text:
Architecture and DesignArtsBusiness and EconomicsChemistryClassical and Ancient Near Eastern StudiesComputer SciencesCultural StudiesEngineeringGeneral InterestGeosciencesHistoryIndustrial ChemistryJewish StudiesLawLibrary and Information Science, Book StudiesLife SciencesLinguistics and SemioticsLiterary StudiesMaterials SciencesMathematicsMedicineMusicPharmacyPhilosophyPhysicsSocial SciencesSports and RecreationTheology and Religion
Volume 50 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)
Radiology and Oncology
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Medical physics in Europe following recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Bozidar Casar,
Maria do Carmo Lopes,
Advan Drljević,
Eduard Gershkevitsh and
Csilla Pesznyak
Published Online: 16 Feb 2016
Volume & Issue: Volume 50 (2016) - Issue 1 (March 2016)
Page range: 64 - 72
Received: 02 Oct 2015
Accepted: 17 Oct 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2016-0004 © 2016 Radiol OncolThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Journal & Issue Details
Medical physics is a dynamic and constantly growing field of applied physics mainly directed towards the application of physics principle to health care in order to ensure safety and quality in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures involving the application of ionizing radiation. Medical physics traditionally covers four main areas of applied physics in medicine: 1.
Diagnostic and interventional radiology physics
Radiation oncology/radiotherapy physics
Nuclear medicine physics
Radiation protection physics sometimes referred also as health physics
Within these four subspecialties, medical physicists are involved in four basic activities: clinical service, research and development, teaching and management/administration. Although mentioned specialties of medical physics cover almost completely the area of medical physics profession, medical physicists are and where appropriate should be involved in other applications of physics in medicine as well, such as ultrasound imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, bioelectrical investigation of the brain and heart (electroencephalography and electrocardiography), bio magnetic investigation of the brain (magneto encephalography) applications of lasers in medicine and medical informatics.1 Within the present discussion we limit ourselves to the application of ionizing radiation to medicine.
Over hundred years ago three major events opened doors of medicine to applied radiation physics: discovery of x rays by Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen in 1895, discovery of natural radioactivity by Henry Becquerel in 1896 and discovery of radium by Pierre and Marie Curie in 1898, followed in 1934 by the discovery of artificial radioactivity by Irene Curie and Frederic Joliot, resulting from the creation of short-lived radioisotopes from the bombardment of stable nuclides and the advances in radar and radiofrequency technology during World War II that made linear accelerators development possible. Since then physics has started to play an important role in medicine for routine use of ionizing radiation in medical diagnostic and therapy. Over the last few decades we were witnessed of enormous development of radiation medicine, mainly through the technological development of the equipment which is used for accurate diagnostic or therapeutic procedures: optimization of image quality for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, development of radiation therapy equipment (high energy linear accelerators with sophisticated options for dose delivery, computerized treatment planning systems, record and verify systems, etc.) and overall integration of computers into the routine clinical work. This is reflected in the huge increase of medical radiological procedures in the world; presently there are around 4 billion x-ray examinations, 35 million nuclear medicine examinations and 5 million radiotherapy courses undertaken annually.
Such tremendous development has triggered demands and need for more highly educated and well trained medical physicists. Introduction of formal systems for education and clinical training became crucial and many universities in Europe offer academic programmes in medical physics. However, there is still a lack of accredited clinical training programs in the majority of countries in Europe. Although international and European professional medical physics organizations together with European Commission (EC) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have undertook efforts to raise awareness of national authorities across Europe regarding the role and the importance of medical physics in radiation medicine it seems, that these efforts have not been fully successful. There is still no harmonization and full recognition of medical physics profession in Europe, there is still shortage of well-educated and clinically trained medical physicists, there are still lack of educational frameworks and structured clinical training programmes in several European countries, there are difficulties to implement continuous professional development (CPD) systems and unfortunately, there are still reports and news about incidents and accidents in the field of radiation medicine.2–8
This review has no intention to cover current status of medical physics in Europe, neither has the ambition to discuss medical physics history or its future perspectives and importance in radiation medicine. The subject is far too broad and complex and it is described and discussed in depth in general medical physics textbooks and international literature.9–11
The main purpose of this paper is to present comments on most recent recommendations from the IAEA after the "Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives" held in Vienna from 7th to 8th May 2015. Invited representatives - over 60 from more than 30 European countries - from World Health Organization (WHO), international professional organizations and societies (International Organisation for Medical Physics – IOMP, European federation of Organisations for Medical Physics – EFOMP and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology – ESTRO), national regulatory bodies and Health Ministries and representatives of medical physicists, were discussing the current status and future perspectives of medical physics in Europe.12
The recommendations of the IAEA Regional Meeting, serving as an outcome of the meeting, are presented in original form and are the bases of the paper, while notes and observation from the same document were omitted due to the journal space considerations.13
For each of seven IAEA recommendations, it has been tried to find justifications for and rationales behind the recommendations as well as to limited extent also legislative backgrounds, mostly within recently published international documents and basic safety standards (BSS) – European Union Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM (EU BSS Directive), European Commission RP 174 European Guidelines for Medical Physics Experts (EC RP 174), IAEA Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards (IAEA IBSS) and IAEA Human Health Series No. 25, Roles and Responsibilities, and Education and Training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists (IAEA HHS 25).14–17 Although the citations from various documents are presented only fragmentally, they provide sufficient information about the solid background of presented recommendations of the IAEA Regional Meeting regarding the medical physics profession in the Europe region.
Recommendations have additional basis in the convincing and unambiguous results of the survey on medical physics status in Europe conducted by the IAEA and EFOMP in 2015 (Figure 1).18
Issues/difficulties in medical physics identified in IAEA/EFOMP survey in 2015 (Damilakis J, Lopes M. C. Overview of medical physics status and future prospects: Results of survey in Europe. "Regional meeting on Medical Physics in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives", IAEA 7th -8th May 2015). Survey has revealed pronounced problems in several issues: difficulties to find funding to attend continuous professional development (CPD) activities, lack of structured clinical training, shortage of medical physicists, inability to participate in the management/decision making process, lack of recognition and lack of educational framework, were appointed by more than 50% of the 32 respondent countries to be felt problems concerning medical physics.
Recommendations of the IAEA Regional Meeting on medical physics in Europe
"Recalling the provisions of "Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards" (General Safety Requirements Part 3, IAEA 2014) regarding the role of medical physicists in ensuring safety in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures involving application of ionizing radiation, the Meeting recommended that Member States of the Europe Region should fully recognize Clinically Qualified Medical Physicist
The term "clinically qualified medical physicsts" was defined in Roles and responsibilities and Education and training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists, IAEA Human Health Series No. 25, IAEA 2013 corresponds to "qualified expert in medical physics" defined in the IAEA International Basic Safety Standards and the "medical physics expert" defined in the European Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM
(CQMP) as a health professional with specialist education and training in the concepts and techniques of applying physics in medicine and competent to practice independently in one or more of the subfields (specialties) of medical physics
The Meeting also recommended that Member States of the Europe Region should, in particular: 1.
