Search

In dentistry, radiographs are often used to diagnose and assess problems relating to oral conditions as well as for better treatment planning. Even though the radiation risk offered by X-rays is minimal, the absorption of this lower level radiation in the individual for a long time challenges a health concern. The aim of the study was to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of lead aprons among dental practitioners and specialists in Tamil Nadu. A cross-sectional survey was performed around 100 dentists in Tamil Nadu, India, by framing standard questionnaires and collecting responses by online survey forms such as "Google Forms." The statistical study was undertaken with SPSS version 22 and the Chi-square test was selected to determine the correlation. This study showed that lead aprons were regularly used by 63% of participants during radiation exposure. Thirty percent of participants were aware of radiation protection protocol but neglected to use lead aprons routinely (P = 0.113). About 91% of participants gave more preference for thyroid gland to protect it from dental radiation rather than other head-and-neck organs and 82% of them were using thyroid collars for patients during exposure (P = 0.671). Our survey shows that the usage of lead aprons is practiced strictly by dental practitioners under <5 years of clinical experience. However, dental practitioners and specialists were aware of radiation protective aprons but often neglected to use them in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Exposure to ionising radiation to Anaesthesiology consultants, residents, technicians and nurses (Anaesthesiology personnel) is steadily increasing as a consequence of growing usage of imaging technology for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey of Anaesthesiology professionals (consultants, residents, technicians and nursing staff) working in three major tertiary care medical institutes in northern India regarding the existing knowledge, attitudes and practices of radiation safety at their workplaces. Methods: A printed and validated 30-point questionnaire was distributed. Questions were graded into the domains of demographics (6 questions), knowledge (9 questions), attitude (4 questions) and practice (11 questions). Data obtained from the responses was collated and analysed statistically Results: Out of the 403 questionnaires distributed, 222 were returned completed (55%). Majority of the respondents were residents (53.60%) and males (57.20%). Many were unaware of the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), (70.7%) regarding collimators (65.85%) and their usage (41.9%). Maximum respondents stressed on the necessity of knowing the exposure dosage of radiations (89.2%) and were concerned regarding the same (87.8%). Lead apron was the commonest protection equipment and 97.3% of them were not using dosimeters. Highest levels of knowledge, attitude, and practices were demonstrated by the consultants. In terms of practices, the technicians fared better than the residents. Conclusion: Knowledge, attitude and practices regarding radiation protection issues and doses of radiological procedures is limited. Although all the cadres scored high on their attitude scores, the practice sector requires improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess women surgeons' awareness of radiation protection protocols, cumulative dose, safety measures, radiation exposure, and breast cancer risk in India. Methods: The data were acquired through a survey monkey questionnaire circulated to women orthopaedic surgeons across the country through the WOICE group, e-mails and phone. The questionnaire assessed the respondents' awareness of radiation protection measures and level of exposure. Medical history on breast cancer during their professional life, time of diagnosis, and radiation exposure were collected. Data were analysed and expressed as percentages. Results: Fifty-one women orthopaedic surgeons responded. These were sub-grouped into early and late-career group based on whether they had worked in orthopaedics for less than 10 years (n = 33) or 10 or more years (n = 18). The mean number of years of practice of the respondents was 8.1 years, and for the group with 10 or more years was 18.7 years. 90.2% reported compliance to the lead shield, while 9.8% (n = 5) were non-compliant because of the shield's weight. Of the included respondents, 88.8% are currently working. Among all the respondents, only 13.7% (n = 7) use a radiation dosimeter. Not surprisingly, 88.2% (n = 45) of all respondents were unaware of the total radiation exposure received. Two surgeons in the more than 10-year practice category reported a history of breast carcinoma. Conclusions: This preliminary report suggested a need for more awareness of radiation protection measures among women orthopaedic surgeons. Hence, along with the practice of wearing a lead gown, use of lightweight shield, awareness on exposure measure and use of radiation dosimeter should be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present work, we report the results of measurements of indoor 222Rn, 220Rn, and their progeny concentrations in Ghuttu region of Tehri Garhwal district in the Uttarakhand state of India for radiation protection purposes. The measured concentrations of 222Rn, 220Rn, and their progeny were used to estimate the inhalation doses received by the public. The measured values were found to depend upon different seasons of a calendar year. The annual effective dose attributed to 222Rn, 220Rn, and their progeny exposure was estimated in the range of 0.93–2.37 mSv y−1 with an average of 1.54 ± 0.42 mSv y−1. No significant health risk has been found to be associated with the exposure of 222Rn, 220Rn, and their progeny in the study area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] CBMN assay of radiation accident victims in India was performed. [•] Sulforaphane was evaluated for its anti-mutagenic potential in vitro. [•] Sulforaphane also ameliorated bleomycin and doxorubicin induced genotoxicity. [•] Sulforaphane enhanced CD 34+Lin− cell survival. [•] Sulforaphane restored the normal HDAC activity level in irradiated lymphocytes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]