Occupational Radiological Protection: How Safe Is Safe Enough? Recommendations for α values, helpful for assessing the reasonableness of investments in occupational radiological protection

Abstract

In the short term, a society’s resources are limited, therefore making the prioritisation of needs unavoidable. For instance, the more financial resources a hospital allocates to radiological protection, the fewer remain available for other healthcare needs. With a focus on occupational radiological protection, the overall aim of this thesis was to answer the question: How safe is safe enough? One way to approach this question is through a cost-benefit analysis, in which the direct costs of investments are balanced against the corresponding collective dose reductions. A fundamental challenge in employing cost-benefit analysis is determining a price for collective dose reductions, the so-called α value. By means of different health economics techniques, Papers I, II and III provide a range of α-value recommendations. For instance, acknowledging the uncertainties inherent in these methods, Paper II recommends α values between $57 and $171 per man·mSv for the Swedish general public and between $62 and $163 per man·mSv for Swedish workers (2023 USD). This implies that investments in occupational radiological protection below these intervals can be considered a good investment. For investments within these intervals, factors other than cost and collective dose are important to consider, whereas investments above these intervals can be considered too expensive. Paper IV of this thesis promotes stakeholder involvement by asking staff members about discomfort associated with wearing lead aprons and thyroid collars for long periods of time, as well as their willingness to tolerate a small increase in future cancer risk to avoid wearing them. The results show that although discomfort was frequently reported, only a minority of staff would tolerate a minimal increase in future cancer risk to avoid wearing these protective tools, highlighting the complexity of making reasonable decisions about their use.