Recognize medical physics as an independent profession in health care with radiation protection responsibilities, as given in the "Joint position statement by the IAEA and WHO – Bonn call for action";
Ensure that medical physics aspects of therapeutic and diagnostic procedures, including patient and equipment related tasks and activities are performed by CQMPs or under their supervision;
Establish the appropriate qualification framework for CQMPs including education, specialized clinical training, certification, registration and continuing professional development in the specializations of medical physics, i.e. diagnostic and interventional radiology, radiation oncology and nuclear medicine;
Follow and fulfil international recommendations regarding the staffing levels in the field of medical physics;
Establish mechanisms for medical physics services integration in all centres practicing radiation medicine, and establish, where appropriate, independent medical physics departments in which accredited clinical training can take place;
Promote involvement of CQMPs in hospital governance boards and relevant national health committees;
Establish and enforce the legislative and regulatory requirements related to radiation safety in medical imaging and therapy where medical physics is concerned, in accordance with the international and, where applicable, European basic safety standards."
Recognition of medical physics as independent health profession
In 2012 the IAEA, co-sponsored by WHO, held the "International Conference on Radiation Protection in Medicine: Setting the Scene for the Next Decade" in Bonn, Germany. The specific outcome of this conference was the published document "Joint position statement by the IAEA and WHO – Bonn call for action"19, where some actions were identified as being essential for the strengthening of radiation protection in medicine over the next decade. Regarding the strengthening of radiation safety culture in health care, Action 8f: says the following: "Work towards recognition of medical physics as an independent profession in health care, with radiation protection responsibilities".
Furthermore in the IAEA IBSS16, medical physicist is defined as "A health professional with specialist education and training in the concepts and techniques of applying physics in medicine and competent to practice independently in one or more of the subfields (specialties) of medical physics".
Through the committed efforts of the IOMP and other organizations, medical physicists have been included for the first time, in 2008 in "The international Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO.08)".20,21 Medical physicists are classified under the group 2111, "Physicists and Astronomers" but 5 out of 11 enumerated tasks concern explicitly medical physicists.
"(e) ensuring the safe and effective delivery of radiation (ionising and non-ionising) to patients to achieve a diagnostic or therapeutic result as prescribed by a medical practitioner; (f) ensuring the accurate measurement and characterization of physical quantities used in medical applications; (g) testing, commissioning and evaluating equipment used in applications such as imaging, medical treatment and dosimetry; (h) advising and consulting with medical practitioners and other health care professionals in optimizing the balance between the beneficial and deleterious effects of radiation; … (j) developing, implementing and maintaining standards and protocols for the measurement of physical phenomena and for the use of nuclear technology in industrial and medical applications;"…
There is also an explicit note of 2111 group stating ". . . medical physicists are considered to be an integral part of the health work force alongside those occupations classified in sub-major group 22, Health professionals". On the other hand, under the group 22 of "Health professionals" also a specific note is included saying that "it should be noted that a number of professions considered to be a part of the health work force are classified in groups other than sub-major group 22, Health professionals. Such occupations include but are not restricted to: addictions counsellors, biomedical engineers, clinical psychologists and medical physicists."
Mentioned statements and definitions from quoted documents give unambiguous justification for the first recommendation of the IAEA Regional Meeting. The recognition of medical physicists as a health profession is of paramount importance and should be reflected at the national level (list of recognized professions, legal and fiscal environment, involvement in hospital governance etc.).
Roles and responsibilities of medical physics experts
Recommendation No. 2 clearly emphasizes the role and responsibilities of medical physics expert (MPE) in the fields of medical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In the new EU BSS Directive14 from 2013, MPE is mentioned in 9 articles, while in the former EU BSS Directive22 from 1997, MPE was mentioned only in 2 articles. New EU BSS Directive14 thus recognizes the importance and growing role of medical physics profession in Europe. In Article 83 of the directive definitions are found of roles and responsibilities of MPE which are required to be implemented by the EU Member states:
"Member States shall ensure that depending on the medical radiological practice, the medical physics expert takes responsibility for dosimetry, including physical measurements for evaluation of the dose delivered to the patient and other individuals subject to medical exposure, give advice on medical radiological equipment, and contribute in particular to the following:
optimisation of the radiation protection of patients and other individuals subject to medical exposure, including the application and use of diagnostic reference levels;
the definition and performance of quality assurance of the medical radiological equipment;
acceptance testing of medical radiological equipment;
the preparation of technical specifications for medical radiological equipment and installation design;
the surveillance of the medical radiological installations;
the analysis of events involving, or potentially involving, accidental or unintended medical exposures;
the selection of equipment required to perform radiation protection measurements;
the training of practitioners and other staff in relevant aspects of radiation protection;"
It is evident that the tasks described in the EU BSS Directive14 impose indispensable role and responsibility of medical physics experts and can only be performed by experienced medical physicists with high level of competence. Article 79 of the directive specifically requires from member states to ensure arrangements for the recognition of medical physics experts.
One of the most important requirements from the new EU BSS Directive14 is that MPE shall be involved in all three major clinical fields of radiation medicine: radiotherapy, nuclear medicine and diagnostic and interventional radiology.
The document IAEA HHS 2517, published by IAEA in 2013 and endorsed by IOMP and American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), defines appropriately and unequivocally the roles and responsibilities of CQMP in the different specialties of medical physics and recommends minimum requirements for their academic education and clinical training, including recommendations for their accreditation, certification and registration, along with continuing professional development.
The main goal of all these documents and recommendations is to establish criteria that support the harmonization of education and clinical training, as well as to promote the recognition of medical physics as a health profession.
Establishment of the appropriate qualification framework
European commission has recently published guidelines for medical physics expert – EC RP 174.15 In this document detailed qualification framework (QF) for MPE in Europe is presented and discussed. QF for medical physicists in Europe should be referred to the European Qualification Framework (EQF) for lifelong learning, laid down by the European parliament and council of the European Union with learning outcomes expressed as inventories of Knowledge, Skills and Competences (KSC).23 Education and clinical training requirements for medical physicists are discussed comprehensively in the IAEA HHS 25.17 In depth description and guidance on clinical training of medical physicists specializing in radiation oncology, diagnostic and interventional radiology and nuclear medicine can be found in the IAEA Training Course Series.24–26 Education and training of medical physicist in Europe is also covered in the EFOMP Policy Statement No. 12.27 According to these documents, appropriate QF for medical physicists should consist of adequate education, accredited clinical training in hospitals and CPD programmes in place.
In the IAEA IBSS16 similar accent is given already within the definition: "medical physicists is a health professional with specialist education and training in the concepts and techniques of applying physics in medicine and competent to practise independently in one or more of the subfields (specialties) of medical physics." and further defines that "qualified expertis an individual who, by virtue of certification by appropriate boards or societies, professional licence or academic qualifications and experience, is duly recognized as having expertise in a relevant field of specialization, e.g. medical physics, radiation protection, occupational health, fire safety, quality management or any relevant engineering or safety specialty."
From the definitions in IAEA IBSS16 it can be deducted that qualified expert in medical physics (i.e. MPE) is a health professional having officially recognized specialization in one or more fields of medical physics.
