Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Bone cancer risk estimates.

J S Puskin1, N S Nelson, C B Nelson

  • 1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Health Physics
|November 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A synergistic combination of local tight binding theory and second harmonic generation elucidating surface properties of ZnO nanoparticles.

Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP·2017
Same author

Prophylactic amifostine prevents a pathologic vascular response in a murine model of expander-based breast reconstruction.

Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS·2015
Same author

Religion and death: The clerical perspective.

Journal of religion and health·2013
Same author

Spiritual support in life threatening illness.

Journal of religion and health·2013
Same author

Trichinosis in Minnesota.

Minnesota medicine·2010
Same author

What can epidemiology tell us about risks at low doses?

Radiation research·2007
Same journal

Assessment of Health Risks of Adults and Children Due to Consumption of Uranium in Groundwater from Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu, India.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Radiation Protection Abstracts, Volume 46, Number 1.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Specialized Radiological Assets for Navigable Two-dimensional and Three-dimensional Virtual and Augmented Reality.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

DoseBusters: A Fully Immersive Virtual Reality Game for Radiation Protection and Detection.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Radioactivity in Bottled Drinking Water from Greater Dhaka City and Concomitant Ingestion Doses to Consumers.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Assessment of Radiation Dose and Protection Practices in Neonatal Radiography in NICUs.

Health physics·2026
See all related articles

ICRP 60 likely overestimated radiogenic bone cancer risk due to confusion between bone surface and skeletal doses. This error originated from misinterpreting the BEIR IV report, impacting risk assessments for bone sarcoma induction.

Area of Science:

  • Radiological Physics
  • Radiation Biology
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 provides risk estimates for radiogenic cancers.
  • Previous reports, such as the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) IV and V, have estimated risks for bone sarcoma induction.
  • Distinguishing between endosteal (bone surface) dose and average skeletal dose is crucial for accurate risk assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To clarify the confusion between endosteal and average skeletal doses in radiation risk assessment.
  • To evaluate the impact of this confusion on the risk estimates provided by ICRP 60.
  • To identify the source of the dose misinterpretation in previous reports.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of dose metrics used in ICRP 60 and BEIR reports.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Review of the methodologies and assumptions in BEIR IV and BEIR V concerning bone sarcoma risk.
  • Examination of the calculation of average skeletal dose for specific radionuclides like 224Ra.

    • Main Results:

    • ICRP 60 has likely overestimated the risk of radiogenic bone cancer.
    • The overestimation stems from conflating endosteal dose with average skeletal dose.
    • This confusion appears to originate from a misreading of the BEIR IV report's distinction between dose types.

    Conclusions:

    • The distinction between endosteal and average skeletal dose is critical for accurate radiogenic cancer risk assessment.
    • ICRP 60's risk estimates for bone cancer may require revision due to dose metric confusion.
    • Re-evaluation of BEIR IV and V data, specifically regarding 224Ra dosimetry, is necessary for precise bone sarcoma risk quantification.