RadProtection Co., Ltd., Singapore (2026)

21/02/2026

The US Government’s 2 Newest Gifts: A More Vulnerable You.

We are told that environmental and workplace standards exist to protect us. But two regulatory decisions, made just weeks apart, suggest a very different priority.

Decision 1: Lowering the Chemical Floor

In November 2025, the EPA approved new PFAS-containing pesticides for cereal grains, citrus, and almonds. These "forever chemicals" are documented cancer causing, immunotoxic and thyroid disruptors that are now being added permanently to the American food supply.

Decision 2: Removing the Radiation Ceiling

On January 10, 2026, the Department of Energy formally eliminated the ALARA principle. Since the 1970s, ALARA has been the foundational philosophy of radiation protection. Now, it is being scratched out of DOE regulations with no replacement.

The Compounding Betrayal

Put these together: The EPA is allowing chemicals into your body that degrade both your health and your capacity to tolerate radiation, while the DOE is removing the principle that says we should minimize radiation exposure.

This isn't just policy—it's a double biological Negative Shock.

Lowered Thresholds: PFAS elevate baseline oxidative stress. When the fluoroscopy beam fires, your cells are already depleted and fighting chemical inflammation instead of repairing DNA.

Thyroid in the Crossfire: You wear a thyroid collar because the organ is sensitive to radiation. Yet, PFAS inhibit the very mechanism your thyroid uses to function. One insult is shielded; the other is delivered through your food.

Take Back Your Control

The less control you have over policy, the more deliberate you must be about your biology.

Filter your water: Reverse osmosis (NSF/ANSI 58) is no longer optional for radiation workers; it removes 94–99% of PFAS.
Feed your liver:

Broccoli sprouts activate detox enzymes that increase the excretion of environmental toxins by up to 61%.

Wear PFAS-free clothing and PPE: Most lead aprons use PFAS-treated fabrics.

RadPro is one of the only manufacturers specifically avoiding these coatings. We won't add to your toxic burden while claiming to protect you.

Stay safe.

26/01/2026

He had thyroid cancer. And he still walked in without a collar.

We were doing a radiation study in a major hospital.
The senior consultant, who is a highly respected operator, had shared with me that he had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

We started the case. The fellows were scrubbed, doing the procedure, and we were taking measurements.

Part way through, the senior walked in to observe and give feedback. He moved right up beside the primary operator, leaning in over the table.

And then I saw it.

No thyroid collar.

The person in the room with the clearest, personal proof that radiation can hurt you… had stepped into an active case with an unprotected neck.

I didn’t think, I just grabbed a spare collar and quietly put it on him.

On paper, that moment makes no sense. In psychology, it makes perfect sense.

Years of “nothing bad happened” had normalised this behaviour.

Habit brought him to the table before his brain remembered his own cancer.

Status quo bias made his old pattern easier than a new, safer one.

And as a senior, his behaviour silently told the team: collars are optional.

This is why education alone doesn’t fix radiation safety.

We’re not just fighting knowledge gaps – we’re fighting human psychology.

If you’re a leader in the lab, your habits are the culture.

What shortcuts have you normalised that your juniors are quietly copying?

(Picture is AI generated)

Stay safe.

23/01/2026

Colorectal cancer is now the #1 cancer killer of young adults.

Is there a occupational radiation risk?

Breaking news from JAMA today reveals a shifting tide: As of 2023, colorectal cancer has become the leading cause of cancer death for Americans under 50.

While we celebrate declines in lung and breast cancer deaths, colorectal cancer is rising 1.1% annually.

All five of the deadliest cancers in this age group are recognized by the NRC as linked to ionizing radiation. Yet, occupational exposure remains a blind spot in the conversation.

What the Data is telling us:

Korean Medical Workers Study: Male radiologic technologists showed the HIGHEST lifetime risk for colon cancer among all cancers.

INWORKS 2025: Analyzing 28k+ deaths confirmed a positive association between radiation and colon cancer.

Interventional Cardiology: Specialists receive doses 2-3x higher than radiologists, often accumulating 20-30 years of exposure starting in their 30s.