Regarding the subject discussed in this section, new EU BSS Directive14 requires from European Union member states in Article 14, point 2 the following: "Member States shall ensure that arrangements are made for the establishment of education, training and retraining to allow the recognition of radiation protection experts and medical physics experts, as well as occupational health services and dosimetry services, in relation to the type of practice." Also EC RP 17415 presents as the first of the seven final recommendations that "Each Member State should consider designating, through a legal instrument, a Competent Authority specifically for the recognition of the MPE". And recommendation No. 3 of EC RP 17415 clearly links recognition to a proper qualification framework as stated: "The Competent Authority designated for the recognition of the MPE, should use the Qualifications Framework and KSC of the MPE specified in the present document, for the recognition of the MPE to Level 8 of the EQF."
Within this frame, recognition of MPE encompasses also certification and registration of an individual professional. Certification is the formal process by which an authorized body evaluates and recognizes the knowledge and proficiency of an individual, which must satisfy pre-determined requirements or criteria. The process must thus always be based on a proper qualification framework involving both education and clinical training. Professional certification of medical physicists should be formally conducted by competent national boards - designated governmental body or alternatively national medical physics organization authorized by the government. In either case, members of such boards shall be predominantly senior MPEs in order to ensure competency in assessment and decision making procedures. The process of certification should be followed by formal registration of medical physics professionals and the register should be operated at the national level by an official authority (e.g. Ministries of health) or professional medical physics society/organization if an official authorization is given by the government. Re-certification system should be established as well in order to maintain high level of proficiency of medical physics experts (EQF level 8). This is usually achieved via formal CPD programme which should ensure up to date KSC of an individual professional. It is evident that without appropriate education, clinical training and CPD system, it cannot be expected medical physics service to play effective role in radiation medicine. However, in order to have a transparent system of certification and re-certification for MPEs, it needs to be consistent with the certification and recognition system of other health professionals/specialists (physicians, dentists) and Ministries of health have to play a key role in this process.
Situations where a formal QF system is not established yet, are mentioned in IAEA IBSS16 (footnote under definition of medical physicist): "Competence of persons is normally assessed by the State by having a formal mechanism for registration, accreditation or certification of medical physicists in the various specialties (e.g. diagnostic radiology, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine). States that have yet to develop such a mechanism would need to assess the education, training and competence of any individual proposed by the licensee to act as a medical physicist and to decide, on the basis of either international accreditation standards or standards of a State where such an accreditation system exists, whether such an individual could undertake the functions of a medical physicist, within the required specialty."
In countries where the desirable qualification system is not (completely) implemented yet, adequate mechanisms for transition period should be established in order to recognize and certify experienced professionals who have been already continuously employed in the field of medical physics for a specific period.13 In such cases, the certification through an international or European instance may be a solution. In this concern EFOMP has given recognized steps to fostering education and training on a European level, encouraging the establishment of national training centres, networking and cooperative actions within European projects (e.g. EUTEMPE.RX) that may be taken as facilitators towards European certification process.28
Moreover, senior professionals who have been working for a longer period on active duty as medical physicists and are in possession of the core KSC of medical physics should be deemed to satisfy the requirements for recognition as an MPE. For these professionals a "grandparenting clause" might and shall be applied and they should be recognized/certified by competent authorization board as MPEs and not required to meet new legislative, educational or training (specialization) requirements.
Staffing levels in the field of medical physics
Fulfilment of the recommendation regarding the staffing levels in the field of medical physics is of major importance if high quality radiation health care service is to be ensured and the risk of radiological incidents and accidents reduced. Among many reports about incidents/accidents published within the last two decades, several of them can be attributed to shortage of experienced medical physicists.3,4 Many national and international recommendations and other publications regarding the staffing levels in medical physics were published in the past.29–35 Most recent documents about staffing levels for all subspecialties of medical physics have been published as Annex 2 of EC RP 17415 and Staffing in Radiotherapy: An Activity Based Approach IAEA Human Health Reports No. 13 (2015).36
Despite all recommendations, there is still unacceptable understaffing in the field of medical physics in many European countries.18Call for action is addressed to the national authorities (e.g. Ministries of health) and hospital's management to incorporate recommendations regarding medical physics staffing levels into national legislations and standards in close cooperation with professional societies and organizations. Insufficient number of qualified and competent medical physicists – MPEs - will result in lower level of health care, even if requests, recommendations and standards from EU BSS Directive14 and IAEA IBSS16 will be formally transposed into national legislations.
Independent medical physics departments
EU BSS Directive14 defines MPE as: "medical physics expert means an individual or, if provided for in national legislation, a group of individuals, having the knowledge, training and experience to act or give advice on matters relating to radiation physics applied to medical exposure, whose competence in this respect is recognised by the competent authority." In this context "group of individuals" clearly means group of medical physics professionals (e.g. medical physics departments) with appropriate knowledge, skills and competencies in relevant medical physics specialization fields.
It seems reasonable that medical physics service is governed by the size, type and specific needs of the medical facility. In large hospitals medical physicists are often organized into an autonomous medical physics department which provides services to the various clinical departments e.g. diagnostic and interventional radiology, radiation oncology/radiotherapy and nuclear medicine.17 If at least two major medical physics subspecialties are required for clinical work in hospitals, autonomous and independent medical physics departments shall be established as appropriate with well-defined safety and quality management system.37 In many large European hospitals independent medical physics departments have been already established. Examples from developed countries are Institute Gustave Roussy in Paris and Royal Marsden Hospital in London and from less developed countries University Clinical Centre in Sarajevo, which offer services to various clinical departments. Such medical physics departments should competently cover also the field of radiation protection as the fourth major specialty where medical physicists have clear responsibilities, roles and competency.
The added value of a medical physics departments is multiple folded and can be shown through clinical and economic indicators in terms of efficiency and profitability, services quality, improved patient safety and patient satisfaction, increased patient throughput, improved communication and moral of professionals and reduce costs and liabilities. Accredited clinical training for medical physicists and other health professionals (clinicians, technologists, and nurses) is also promoted through such organizational structures that may be constituted as accredited clinical training centres by competent authorities. Importance of integrated medical physics departments was recognized by EFOMP already more than two decades ago in EFOMP Policy No. 5.38
Involvement of MPEs in hospital governance boards
EFOMP has recently published Policy statement no. 15, where guidelines on the role of the medical physicist within the hospital governance board are laid down.39 Explicit recommendation is given regarding the involvement of medical physicists in hospital governance board: "EFOMP recommends that National Member Organisations encourage their Medical Physicists to be closely involved in hospital governance and, where this has not already happened, to seek membership of their hospital's governance boards and its committees, emphasising the importance of such membership for the good of the patients and the hospital as a whole."
Involvement of medical physicists in the hospital governance is presently very limited across Europe and often they are not officially included in management and decision making processes (Figure 1).
We have entered the era of fragile and sensitive economy with constantly growing demands for higher quality and safer health care system especially in the field of radiation medicine, where medical physicists are and should be strongly involved. The work of medical physicists in hospitals goes far beyond routine clinical and research tasks and reach demanding fields from radiation protection of patients, personnel and general public to the selection of expensive and complex equipment used in radiation medicine. Recalling the roles and responsibilities of MPE as defined and requested in the EU BSS Directive14, it is clear that all mentioned tasks cannot possibly be fulfilled, if MPE is not officially involved in the policy and decision making processes in the hospitals.
