protection research. Journal of Responsible Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2018.1457403.
• Vyncke, B., Perko, T., & Van Gorp, B. (2016). Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health-Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Risk Analysis, early view.

• gets insight into the biological effects and health risks of optical radiation and
• learns that application of the ICNIRP exposure guidelines will avoid adverse health effects.
• Understands the importance of the protection of the eye against the dangers arising from optical radiation and is able to understand the importance of eye protection measures.

• Issues and channels of operational radiation protection in nuclear facilities;
• Radiation protection principles;
• Basis for establishing an operational radiation protection programme;
• Elements of operational radiation protection programme;
• Practical aspects of dose control on site (source, physical, and administrative control);
• Practical aspects of off-site dose control;
• Facility, individual, and environmental monitoring;
• Quality assurance aspects of operational radiation protection programme, including radiation protection procedures.

1. To learn about of the fundamental elements  of radon progeny lung dosimetry (i.e. lung models, radon progeny deposition in the lung, and dosimetric modelling of alpha particles interactions with target cells).
2. To understand the current situation regarding radon progeny dose conversion factors.
3. To gain insight into the current knowledge  of the estimated radon attributable lung cancer risk obtained from residential radon epidemiological studies.

• Darby, S. et al. (2005) “Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case–control studies,” Br. Med. J. 330, 223–227.
• Darby, S. et al. (2006) . “Residential radon and lung cancer- detailed results of a collaborative analysis of individual data on 7148 persons with lung cancer and 14208 persons without lung cancer from 13 epidemiologic studies in Europe”. Scand.J Work Environment Health 32 suppl 1 : 1-84.
• Hofmann, W. (1982). “Dose calculations for the respiratory tract from inhaled natural radioactive nuclides as a function of age—II. Basal cell dose distributions and associated lung cancer risk,” Health Phys. 43, 31–44.
• Hofmann, W., and Winkler-Heil, R. (2011). “Radon lung dosimetry models,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 145, 206–212.
• Hofmann, W., Steinhäusler, F., and Pohl, E. (1979). “Dose calculations for the respiratory tract from inhaled natural radioactive nuclides as a function of age—I. Compartmental deposition, retention and resulting dose,” Health Phys. 37, 517–532.
• ICRP (1994). International Commission on Radiological Protection. Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 66, Ann. ICRP 24(1–3).
• ICRU (2015) International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements ICRU Report 88 ,pp191 “Measurement and Reporting of Radon Exposures” . published December 2015 (but also referenced as Jour. of the ICRU, Vol 12, No 2, (2012))
• Jacobi, W. (1964). “The dose to the human respiratory tract by inhalation of short-lived ²²²Rn and ²²⁰Rn decay products,” Health Phys. 10, 1163–1175.
• Jacobi, W. (1972). “Activity and potential alpha-energy of ²²²Rn- and ²²⁰Rn-daughters in different air atmospheres,” Health Phys. 22, 441–450.
• Kreuzer,M and Mc Laughlin, J.P. (2010). “WHO Guidelines on Indoor Air Quality for Selected Pollutants”,pp454 , Chapter 7 (Radon), 347-378  , WHO European Centre for Environment and Health , Bonn Office and WHO Regional Office  for Europe Copenhagen.
• NA/NRC (1991). National Academies/National Research Council. “Comparative Dosimetry of Radon in Mines and Homes”, pp244 (National Academy Press, Washington, DC)
• Müller, W-U et al. (2016) “Current knowledge on radon risk: implications for practical radiation protection”. Radiat Environ Biophys 55: 267-280.
• Porstendörfer, J. (1994). “Properties and behaviour or radon and thoron and their decay products in the air,” J. Aerosol Sci. 25, 219–263.
• Porstendörfer, J. (2001). “Physical parameters and dose factors of the radon and thoron decay products,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 94, 365–373.
• WHO (2009). World Health Organization. “WHO Handbook on Indoor Radon: A Public Health Perspective”, pp 94 (WHO, Geneva)

• understand the various factors influencing risk perception
• understand the important role communication plays in shaping risk perception
• understand that a focus on the factual Content of information is not sufficient to change peoples perception but that a focus on the way it is communicated (Form) and the person (Source) is crucial for shaping risk perception
• get insight into ways to manage Form and Source effectively
• are able to judge the effectiveness of their own campaigns using the Content-Form-Source framework