We need to answer Dr. Ahmedin Jemal’s call to "pinpoint what is driving this tsunami of cancer."

If we have clear evidence linking radiation to colon cancer, and rates are rising in young professionals, why is dosimetry often treated as a compliance box to check rather than a critical health metric?

We need to reduce risk to our young professionals. One great way is to contribute to radiation reducing techniques as outlined in my previous post on ORSC.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/charlie-yu-3a22162_radiationsafety-interventional-alara-activity-7419896264110125056-PpJI?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAABjM6oBjQAkP1qILEDIhBlncG3UnzqG5Kc

Stay Safe.

22/01/2026

If they lower the standard, we raise the bar.

Regarding my recent post about shifting government guidelines: The reaction was clear. We cannot rely solely on regulatory minimums to protect our long-term health.

If we want to thrive in this career for 30+ years, we need to treat "safety" as a skill, not just a compliance checkbox.

Today, we are initiating the 2026 Operator Radiation Safety Consensus (ORSC).

Over the next 3 weeks, we are crowdsourcing a Gold Standard safety manual written by you.

The Strategy: 100 → 10 → 1
We are attacking the problem in a specific order to get as close to Zero as possible:

Week 1 (Today): The Source (100 → 10). Reducing output at the machine can decrease doses by >90%.
Week 2: The Barrier (10 → 1). Shielding and PPE to further decrease the remaining 10%.
Week 3: The Body (1 → 0). Biological defense strategies to get closer to 0.

Part 1: Reducing Output (The Source)

This protocol must work for everyone—whether you are using the latest C-arm or a 15 year-old mobile C-Arm. Here are the universal starters:

1. Machine Parameters

Frame Rate: Defaulting to 7.5 fps (or lower) instantly cuts dose significantly.
Collimation: Never work open field. Use Virtual Collimation (or manual blades on older machines) on the Last Image Hold.

2. Technique & Positioning

Detector Height: If the flat panel isn't close to touching the patient, it’s too high. (Physics works the same on every machine).
The Dead Man Foot: If your eyes move away from the screen, your foot comes off the pedal.

3. Adjunctive Technology: Use generic terms if possible, not product names.

Real-Time Dosimetry: Visual feedback tools to train the room.
Fusion Imaging

4. Strategic Workflow

The Radiation Time-Out: Before the first pedal press, the team runs a verbal checklist: Thyroid collars? Eyewear? All shields in position?
Review Priors: Never use fluoro to find anatomy you already have on a recent CT.
The Empowered Voice: Support staff must have the explicit authority to call out Check Collimation or High Rate warnings.

This list is incomplete on purpose.

Let's also hear from Support Staff and those working with older technology.

Techs/Nurses: Does your lab do a "Radiation Time-Out"? How do you enforce it?
Operators: What manual tricks do you use on older machines?

Note: The most insightful contributions will be formally credited by name and institution in the final 2026 ORSC document.

Let's Stay Safe Together..

20/01/2026

We wouldn’t let a physicist determine chemotherapy dosing. So why do they determine acceptable radiation harm?

The regulatory landscape is shifting. The Department of Energy is currently in discussions with the NRC to standardize radiation protections, and the long-standing ALARA principle is being reconsidered.

People are debating what the new dose limit should be. But I think we are ignoring the elephant in the room: Who is setting it?

For 80 years (since the Manhattan Project), we’ve treated radiation safety as a Physics Problem (Dosimetry, shielding, phantom modelling).

But the data is telling us that this is actually a Biology Problem (Vascular inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, DNA repair, carcinogenesis, individual variability).

Here is my take: We cannot have safety without Health Physics. They measure the input (Dose), and their expertise is the foundation of everything we do.

They absolutely belong at the table. But they can no longer sit at that table alone.

Real safety requires a full panel including:
• Molecular Biologists & Immunologists (Mechanism of injury)
• Epidemiologists (Population-level damage)
• Medical Specialists (The people in the room)
• Health Physicists (Dosimetry & Modelling)

Because right now, the people writing the rules aren't the ones absorbing the dose and suffering the consequences.

The people dedicating their lives to saving patients deserve safety standards grounded in the biological reality of our survival, not just regulatory compliance.