Legislative and regulative requirements
Throughout this paper the two most important recently published documents were quoted several times: EU BSS Directive14 and IAEA IBSS.16 In the foreword of the second document, the IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano among other said: "Standards are only effective if they are properly applied in practice." And continued: "Regulating safety is a national responsibility, and many States have decided to adopt the IAEA's standards for use in their national regulations. For parties to the various international safety conventions, IAEA standards provide a consistent, reliable means of ensuring the effective fulfilment of obligations under the conventions. The standards are also applied by regulatory bodies and operators around the world to enhance safety in nuclear power generation and in nuclear applications in medicine, industry, agriculture and research."
Any standard, if it is not implemented into national legislations and regulations, followed by a committed introduction into the clinical work, have a limited value. IAEA IBSS are important and extremely well prepared official recommendations from distinguished authority; however, adoption of these standards is, as said by Director General, a national responsibility. It is even binding for those IAEA Member States who are involved in Technical Cooperation (TC) activities with the IAEA.
EU BSS Directive14 on the other hand is legally binding. In Article 106 the obligations for European Union member states are clearly stated: "Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 6 February 2018."
The two above mentioned documents require from national authorities to transpose written standards and recommendations into local legislation. Concerning IAEA IBSS16 national authorities have at least moral obligation to follow and implement recommended safety standards in order to optimize medical diagnosis and treatment of human diseases and to improve human health and well-being. Regarding the EU BSS Directive14, there is a clear and firm legal obligation and responsibility for all European Union countries to adopt national legislation in order to comply with the requirements of the directive.
Work and devotion of medical physicists was nicely described by the esteemed medical physicist Prof. Ervin B. Podgorsak in his speech after acceptance of Coolidge award in 2006:
"A healthy man has a thousand wishes, a sick man has only one. Most of the work of medical physicists is indirectly related to people who have only one wish. We must not forget that, despite our scientific and technical training, our strongest guiding attributes must be compassion for patients and discipline toward our work."
Call for action is addressed to the national authorities, ministries of health and hospitals, to implement the latest international recommendations discussed in this paper without hesitation, completely, with great care and empathy in close cooperation with professional bodies, societies and organizations; it is their moral and legal responsibility. National authorities shall follow this road, above all for the benefit of millions of patients throughout the Europe and all over the world, otherwise "compassion for patients and discipline toward our work" might soon become an insufficient driving force.
1 Podgorsak EB. Radiation Physics for Medical Physicists (Biological and Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010.PodgorsakEBRadiation Physics for Medical Physicists (Biological and Medical Physics Biomedical Engineering)Berlin, HeidelbergSpringer201010.1007/978-3-642-00875-7Search in Google Scholar
2 International Atomic Energy Agency. Lessons learned from accidental exposures in radiotherapy. Safety Reports Series No. 17. Vienna: IAEA; 2000.International Atomic Energy Agency. Lessons learned from accidental exposures in radiotherapySafety Reports Series No. 17ViennaIAEA2000Search in Google Scholar
3 International Commission on Radiological Protection CRP, 2000. Prevention of accidental exposures to patients undergoing radiation therapy. ICRP Publication 86. Ann ICRP 2000.International Commission on Radiological Protection CRP, 2000. Prevention of accidental exposures to patients undergoing radiation therapy. ICRP Publication 86Ann ICRP2000Search in Google Scholar
4 Ortiz López P, Cosset JM, Dunscombe P, Holmberg O, Rosenwald JC, Pinillos Ashton L, et al. Prevention of accidental exposures to patients undergoing radiation therapy. International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 112. Ann ICRP 2009; 39: 1-86.Ortiz LópezPCossetJMDunscombePHolmbergORosenwaldJCPinillos AshtonLPrevention of accidental exposures to patients undergoing radiation therapy. International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 112Ann ICRP200939186Search in Google Scholar
5 Holmberg O. Accident prevention in radiotherapy. Biomed Imaging Interv J 2007; 3(2): e27.HolmbergOAccident prevention in radiotherapyBiomed Imaging Interv J200732e2710.2349/biij.3.2.e27Search in Google Scholar
6 Williams MV. Radiotherapy near misses, incidents and errors: radiotherapy incident at Glasgow. Clin Oncol 2007; 19: 1-3.WilliamsMVRadiotherapy near misses incidents and errors: radiotherapy incident at GlasgowClin Oncol2007191310.1016/j.clon.2006.12.004Search in Google Scholar
7 Boadu M, Rehani MM. Unintended exposure in radiotherapy: identification of prominent causes. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 609-17.BoaduMRehaniMMUnintended exposure in radiotherapy: identification of prominent causesRadiother Oncol2009936091710.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.044Search in Google Scholar
8 Derreumaux S, Etard C, Huet C, Trompier F, Clairand I, Bottollier-Depois JF, et al. Lessons from recent accidents in radiation therapy in France. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2008; 131: 130-5.DerreumauxSEtardCHuetCTrompierFClairandIBottollier-DepoisJFLessons from recent accidents in radiation therapy in FranceRadiat Prot Dosimetry2008131130510.1093/rpd/ncn235Search in Google Scholar
9 Webb S. The contribution, history, impact and future physics in medicine. Acta Oncol 2009; 48: 169-77.WebbSThe contribution history, impact and future physics in medicineActa Oncol2009481697710.1080/02841860802244158Search in Google Scholar
10 Keevil SF. Physics and medicine: a historical perspective. Lancet 2012; 379: 1517-24.KeevilSFPhysics and medicine: a historical perspectiveLancet201237915172410.1016/S0140-6736(11)60282-1Search in Google Scholar
11 Jeraj R. Future of physics in medicine and biology. Acta Oncol 2009; 48: 178-84.JerajRFuture of physics in medicine and biologyActa Oncol2009481788410.1080/0284186080255893819031162Search in Google Scholar
12 Izewska J. Summary of the IAEA "Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives". Med Phys Internat J 2015; 3: 33-4.IzewskaJSummary of the IAEA "Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives"Med Phys Internat J20153334Search in Google Scholar
13 IAEA. Recommendation of the Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives. 7-8 May 2015, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. [Citated 15 Sept 2015)]. Available at: https://rpop.iaea. org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/Documents/Whitepapers/Recommendations_ RER6031_7-8May2015.pdfhttps://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/ Documents/Whitepapers/Recommendations_RER6031_7-8May2015.pdfIAEA. Recommendation of the Regional Meeting on Medical Physics in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives. 7-8 May 2015, IAEA, Vienna, Austria. [Citated 15 Sept 2015)]Available athttps://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/Documents/Whitepapers/Recommendations_RER6031_7-8May2015.pdfhttps://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/Documents/Whitepapers/Recommendations_RER6031_7-8May2015.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
14 Council of the European Union. (2013). Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Official Journal L-13 of 17.01.2014.Council of the European Union2013Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom.Official Journal L-13 of 17.01.2014Search in Google Scholar
15 European Commission. European Guidelines on Medical Physics Experts. Radiation Protection No 174; 2014.European Commission. European Guidelines on Medical Physics ExpertsRadiation Protection No 1742014Search in Google Scholar
16 International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards, General Safety Requirements Part 3. Wienna: IAEA; 2014.International Atomic Energy AgencyRadiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety, StandardsGeneral Safety Requirements Part 3WiennaIAEA2014Search in Google Scholar
17 IAEA. Roles and Responsibilities and Education and Training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical Physicsts. IAEA Human Health Series No. 25. Vienna: IAEA; 2013.IAEARoles and Responsibilities and Education and Training Requirements for Clinically Qualified Medical PhysicstsIAEA Human Health Series No. 25.ViennaIAEA2013Search in Google Scholar