• Know typical values of patient dose in clinical CT today
• Learn about intelligent technical approaches for dose reduction
• Understand the possibilities for sub-mSv CT scans

• Kalender WA. Computed tomography. Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications. 3^rd Publicis Erlangen 2011
• Kalender WA. Dose in x-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59 R129-R150
• Kalender WA, Saltybaeva N, Kolditz D, Beister M, Schmidt B. Generating und using combined whole-body patient models for accurate dose estimates in CT: feasibility and validation. Physica Medica 2014; 30(8): 925-933
• Kalender WA, Wolf H, Suess C, Gies M, Bautz WA. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: II. Phantom measurements. Medical Physics 1999, 26 (11): 2248-2253
• Kalender WA, Deak P, Kellermeier M, van Straten M, Vollmar SV. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT. Medical Physics 2009; 36(3): 993-1007

• to recognize and classify different types of radiation-mediated normal tissue effects
• to distinguish between early and late normal tissue effects
• to understand different concepts regarding radiation-mediated normal tissue responses
• to memorize organ/tissue variables influencing radiation sensitivity

• Clinical response of Normal tissues: Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 2012 Eds. Eric Hall & Amato Giaccia, p. 327-355

• more insight into the process of decommissioning, not meaning on a technical level, but on the process of the inventory, the decommissioning plan, licensing, demolition, release and closure of the site.
• insight into the role of the radiation protection expert in the project organization during the process of the decommissioning project (e.g. technical level, licenses and supervision).
• Knowledge about possibilities of a variety of decommissioning techniques.

An overview will be presented of non-nuclear sites, where decommissioning can play a role.

• Safety Requirements No. WS-R-5; Decommissioning of facilities using radioactive material, IAEA 2006.
• Safety Guide No. WS-G-2.2; Decommissioning of medical, industrial en research facilities, IAEA 1999.
• Technical Report No. NW-T-2.3; Decommissioning of small medical, industrial, and research facilities: a simplified stepwise approach, IAEA 2011.

• get insight into the biological effects and health risks of electromagnetic fields and
• learn that application of the ICNIRP exposure guidelines will avoid adverse health effects
• learn about the implementation of the ICNIRP guidelines in EU directives.

• http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
• http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPLFgdl.pdf
• http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPStatementEMF.pdf

• should be able to understand what matters in CT dose optimization and
• learn how to characterize system performance through standardized test methods and conditions.

Course introduction

In this refresher course, the role of CT manufacturers in Radiation Protection will be highlighted. The progress of industry’s self-commitments will be presented and discussed in depth. These self-commitments include standardized benchmarking protocols to provide transparency and easily understood values for the end user, next to radiation protection principles, and education for the end user. Furthermore, the state of the art of objective image quality assessment based on model observer will be presented.

• COCIR – Sustainable Competence in Advancing Healthcare, COCIR Partnership with HERCA – CT Dose Optimisation

• understands basic biological processes underlying radiation responses, especially DNA damage responses;
• can describe and explain differences in dose-response curves for different processes induced by ionizing radiation;
• understands various aspects of DNA double strand break repair that determine outcomes of low and high dose radiation.

636. Iyama and D.M. Wilson III, DNA Repair Mechanisms in Dividing and Non-Dividing Cells, DNA Repair 12, 2013, 620-636.

• acquire systematic knowledge on the stages of environmental remediation;
• become familiar with the process of site characterisation including historical site information;
• develop awareness of the time required for proper implementation of the various stages of environmental remediation;
• learn which radiological and non-radiological factors may be used to justify remediation;
• understand the drivers and constraints that are relevant in determining the site end state;
• appreciate the need for interim states in environmental remediation.

• NEA Report No. 7290 “Strategic Considerations for the Sustainable Remediation of Nuclear Installations”, OECD, 2016
• Nuclear Energy Series NW-G-3.1 “Policy and Strategies for Environmental Remediation”, IAEA, 2015
• Waste Safety Requirements WS-R-3 “Remediation of Areas Contaminated by Past Activities and Accidents”, IAEA, 2003
• Waste Safety Guidance WS-G-3.1 “Remediation Process for Areas Affected by Past Activities and Accidents”, IAEA, 2007
• Technical Reports Series No. 475, “Guidelines for Remediation Strategies to Reduce the Radiological Consequences of Environmental Contamination”, IAEA, 2012
• NW-T-3.4, “Overcoming barriers in the implementation of environmental remediation projects”, IAEA, 2013.