It is time to expand the table. We need a regulatory framework that aligns with biological reality, not just dosimetric models.

We don’t need to wait for the NRC to act.

Professional societies can define the clinical standard of radiation safety today through guidelines, training, accreditation, and quality metrics, and hospitals will follow long before regulations change.

To my connections: Does Physics still have all the answers? Do they understand the biology as well as we do?

Stay Safe.

14/01/2026

This week, ALARA died. And our jobs potentially just got a lot more dangerous.

If you work in a Cath Lab, IR, Hybrid OT, or OBL, stop scrolling. This is the most dangerous shift in radiation safety in 50 years.

On January 12, 2026 DOE Secretary Chris Wright issued a directive effectively ending the use of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) in Department of Energy regulations.

The new policy? If a dose is under the legal limit (50 mSv/year), no further effort to reduce it is required.

How did we get here? This didn't happen in a vacuum.

The Motivation: President Trump’s May 2025 Executive Orders demanded a massive acceleration of nuclear power to feed the energy-hungry AI sector.

The Blueprint: The administration is following the "Drawing the Line" report (July 2025) from the Breakthrough Institute, which argued that ALARA is "overly burdensome" and that we should stop spending money to reduce "negligible" exposures.

Here is the math they are hiding from you: The U.S. is already an outlier: U.S. Limit: 50 mSv/year, Global Standard: 20 mSv/year (averaged over 5 years) We already allow exposure limits 2.5x higher than the rest of the developed world.

Now, let's look at the cumulative effect. If you work a 25-year career in a busy Lab at "compliant" US levels (40 mSv/year), you absorb 1 Sievert (Sv). At 1 Sv, the risk is not "negligible." According to the National Academies (BEIR VII) and major meta-analyses, it is a statistical minefield:

Excess Death Risk: ~10% (Combined Cancer + Cardiovascular mortality).

Living with Injury: Does not even include the risks of non-fatal strokes, surviving cancer, accelerated neuro-degeneration or the near-certainty of cataracts.

The INL report also recommended a 500% increase in allowable public exposure from 1mSv/yr to 5mSv/yr, thereby also decreasing the cost of protection for the public.

"But I work in a hospital, not a nuclear plant." That false sense of security is exactly what they are banking on. While this directive legally applies to the DOE, it destroys the scientific consensus that protects you. Regulatory harmonisation is standard policy and there will be a push to have this apply to all radiation workers.

The Domino Effect: Hospital administrators are desperate to cut costs. When the federal government's top energy scientists declare that "anything under 50 mSv is safe," how long until your CFO asks why they are buying expensive lightweight aprons or room shielding?

The Trap: They will use this ruling to argue that shielding is "optional" as long as you aren't hitting the legal limit.

A Call to Action: We cannot let industrial deregulation endanger medical professionals. Medical radiation exposure is distinct from industrial power generation. Our risks are chronic, asymmetric, and physical.

We need a firewall between this policy and our hospitals. If we wait until the NRC adopts this standard, it will be too late.

Please Share this.

Tag your society leadership. Raise the alarm.

We now have to work even harder to

STAY SAFE

References:

1. The Announcement: Sobczyk, N. & Waldman, S. (2026). "DOE Scraps 'ALARA' Radiation Safety Standard to Speed Nuclear Rollout." Politico Pro / E&E News. Published January 12, 2026.

2. The New Policy: U.S. Department of Energy (2026). Directive Order: Modernization of Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Energy Deployment. Issued by Secretary Chris Wright, January 12, 2026.

3. The Blueprint Report: Stein, J., Seel, P.J., et al. (2025). "Drawing the Line: The Linear No-Threshold Model, and When are Doses Too Small to Matter?" The Breakthrough Institute / NRC ADAMS Accession No. ML2519. Published July 2025. (Argues for exempting doses

13/01/2026

Scattered Sleep: Life Under the C-Arm

One of the earliest biological effects of working under fluoroscopy may be sleep disruption.

Recent occupational studies of medical radiation workers show a higher prevalence of sleep disorders with increasing cumulative exposure, particularly among younger staff and women. This matters, because sleep isn’t just rest, it’s biological repair.