18 Damilakis J, Do Carmo Lopes M. Overview of medical physics status and future prospects: results of survey in Europe. In: Regional meeting on Medical Physics in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives". Wienna, 7th–8th May 2015. Wienna: IAEA; 2015.DamilakisJDo Carmo LopesMOverview of medical physics status and future prospects: results of survey in EuropeRegional meeting on Medical Physics in Europe: Current Status and Future Perspectives"Wienna, 7th–8th May 2015WiennaIAEA2015Search in Google Scholar
19 IAEA , WHO. Bonn call-for action. Joint position statement by the IAEA, WHO. [Citated 16 Sept 2015)]. Available at: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/medical_exposure/Bonn_call_action.pdfIAEA , WHO. Bonn call-for action. Joint position statement by the IAEA, WHO. [Citated 16 Sept 2015)]Available athttp://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/medical_exposure/Bonn_call_action.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
20 International Standard Classification of Occupations. ISCO 08, Vol I. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2012.International Standard Classification of OccupationsISCO 08, Vol I.GenevaInternational Labour Organization2012Search in Google Scholar
21 Smith PHS, Nusslin F. Benefits to medical physics from the recent inclusion of medical physicists in the international classification of standard occupations. ISCO 08. Med Phys Internat J 2014; 1: 10-14.SmithPHSNusslinFBenefits to medical physics from the recent inclusion of medical physicists in the international classification of standard occupations. ISCO 08Med Phys Internat J201411014Search in Google Scholar
22 Council of the European Union. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/EURATOM. Official Journal L-180 of 09. 07. 1997.Council of the European Union. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure and repealing Directive 84/466/EURATOMOfficial Journal L-180 of 09. 071997Search in Google Scholar
23 European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Recommendation 2008/C 111/01 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Official Journal of the European Union 6. 5. 2008.European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Recommendation 2008/C 111/01 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong LearningOfficial Journal of the European Union 6. 52008Search in Google Scholar
24 International Atomic Energy Agency. Clinical training of medical physicists specializing in radiation oncology. Training Course Series 37. Vienna: IAEA; 2010.International Atomic Energy Agency. Clinical training of medical physicists specializing in radiation oncologyTraining Course Series 37.ViennaIAEA2010Search in Google Scholar
25 International Atomic Energy Agency. Clinical Training of Medical Physicists Specializing in Diagnostic Radiology. Training Course Series 47. Vienna: IAEA; 2010.International Atomic Energy Agency. Clinical Training of Medical Physicists Specializing in Diagnostic RadiologyTraining Course Series 47.ViennaIAEA2010Search in Google Scholar
26 International Atomic Energy Agency. Clinical Training of Medical Physicists Specializing in Nuclear Medicine. Training Course Series 50. Vienna: IAEA; 2010.International Atomic Energy Agency. Clinical Training of Medical Physicists Specializing in Nuclear MedicineTraining Course Series 50.ViennaIAEA2010Search in Google Scholar
27 Eudaldo T, Olsen K. European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics policy statement no.12: The present status of medical physics education and training in Europe. New perspectives and EFOMP recommendations. Phys Med 2010; 26: 1-5.EudaldoTOlsenKEuropean Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics policy statement no.12: The present status of medical physics education and training in Europe. New perspectives and EFOMP recommendationsPhys Med2010261510.1016/j.ejmp.2009.02.00519362032Search in Google Scholar
28 EUTEMPE.RX, European training and education for medical physics experts in radiology. [Citated 18 Sept 2015)]. Available at: http://www.eutempe-rx. eu/EUTEMPE.RX, European training and education for medical physics experts in radiology. [Citated 18 Sept 2015)]Available athttp://www.eutempe-rx. eu/Search in Google Scholar
29 European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics. Policy statement no. 7: criteria for staffing levels in a medical physics department. Phys Med 1997; 13: 187-94.European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics. Policy statement no. 7: criteria for staffing levels in a medical physics departmentPhys Med19971318794Search in Google Scholar
30 International Atomic Energy Agency. Setting up a radiotherapy programme: clinical, medical physics, radiation protection and safety aspects. Vienna: IAEA; 2008.International Atomic Energy Agency.Setting up a radiotherapy programme: clinical, medical physics, radiation protection and safety aspectsViennaIAEA2008Search in Google Scholar
31 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Recommendations for the Provision of a Physics Service to Radiotherapy. IPEM 2009; York, UK.Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. Recommendations for the Provision of a Physics Service to RadiotherapyIPEM2009York, UKSearch in Google Scholar
32 SSRMP. Medical physicist staffing for nuclear medicine and dose-intensive X-ray procedures. Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Strahlenbiologie und Medizinische Physik. Report No. 20. 2009.SSRMP. Medical physicist staffing for nuclear medicine and dose-intensive X-ray proceduresSchweizerische Gesellschaft für Strahlenbiologie und Medizinische Physik. Report No. 20.2009Search in Google Scholar
33 Klein EE. A grid to facilitate physics staffing justification. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11: 263-73.KleinEEA grid to facilitate physics staffing justificationJ Appl Clin Med Phys2010112637310.1120/jacmp.v11i1.2987571977220160679Search in Google Scholar
34 Battista JJ, Clark BG, Patterson MS, Beaulieu L, Sharpe MB, Schreiner LJ, et al. Medical physics staffing for radiation oncology: a decade of experience in Ontario, Canada. Can J Appl Clin Med Phys 2012; 13: 93-110.BattistaJJClarkBGPattersonMSBeaulieuLSharpeMBSchreinerLJMedical physics staffing for radiation oncology: a decade of experience in Ontario, CanadaCan J Appl Clin Med Phys2012139311010.1120/jacmp.v13i1.3704571614322231223Search in Google Scholar
35 Lievens Y, Defourny N, Coffey M, Borras JM, Dunscombe P, Slotman B, et al. Radiotherapy staffing in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey. Radioth Oncol 2014; 112: 178-86.LievensYDefournyNCoffeyMBorrasJMDunscombePSlotmanBRadiotherapy staffing in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO surveyRadioth Oncol20141121788610.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.03425300718Search in Google Scholar
36 International Atomic Energy Agency. Staffing in radiotherapy: an activity based approach IAEA. Human Health Reports No. 13; Vienna: IAEA; 2015. [Citated 19 Sept 2015]. Available at: http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10800/Staffing-in-Radiotherapy-An-Activity-Based-ApproachInternational Atomic Energy Agency. Staffing in radiotherapy: an activity based approach IAEAHuman Health Reports No. 13ViennaIAEA2015[Citated 19 Sept 2015]. Available athttp://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/10800/Staffing-in-Radiotherapy-An-Activity-Based-ApproachSearch in Google Scholar
37 Christofides S, European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics. The European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics policy statement No. 13: recommended guidelines on the development of safety and quality management systems for medical physics departments. Physica Medica 2009, 25: 161-5.ChristofidesSEuropean Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics. The European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics policy statement No. 13: recommended guidelines on the development of safety and quality management systems for medical physics departmentsPhysica Medica200925161510.1016/j.ejmp.2008.11.00219059797Search in Google Scholar
38 European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics. Policy statement Nr. 5. Departments of medical physics - advantages, oganisation and management Phys Med 1995; 11: 126-8.European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics. Policy statement Nr. 5. Departments of medical physics - advantages, oganisation and managementPhys Med1995111268Search in Google Scholar
39 Christofides S, Sharp P. The European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics Policy Statement no. 15: recommended guidelines on the role of the medical physicist within the hospital governance board. Phys Med 2015; 31: 201-3.ChristofidesSSharpPThe European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics Policy Statement no. 15: recommended guidelines on the role of the medical physicist within the hospital governance boardPhys Med201531201310.1016/j.ejmp.2015.02.00125703010Search in Google Scholar
Does concurrent gynaecological surgery affect infectious complications rate after mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction?
