2019 Health Physics Society Elda E. Anderson Award: Presented to: NICOLE E. MARTINEZ: at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society Orlando, Florida 7–11 July 2019 No abstract available

2019 Health Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award - Richard E. Toohey: Presented to: RICHARD E. TOOHEY: at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society Orlando, Florida 7–11 July 2019 No abstract available

2019 Health Physics Society Robley D. Evans Award - Richard W. Leggett: Presented to RICHARD W. LEGGETT at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Orlando, Florida 7–11 July 2019 No abstract available

2019 William A. McAdams Outstanding Service Award: Presented to WILLIAM G. RHODES III at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society Orlando, Florida 7–11 July 2019 No abstract available

2019 Health Physics Society Fellow Class and 50-year Members: Presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society Orlando, Florida 7–11 July 2019 No abstract available

2019 Health Physics Society Homeland Security Section Service Award: Presented to JOHN J. LANZA at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Orlando, Florida 7–11 July 2019 No abstract available

2019 Health Physics Society Military Health Physics Section Awards – Colonel Robert N. Cherry, Jr., Robert W. Young, and Major Matthew Stokley No abstract available

Editors’ Recognition of Reviewers in 2019 No abstract available

To Mitigate The Lnt Model’s Unintended Consequences—A Proposed Stopping Point For As Low As Reasonably Achievable While the debate over the linear no-threshold model continues, there’s a relatively straightforward step that can be taken to mitigate the unintended consequences of the linear no-threshold model and the application of the as low as reasonably achievable principle—enact a stopping point for as low as reasonably achievable. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements defined the negligible individual dose in 1993 as having a value of 0.01 mSv y−1. Radiation safety professionals overwhelmingly agree that applying the as low as reasonably achievable principle at very low doses, such as those consistent with background radiation levels, is not improving radiation safety of the public or radiation workers. To the contrary, this practice has significant financial and social consequences, and it severely inhibits public communication of radiation risks. To move forward, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements should increase the negligible individual dose to a more practical value of 0.1 mSv y−1—the new as low as reasonably achievable stopping point. While radiation research in radiation biology and epidemiology are needed to better understand low-dose health effects below 100 mSv, in the meantime we should apply what we know—i.e., that radiation protection should not include trying to protect people from radiation doses that are consistent with variations in background radiation.

Cytogenetic Analysis After Temporary Residence in the Area of the Uncontrolled Ruthenium-106 Release in Russia in September 2017 In September and October 2017, elevated atmospheric ruthenium contamination was measured in several European countries. The most probable origin of this release of radionuclides was reconstructed to be the Southern Ural region. During that time, five workers from a German company stayed up to 2 wk about 120 km from the Chelyabinsk region in Ekaterinburg, Russia. No clinical symptoms were reported during or after the suspected radiation exposure, and no internal contamination was found in whole-body measurements. However, to investigate radiation protection issues and to clarify the workers’ situation in order to reassure them, as they planned to continue working in Ekaterinburg, our laboratory was urgently requested by the company’s occupational physician to perform biodosimetry using dicentric analysis to determine if the workers have been exposed to radiation by incorporation of radionuclides. The workers’ dicentric yields have been compared to reference data of background frequencies in unexposed individuals, but, as it is not reasonable to quantify individual absorbed radiation doses from internalized beta emitters due to various confounding factors, individual dose estimation has not been performed. Dicentric frequencies for two workers differed significantly from the mean laboratory background level, which could have been induced by an exposure to incorporated radionuclides due to beta emissions by 106Ru or to gamma irradiation by the decay nuclide of 106Ru. However, the maximum absorbed radiation doses calculated for a resident in the 106Ru-contaminated area during that time does not correspond to the observed dicentric frequencies. It cannot be excluded that their dicentric frequencies were already elevated before September 2017, potentially induced by an earlier radiation exposure to diagnostic x rays or even by chance.