Why sleep may be especially vulnerable

Ionizing radiation is not only a DNA insult. At low, chronic doses it acts as a systems stressor:

Neuroinflammation & oxidative stress

Radiation increases reactive oxygen species and inflammatory signaling. Brain regions that regulate sleep and circadian rhythm are especially sensitive to this burden.

Melatonin suppression

Melatonin is both a sleep hormone and a powerful endogenous radioprotector. Reduced melatonin means poorer sleep and reduced biological defense, a feedback loop most of us never consider.

Circadian disruption compounds injury

Poor sleep worsens endothelial dysfunction, immune dysregulation, insulin resistance, cognitive fatigue, and recovery capacity. These are the same non-cancer effects now emerging in low-dose radiation research.

Radiation doesn’t just add risk.
It lowers resilience.

Why this matters in fluoroscopy-based medicine

Life under the C-arm already includes:

* Long procedures and late cases
* Cold rooms
* Heavy PPE
* Bright, biologically incomplete lighting
* Sustained sympathetic activation

Radiation becomes part of a cumulative physiological load, not an isolated exposure.

What this means for protection

If sleep disruption is an early signal of occupational radiation stress, protection cannot stop at dosimeters.

It reinforces a three-pillar approach:

1. Reduce radiation output at the source
2. Block and absorb scatter with full-body, ergonomic shielding
3. Protect biological terrain including sleep, circadian health, inflammation, and recovery

We don’t wait for heart attacks to treat hypertension.
We shouldn’t wait for cancer to take radiation injury seriously.

Sometimes the body whispers before it screams.

Scattered sleep may be one of those whispers.

Stay safe.

* Frontiers in Public Health (2025). Occupational radiation exposure and sleep disorder risk among medical workers
* ICRP Publication 118. Tissue reactions and non-cancer effects of ionizing radiation
* NCRP Report No. 168. Biological effects of low-dose radiation
* Little MP et al. Circulatory and systemic effects of low-dose radiation
* Reiter RJ et al. Melatonin as a radioprotective and circadian regulator

10/01/2026

What Radiation Safety Still Isn’t Measuring: Sexual & Reproductive Health

We’ve spent decades teaching and tracking the “acceptable” risks of occupational radiation.

Cataracts.
Orthopedic injury.
Cancer.

But there’s an entire category of outcomes that rarely makes it into badge reports, audits, or occupational health reviews, especially in Asia:

Sexual and Reproductive Health.

Not because it’s unimportant.
Because it’s uncomfortable.

The shared biological pathway

Across both men and women, a central mechanism keeps appearing in radiation biology:

Ionizing radiation → Reactive oxygen species (ROS) → nitric oxide (NO) disruption → endothelial and tissue dysfunction

This pathway is not speculative.

What we already know from other radiation settings

Men and therapeutic radiation

In prostate radiotherapy populations, erectile dysfunction is common, with reported rates ranging widely (often cited from ~20% up to 90% depending on age, baseline function, and technique). Many studies land around about half over time. The mechanisms include oxidative stress, impaired nitric oxide signaling, vascular fibrosis, and smooth muscle atrophy.

Environmental exposure signals

In radiation-affected regions after Chernobyl, exposed men showed markedly higher rates of sexual dysfunction compared with controls, including erectile dysfunction with dose-related patterns.

Mechanistic confirmation

Animal models show radiation induces oxidative stress pathways (including NADPH oxidase activation) and damages nitric oxide–dependent signaling critical for vascular and sexual function.

The women’s story: different pathways, same seriousness

For women, the dominant effects are not erectile, but reproductive, vascular, and endocrine.

-pelvic radiation is associated with vaginal fibrosis, dyspareunia, and sexual dysfunction
-ovarian injury can lead to premature menopause and long-term cardiovascular consequences
-endothelial injury and hormonal disruption accelerate vascular aging

Long-term follow-up studies from radiation-exposed populations have reported fewer children, higher rates of infertility, and increased likelihood of remaining childless among exposed women compared with controls.