Effects of dynamic contrast enhancement on transition zone prostate cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1
Pancreatic islets implanted in an irreversible electroporation generated extracellular matrix in the liver
Ultrasonography of peripheral nerve tumours: a case series
Effects of gold fiducial marker implantation on tumor control and toxicity in external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer
Awake craniotomy for operative treatment of brain gliomas – experience from University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Estimating exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields near high-voltage power lines and assessment of possible increased cancer risk among Slovenian children and adolescents
Recommended articles from Trend MD
Plan your remote conference with Sciendo
Sciendo is a De Gruyter company
About Sciendo
Publishing and Ethical Policies
Copyright: © 2023 Sciendo


West Midlands Surveys Ltd is an independent company of Chartered Surveyors with an office based within the Boldmere area on the outskirts of Birmingham city centre. The company was formed in 2006 with a practice covering the West Midlands area.
Our team of surveyors has over 25 years of experience in the surveying profession within the West Midlands.
West Midlands Surveys Ltd is well known for our professionalism and propriety with which we conduct our business. We strive for continuous improvement across all our areas of expertise, and search continuously for new and better ways of helping our clients achieve their property goals.
We offer a range of residential survey and valuation services to both private sellers and buyers and to the institutional lending market.
Our locally based team's specific market knowledge, coupled with our clear, impartial advice will enable you to have complete confidence in our service.
"In everything we do, we aim for quality in our advice and customer care."


All the scholarship amount is applicable on Academic Fees only.
Only one scholarship will be applicable for an Academic Year.
Pointer system to be maintain for availing Scholarships for subsequent years.


text:
Home Featured From the Cover
Hillcrest bids farewell to Nicholls
in From the Cover, Hillcrest, Neighborhoods, News, Top Story
(l to r) Sen. Marty Block and Benjamin Nicholls at the HBA annual meeting: Block honored Nicholls with a State proclamation. (Photo by SDUN)
HBA welcomes new executive director & board members
By Morgan M. Hurley | SDUN Assistant Editor
Benjamin Nicholls, outgoing executive director of the Hillcrest Business Association (HBA), chose the organization's annual meeting and elections on Tuesday, Oct. 8 as his final act. The event was held at Heat Bar & Kitchen, located at 3797 Park Blvd. in Hillcrest.
Nicholls, the HBA staff and newly hired Executive Director Sonya Stauffer, as well as current board members, other active community business owners, and those interested in joining the HBA board, all assembled for a small program that included attending dignitaries, food, drinks and a celebratory cake from Babycakes.
All HBA members in good standing who have paid their BID assessment as of Sept. 1 were allowed to vote and provided ballots upon check-in. Those unable to attend the annual meeting were encouraged to vote by proxy.
Heat Bar & Kitchen owner Sam Khorish hosted the event on his side patio, providing a buffet-style mixture of charcuterie, gourmet cheeses and fruit. In addition, a selection of Robert Mondavi wines were poured and various plates of specialty food items were also passed through the crowd. Khorish was later elected to the board.
After a short mixer and voting period that would determine the new business representatives for the Hillcrest neighborhood, Nicholls greeted the crowd. He thanked the host, introduced Stauffer and then announced the dignitaries in attendance – which included Interim Mayor Todd Gloria and State Sen. Marty Block – and also made it clear why the meeting was taking place on that particular stretch of Park Boulevard.
"Sam [Khorish] and his business people have prompted a revival here of the Egyptian Quarter," Nicholls said. "You may know that this part of town has a lot of historic buildings that celebrate the Egyptian revival movement – pretty exciting stuff – and they are going to have movie nights … banners … and do some lighting improvements. You're going to really feel that this is the Egyptian Quarter once again."
Stauffer, who took over as executive director on Wednesday, Oct. 9, the day after the annual meeting, was selected for the job after what Nicholls identified as "a pretty exhaustive search" that began once he tendered his resignation to the board on Aug. 13.
Putting on his District Three cap, Gloria stepped up to address the crowd, and said he wanted to personally thank Nicholls and outgoing president Glenn Younger "for their service. … Both have done such amazing work here in Hillcrest.
"It is a great community as a baseline, so it's hard to go even beyond the fabulous level that you started with, but you have," he said, referring to the outgoing leaders.
"It's hard to keep that momentum, because [Hillcrest has] always been a leader in our City, but it continues to do that. … So guys, thank you for your leadership. And Sonya I am looking forward to working with you. No pressure," Gloria said to animated applause.
The interim mayor then introduced Sen. Block, who represents District 39, of which Hillcrest is part.
HBA's new Executive Director Sonya Stauffer (Photo by SDUN)
"We are incredibly fortunate in San Diego to have Todd Gloria," Block said. "After what City Hall … and the City has been through, to have someone so positive, so upbeat, so energetic and so bright in the mayor's office is the best thing that's happened to San Diego, so thank you Todd."
Block explained that though representing Hillcrest was new to him, his local staff of five were making sure the issues were being covered, and noted they are currently working to free up the Department of Motor Vehicles parking lot for after-hours use.
"I'm following in the very difficult footsteps of Christine Kehoe, and her predecessor was Dede Alpert, her predecessor was Lucy Killea: really incredible, strong progressive women," he said. "I'm trying to do what I can to get around."
Block then presented Nicholls with a resolution from the State Senate of California, honoring his contributions to both San Diego and the state.
"I really appreciate this," Nicholls said. "I am not a local, so to get something like this from the great state of California really means a lot to me."
The HBA board consists of 14 positions, each with two-year terms. Every year half of the board positions are up for reelection. This year a total of eight vacancies were put to a vote, seven two-year positions expiring October 2015 and one partial, due to expire October 2014.
A minimum number of 40 votes are required for the election, a number that is based upon a percentage of the entire HBA membership. Between the votes cast on site at the meeting and those filed by proxy, that requirement was met and the new board was announced.
Of the eight individuals nominated, all eight were elected and that included five new members: Morgan Freeman of Edith Ernestine; Ryan Bedrosian of Rich's San Diego; Michael Rosensteel of San Diego Community News Network; and Khorish. In addition, Alphonso Tsang was elected to replace Alonzo Ortiz, both from Comerica Bank.
Members who were reelected to another term were: Jillian DiCola of Hollywood Tans, Michael Brennan of Urban Green and Delour Younan of Hillcrest Shell.
The 2013 board then had their last executive session, voting on the executive branch of the nonprofit's governing body. New officers included Johnathan Hale of Hale Media, president; Delour as vice president; Cecelia Moreno of Crest Cafe, treasurer; and Eddie Reynoso of MO's Universe, secretary. All officers are previous board members.
Also voted on by the general membership at the annual meeting were HBA representatives to the Uptown Community Parking District. Moreno was re-elected to another three-year term, Megan Gamwell was elected to take over the seat previously held by Nicholls, and Ryan Devereaux of Snooze, an A.M. Eatery was also elected to a three-year term.
The HBA board meets the second Tuesday of every month. The next meeting is Nov. 12 from 5 – 6:30 p.m. at the Joyce Beers Community Center, 3900 Vermont St. For more information, visit hillcrestbia.org or call 619-299-3330.
Hillcrest holds emergency town hall
Push continues for San Diego AIDS Memorial
Painting Hillcrest a new shade
Strolling South Park
Friends tied together by double bass
Linda Bounds on being boundless

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


rib eye steak price per pound t bone steak.
rib eye steak price per pound dry aged grass fed bone in steak.
rib eye steak price per pound prime beef.
rib eye steak price per pound why beef.
rib eye steak price per pound honestly some of the best beef eaten lately melt in your mouth tender and rich enough that one is satisfying the price so bad if you consider.
rib eye steak price per pound grass fed rib eye steaks.
rib eye steak price per pound steak premium cut choice regular price.
rib eye steak price per pound comparing meat prices and 5 ways to save money on meat.
rib eye steak price per pound the the price per pound increases this is in addition to the unique flavor that dry aging produces all things combined got a steak experience.
rib eye steak price per pound 7 beef per or or per pound beef is generally higher priced than beef.
rib eye steak price per pound what a tomahawk steak looks like in a fancy restaurant.
rib eye steak price per pound.
rib eye steak price per pound i am buying my first standing rib roast i see it is available at ribs 1 3 or 4 7 can someone tell me which to buy and what the difference is.
rib eye steak price per pound rib eye tomahawk steaks.
rib eye steak price per pound this grilled steak with cilantro lime only takes minutes to make.
rib eye steak price per pound is the rib eye or new a better cut.
rib eye steak price per pound oftentimes these are sold as standing rib roasts usually around at a restaurant you will see them touted as prime rib this is just a name.
rib eye steak price per pound how to butcher a pork loin from.
rib eye steak price per pound beef prices soar.
rib eye steak price per pound gallery.
rib eye steak price per pound whole peeled beef tenderloin.


text:
Glenn Close Suggests It "Might Be Cool To Never" Win An Oscar After 7 Nominations
Popular adage advises people aim for the moon so they'll still land among the stars. Certainly, celebrities such as Glenn Close landed up among celestial fame. But for all these times rocketed into further success, she never officially netted an Oscar – just nominations.
That might not be a bad thing, Close suggested, when asked about all these near-misses. Pete Davidson spoke with Close for Variety's Actors on Actors special. The interview broached the subject of Oscar nominations and how that might turn into a formal win finally. Close seems content with things as they are.
Glenn Close came very close to some Oscar wins
Glenn Close has had many nominations but less wins / Everett Collection
Oscar nominee Glenn Close received her first nomination with 1983's The World According to Garp. The second came with The Big Chill (1984) and then The Natural (1985) made for three. Fatal Attraction brought Oscar nomination number four, followed by Dangerous Liaisons the very next year. 2012 brought Albert Nobbs and the sixth nomination before 2019's The Wife made for seven nominations.
RELATED: 'Cats' And John Travolta Win Razzie Awards For Worst Performances
When speaking to ABC News, Close considered all these nearly consecutive nominations an honor. "I'm very proud of the times that my peers have felt that my performance was worthy of attention," she explained.
Turning "almosts" into something cool
Could 2020's Hillbilly Elegy be the one to secure a win? / Everett Collection
"What can we do to get you an Oscar?" asked Pete Davidson with Variety. "We have to get the internet to help because you deserve seven!" For Glenn Close's part, she counts her blessings where she sees them. To that question, she countered, "Is it better to be wheeled out in a wheelchair and get the lifetime achievement award? You don't have to make a speech." Betty White echoed a similar sentiment when she voiced her dislike for the Red Carpet, so they're in good company together with that mindset.
"It's beyond me," she went on. "I don't know what to say about that. I just have to keep doing what's good. You're fulfilled by your work, and that's the process to me. It's what feeds my soul, but it really is nice when other people like it." With a bit of humor, she added, "It might be cool to never get one. I wouldn't mind being wheeled out when I'm old and drooling, and I have a gray wig to cover my bald head."
Her most recent credit comes from 2020's Hillbilly Elegy, directed by Ron Howard. Close would find it bittersweet if this ends up the one that gets an official Oscar Award, as it would be "sad if it happens when we're all unable to celebrate in a room together. I mean, that would be ironic, but that's what life does, right?" Here's hoping for proper recognition anyway!


GATE Online e-Learning study Material includes a interactive method of studying & remembering. GATE Syllabus for Life Sciences and Biotechnology is very vast with close to a 100 Topics which require in depth knowledge of the subject. Adding to that, the competetion which you will face from other aspirants.
GATE Online e-Learning helps you not just read the topics in a interactive way but also helps you to remember faster & recall quicker. We have added loads of animations, powerpoints, textual notes, concept review tests and test series, so that your learning is not just interactive but also helps you recollect the concepts faster.
Why You Need GATE 2019 Online e-Learning?
It helps you build concepts.
Our Video Recorded Classes, powerpoints and animations ensure, you understand every topic in depth.
Its Interactivity empowers you to remember & recall faster.
It helps you measure your improvements via Concept review Tests & AIMGATE 2015 All India Mock Test series.
It gives an added advantage of Interacting with experts and clearing your doubts.
Got More Questions? Call us at 1800-200-3757 or chat with us. Buy Now!!


text:
Why does criticism of Bill 21 sting?
Excellent thread by Jonathan Montpetit on responses to criticism of the Loi sur la laïcité de l'État (Bill 21).
Kevin, Chris, Jack, and 5 others are discussing. Toggle Comments
This! Thank for sharing that.
Francois Legault said last week that Bill 21 is a violation of the Charter of Rights.