A moment that changed how I think about this

After giving a radiation safety talk some years ago, a female doctor approached me privately.

She told me that among their group of women working long-term in radiation-intensive procedural environments, a concerning number had experienced pregnancy loss during their child-bearing years, including repeated losses in some individuals.

She was very clear: They did not want this written up or publicized.

I’ve respected that ever since.

This is not evidence. It’s not a study. It’s not a claim of causation.

But it was a powerful reminder that some of the most important occupational outcomes never appear in registries or publications, not because they don’t occur, but because they are too personal, too sensitive, and too professionally risky to disclose.

And it helps explain why reproductive outcomes in female interventionalists remain so poorly characterized.

The occupational question we are not asking

If sexual dysfunction and reproductive effects are well described in therapeutic radiation and environmental exposure, what happens with chronic, low-dose scatter radiation accumulated over 20–30 year careers in cath labs, IR suites, hybrid ORs, and procedural theatres?

The per-procedure dose is lower.
The exposure is cumulative.
And these endpoints are almost never tracked, in men or women.

The “Insult vs Terrain” lens

The insult: Chronic low-dose radiation generating ROS
The terrain: Endothelial injury, mitochondrial stress, hormonal disruption, reduced repair capacity

Small, repeated insults accumulate into system-level effects.

What we can act on now

Reduce exposure. with proper room-level shielding and full-body barrier strategies

Protect vascular biology by addressing oxidative stress and endothelial health

Support recovery through sleep, metabolic health, and evidence informed mitochondrial support

Why this matters

Sexual and reproductive dysfunction are not fringe quality-of-life issues. They are often early markers of vascular and systemic injury.

If we ignore them, we may be ignoring the earliest warning signs of harm in our workforce.

And if we only study outcomes people feel safe disclosing, we will systematically underestimate risk, especially for women.

If we’re serious about radiation safety, this conversation belongs at the table.

Stay Safe.

09/01/2026

Depressing new longevity study just published suggests: We cannot "lifestyle" our way out of radiation damage.

I often tell myself a comforting lie: If I eat healthy, sleep well, and exercise, I can offset the radiation risk.

A groundbreaking new study from the Weizmann Institute of Science on the mechanics of aging suggests this may be mathematically impossible. They reviewed data from 59,000 patients from NHANES and 200+ years of mortality data from multiple countries.

The study, "Maximal human lifespan in light of a mechanistic model of aging," separates aging into two distinct categories:

The BUMPS (Noise & Threshold): These are day-to-day stressors. Good sleep, diet, and low stress help you handle these better. They improve your resilience.

The ENGINE (Damage Production): This is the fundamental speed at which your body creates biological errors. The study shows that lifestyle factors do not slow this down.

Here is the scary part for us: Ionizing radiation doesn't just add noise, It attacks the ENGINE: It creates what the paper calls "long-lived error factories" (mutated stem cells) that accelerate the intrinsic rate of aging.

This explains why we see localized progeria in our field, operators with hands or eyes that have aged decades faster than the rest of their bodies.

Other things that could attack the engine include: Smoking, heavy pollution, heavy alcohol consumption, heavy metals.

The Bottom Line: You can’t fix a faster-aging engine with better wheels. Wellness helps you live better, but only radiation dose reduction prevents the acceleration of biological time.

Stay Safe.

08/01/2026

Why aren’t the workers in the room?

For decades, radiation safety standards in medicine have been shaped by regulators, physicists, and administrators. Too often, they are written about us, not with us.

Meanwhile, the people standing in the room with patients in cath labs, IR suites, and ORs are the ones absorbing the dose and suffering the consequences of wearing heavy PPE.

So why aren’t we part of the conversation?

If frontline workers had a real seat at the table, the focus would change.

We would stop talking about radiation risk as if cancer were the only outcome that mattered, and thinking if you're under the dose limit, you're safe. The science has moved on. Occupational exposure is now linked to cardiovascular disease, cataracts, cognitive effects, and features of accelerated biological aging.

The data exist. The lived experience exists. But policy still lags, because the voices closest to the exposure are rarely heard.

We would also move beyond checkbox compliance and outdated protocols that have barely evolved in decades. People who spend their careers in these rooms know what actually works, what gets used, and what meaningfully reduces risk.

This is the framework many experienced workers already use:

1. Reduce radiation output

Optimize technique. Lower frame rates. Tight collimation. Less fluoro time.

The safest dose is the one never produced.

2. Use more real physical shielding

Not just minimum PPE, but systems that protect the whole body. Mobile barriers, ceiling-mounted shields, effective eye protection, and room design that acknowledges scatter patterns, not just regulations.

3. Reduce biological impact

Support repair and recovery. Antioxidant and mitochondrial support. Fatigue and recovery protocols. Address what happens at the cellular level after exposure gets through.

This isn’t theory. It’s what people who stay in this field for decades quietly learn in order to survive it.

The bottom line

Radiation safety will not meaningfully improve until worker voices are central to the discussion, not an afterthought. We understand the real risks. We know what works in practice. And we are the ones who live with the downstream consequences of decisions made without us.

It’s time we were in the room.

Stay safe.

08/01/2026

I saw him crying the night before he had to announce his retirement.

Hal C***s was at the peak of his career in interventional radiology. His oncologist told him he had to stop working. He was about 50 years old.

Hal was an early pioneer in IR, working under Joseph Rosch on groundbreaking procedures including the first TIPS in dogs and arterial embolization using the patient's own venous blood. He should have had decades of practice ahead of him.

Instead, severe injuries to his hands and eyes from occupational radiation exposure, along with other health complications, made it impossible to continue. His oncologist made it clear: he had to stop.

I had invited him to speak at a meeting in the mid-1990s. The night before, I saw him downstairs, crying. When I asked what was wrong, he told me he had to announce his retirement the next day. Here was a physician who loved his work, who was still making important contributions to the field, forced to walk away from everything he'd built.

Earlier that same year, we lost another prominent IR physician in the region to left-sided breast cancer, a male colleague whose cancer location tells its own story about chronic radiation exposure.

These weren't isolated cases. These were the consequences of practicing interventional medicine without adequate protection in an era when we didn't fully understand or appreciate the risk, even though Hal, unlike most others, took every precaution.

Many didn't want to acknowledge, and still don't, the risks we were and are still taking.

Hal's story, and the stories of too many colleagues like him, are why radiation protection in interventional medicine isn't optional. We owe it to this generation of interventionalists to learn from what happened to the pioneers.

The machines are better, but we are doing more cases and more complex cases. The doses may not be that different.

The technology exists. The evidence is clear. We just need to use them.

Stay safe.

03/01/2026

Don’t you want to leave the world a little better than you found it?

As the years pass, that question pulls harder. For me, it’s become very specific: leave interventional medicine safer for the people coming after us. Not by talking about radiation protection, but by actually changing it.

A close friend of mine, Dr. Lindsay Machan, and I share a running joke. When we’re invited to speak about radiation safety, it’s almost always the final session on the final day. The room is 95% empty.

That’s not an accident. Safety is still treated as a checkbox. A line item. Something the industry can point to and say, “We addressed it.”

But a handful of people pushing from the margins isn’t enough. This doesn’t change without a movement.

As scientists and physicians, we like to say we follow the evidence. And the evidence is clear and every major regulatory body has stated: there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Yet we continue to work in environments that expose us to avoidable risk, even though technologies exist right now that can dramatically reduce it.

Every meaningful innovation follows an adoption curve. The only real question is where you stand on it.

Are you leading? Doing everything within your power to protect yourself, your colleagues, and your patients?

Or are you waiting? Waiting for more CVD, more strokes, more cataracts, more cancers, more chronic orthopedic injuries before reconsidering what you’ve been told is “just part of the job”?

This is the choice in front of us: lead the change, or quietly accept that more harm will occur.

The science is clear. The technology is here. What’s left is the will to act.

Stay safe.

RadProtection Co., Ltd.

21/02/2026

26/01/2026

23/01/2026

22/01/2026

20/01/2026

14/01/2026

13/01/2026

10/01/2026

09/01/2026

08/01/2026

08/01/2026

03/01/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Featured

Share