I was going to say Raj's use of the word "discriminatory" should be uncontroversial, since "to discriminate" merely means to "recognize a distinction; differentiate".
But then again, the OED describes "discriminatory" as "making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." We discriminate by age a lot. If you're 17.9 you can't buy beer, but if you're 18.1 you can. That's making a distinction by age. But is it unfair or prejudicial? Most would say not. Is Law 21 unfair or prejudicial? That's a value judgment. So indeed categorizing it as "discriminatory" is perhaps a phrasing an unbiased journalist should not use.
I'll also note that the 3 specific instances the OED gives (race, age, or sex) are things that are unchoosable and immutable. Religion is not such a thing. Discriminating based on something someone has no control over is a whole different level than discriminating based on something someone chooses or thinks. Certainly both can be wrong, but the former much more so. People conflate these a lot.
Chris, you do hammer on the idea that religion is a purely free individual choice. For many people it is not. It's part of who they are as individuals and as members of a culture and a community.
Michael Black 11:25 on 2019-10-09 Permalink
But that's where the concept of a "gay gene" comes in. One group is against homosexuality, and bases it on "it's a choice" even though nobody fusses over what type of ice cream someone likes. So a big search for something to explain why it's not a choice. It"s far simpler to challenge the concept that discrimination is okay.
You're again diminishing people's connection to religion. For many people, it comes early, hence can't be a choice, But once you treat it as a "mere choice" it allows you to dismiss religion, without regard for the people who are religious.
"Let's cut off those heathens' hair" said the Europeans, and endless trauma resulted, the results still affecting many people. Long hair on the cousins may be "a choice" but that doesn't make it okay to do so.
Age discrimination may be similar, but generally there is some real basis, either to protect someone too young, or protect people from someone whose faculties may not be so fast. Banning religious symbols is discrimination since it targets specific types, and at best the excuse is that it's being done "for their own good" as if they were children and need adult supervision.
Arguing semantics is in this case just a means of making the discrimination acceptable.
One way to challenge the bill is to vote NDP, since having Jagmeet Singh as prime minister would hopefully make people think about how they see people who "are different" and might outrage some to show their discrimination. His comments moments after Trudeau's blackface photo makes Jagmeet Singh a good leader in this regard. There is no difference between my Metis great, great grandmother Henrietta feeling the results of discrimination and how someone black or native or wearing a hijab or other religious symbol feels the discrimination against themselves.
Tim S. 11:37 on 2019-10-09 Permalink
This is going to sound more relativistic than I like, but it's also not really a choice if you happen to think it's true – did you choose to be an atheist, Chris, or is it a position that best accords with the facts as you see them?
Personally, I would say that the Bill is discriminatory because it doesn't target religion as such – it's not asking civil servants to sign a declaration that they hold no religious beliefs (though I wouldn't be surprised if that's next). Rather, it discriminates between religions which have symbolic clothing as part of their beliefs, and those that don't.
@Chris
Legally we are not bound by the dictionary: we are bound by the Charter, which states that it is illegal and unlawful to discriminate against religion.
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Someone could attempt to argue that banning religious symbols is a "reasonable limit" that could be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", as allowed by Article 1, but that's a very, very steep bar to hurdle, one that nobody in our provincial government has even tried to leap.
Now the CAQ has taken it upon themselves to alter the Quebec Charter of human rights, deciding to add "Whereas the Québec nation considers State laicity to be of fundamental importance;" to the preamble in order to justify Bill 21, since even the Quebec Charter contends in Article 1.3 that
Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
But that opens up a whole can of worms about how a province that is ostensibly secular has so many churches, state funerals in churches, and places and streets named after saints.
Schools named after saints! If you can't wear a hijab in a school, it shouldn't be allowed to be named after religion either.
I don't really object to state funerals held in churches for people who deserve a state funeral but were also religious, though of course this is rank hypocrisy if you are okay with this and also Bill 21.
I shouldn't post this, but I will. The CBC has a story about a shofar that was in Auschwitz, which apparently gave some hope. And when the prisoners were marched out, someone who was too ill gave it to the man who kept it until the camp he was marched to was liberated.
It's a sad story that makes me cry. But also a reminded of a time when a religion was discriminated against, to the fullest extent, and when people still wouldn't deny their religion. Yes, some children were sent away to hide as Catholic or Protestant, but that wasn't a denial of religion, it was an attempt to keep their children safe.
It doesn't work. Discrimination against religjon tends to make people resist, so it doesn't go away. I think I've said it before, my friend Rusty says he doesn't believe in religion, but he won't deny his Jewishness, in part because of what happened in WWII. I would rather be classified as Jewish than see such things happen again, and I'd hope I had the strength to stand up to such forces.
Again, similar things happened to the distant cousins, that desire to erase them because they were different. I can find a quote from Sitting Bull where he says be knew James Ross, Henrietta's brother. Louis Riel, who is distantly related by marriage (but in Red River enough interaction that the distance seems less) of course stood up to Canada. And distant cousins are on the Colville reservation in Washington state, where Chief Joseph went after he said he'd fight no more forever (and I think I have relatives related to him). Three of the most visible instances of native resistance intersect with my family. It's not an exception, it's an understanding of the harm done with discrimination.
I don't care if people don't believe in religion, I really don't. But that's not a reason to dismiss those who do believe.
As an atheist and secular person who does not care for institutionalized religion, I also understand that religion is a human trait and recognize that people have a right to their own beliefs and to practice their religion free from hostility and intolerance in our society. One of the reasons is that religion is so closely intertwined with culture.
What I don't understand is the nit-picking from those who seem to feign objectivity of this so-called law, but ultimately do not contribute to any constructive discussion of BILL 21. I feel that they have not experienced any real discrimination in their lives.
Jack 19:48 on 2019-10-09 Permalink
Montpetit tweet was inspired what he read in the Journal. In QEB radio Richard Martineau balado is entitled,
"Je suis sur le bord de repartir le FLQ". One of the things that people need to realize is the dominant message in Quebecs franco media is populist and dangerous. Bill 21 is what they have given birth to, more is coming.
Kate, it's not binary. Do you not agree that religion is more of a "free individual choice" than skin colour? I personally know numerous people that have switched from religious to irreligious, don't you? Know anyone that has changed skin colour? Changed race? It is a pet peeve of mine I guess. People often treat religious belief like it's totally unchangeable.
Michael, yes, for many people, religion comes early, so indeed it's not a choice at first. But eventually children develop the mental capacity to decide to continue to believe or not, that's when the choice starts.
Kevin, yes, someone (not me) could argue it's a "reasonable limit". The European Court of Human Rights for example has upheld full face veil bans in public. Something much harsher than 21.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to argue that I personally do or don't think 21 is discriminatory or not, I was saying that a journalist trying to be unbiased shouldn't presuppose it.
If Bill 21 put people who wear religious symbols in an internment camp nobody would deny it was discriminatory.
The discrimination of Bill 21 is self-evident in that it prevents people from certain religions from working in certain jobs.
The hypocrisy is that the legislation specifically does not affect the religious belief that is shared by the majority of Quebecers.
← Review of Momenta
Three food halls opening soon →