JOURNAL DESCRIPTION
The Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety journal ISSN 1024-6177 was founded in January 1956 (before December 30, 1993 it was entitled Medical Radiology, ISSN 0025-8334). In 2018, the journal received Online ISSN: 2618-9615 and was registered as an electronic online publication in Roskomnadzor on March 29, 2018. It publishes original research articles which cover questions of radiobiology, radiation medicine, radiation safety, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and scientific reviews. In general the journal has more than 30 headings and it is of interest for specialists working in thefields of medicine¸ radiation biology, epidemiology, medical physics and technology. Since July 01, 2008 the journal has been published by State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency. The founder from 1956 to the present time is the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, and from 2008 to the present time is the Federal Medical Biological Agency.
Members of the editorial board are scientists specializing in the field of radiation biology and medicine, radiation protection, radiation epidemiology, radiation oncology, radiation diagnostics and therapy, nuclear medicine and medical physics. The editorial board consists of academicians (members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS)), the full member of Academy of Medical Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, corresponding members of the RAS, Doctors of Medicine, professor, candidates and doctors of biological, physical mathematics and engineering sciences. The editorial board is constantly replenished by experts who work in the CIS and foreign countries.
Six issues of the journal are published per year, the volume is 13.5 conventional printed sheets, 88 printer’s sheets, 1.000 copies. The journal has an identical full-text electronic version, which, simultaneously with the printed version and color drawings, is posted on the sites of the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL) and the journal's website. The journal is distributed through the Rospechat Agency under the contract № 7407 of June 16, 2006, through individual buyers and commercial structures. The publication of articles is free.
The journal is included in the List of Russian Reviewed Scientific Journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. Since 2008 the journal has been available on the Internet and indexed in the RISC database which is placed on Web of Science. Since February 2nd, 2018, the journal "Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety" has been indexed in the SCOPUS abstract and citation database.
Brief electronic versions of the Journal have been publicly available since 2005 on the website of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal: http://www.medradiol.ru. Since 2011, all issues of the journal as a whole are publicly available, and since 2016 - full-text versions of scientific articles. Since 2005, subscribers can purchase full versions of other articles of any issue only through the National Electronic Library. The editor of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal in accordance with the National Electronic Library agreement has been providing the Library with all its production since 2005 until now.
The main working language of the journal is Russian, an additional language is English, which is used to write titles of articles, information about authors, annotations, key words, a list of literature.
Since 2017 the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety has switched to digital identification of publications, assigning to each article the identifier of the digital object (DOI), which greatly accelerated the search for the location of the article on the Internet. In future it is planned to publish the English-language version of the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety for its development. In order to obtain information about the publication activity of the journal in March 2015, a counter of readers' references to the materials posted on the site from 2005 to the present which is placed on the journal's website. During 2015 - 2016 years on average there were no more than 100-170 handlings per day. Publication of a number of articles, as well as electronic versions of profile monographs and collections in the public domain, dramatically increased the number of handlings to the journal's website to 500 - 800 per day, and the total number of visits to the site at the end of 2017 was more than 230.000.
The two-year impact factor of RISC, according to data for 2017, was 0.439, taking into account citation from all sources - 0.570, and the five-year impact factor of RISC - 0.352.
Issues journals
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 5. P. 101–104
Clinical Case of Treatment of Stage IV Esophageal Cancer
I.A. Strikanova, Ju.V. Gumeneckaja, S.O. Dzhabrailova, K.S. Makarova, T.A. Kireeva
A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Center, Obninsk, Russia
Contact person: Irina Alecsandrovna Strikanova : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
In 2018 in Russian Federation more than 500 thousand new cases of cancer were found, including 8000 cases with malignant tumors of esophagus and more than 30 % of patients have the IV stage.
Esophageal cancer takes the 6-th place in death causes connected to cancer in the world and it is still one of the main global problems in medical care. Oncologists face the problem of the most difficult choice in treatment tactics for spread stages of disease. In this situation it is recommended to provide combined treatment (surgery, neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy).
Definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (without surgery) is used for patients with unrespectable esophageal tumor.
In this article we present clinical case of successful treatment of a patient with metastatic esophageal cancer. The patient got chemoradiotherapy in 2017 and after control checkup in November 2019 remission was registered. After provided treatment stopping of pain syndrome and dysphagia, food passage through esophagus was restored. The patient notes good life quality, he is physically active and socially adapted.
Key words: esophageal cancer, radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, palliative treatment
For citation: Strikanova IA, Gumeneckaja JuV, Dzhabrailova SO, Makarova KS, Kireeva TA. Clinical Case of Treatment of Stage IV Esophageal Cancer. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(5):101-104.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-5-101-104
References
1. Kaprin AD, Starinskiy VV, Petrova GV. State of Cancer Care in Russia in 2018. Moscow, P. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute Publ., 2019. P. 27-31 (In Russian).
2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018;68;6:394–424.
3. Smyth EC, Lagergren J, Fitzgerald RC, et al. Oesophageal Cancer. Nature Reviews Disease Primers. 2017;3:17-48.
4. Alsop BR, Sharm P. Esophageal Cancer // Gastroenterology Clinics of North America. 2016;45;3:399–412.
5. Tryakin AA, Besova NS, Volkov NM, et al. Practical Recommendations for Drug Treatment of Esophageal Cancer and Esophageal-Gastric Junction. Malignant Tumors: Practical Recommendations RUSSCO. 2018;8:260–272 (In Russian).
6. Tham JE, Tharian B, Allen PB, et al. Oesophageal Stents for Potentially Curable Oesophageal Cancer–A Bridge to Surgery? Ulster Medical Journal. 2019;88;1:10–14.
7. Hulshof MCCM, van Laarhoven HWM. Chemoradiotherapy in Tumours of the Oesophagus and Gastro-Oesophageal Junction. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology. 2016;30:551-563.
8. Greally M, Ilson DH. Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: who, when, and what? Cancer. 2018;124:4276–4278.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 23.12.2020.
Accepted for publication: 20.01.2021.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 4. P. 105–112
Radiation Risk Communication Problems in the Context of Promoting a Public Dialogue
E. Melikhova, I. Abalkina
Nuclear Safety Institute, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Elena Mikhailovna Melikhova: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
The persisting gap between the scientific knowledge of the effects of radiation and the public perception of radiation risk remains a source of potential problems not only in connection with probable radiation accidents, but also in the implementation of new long-term solutions, such as siting of radioactive waste disposal facilities, the nuclear-fuel cycle (NFC) closure and others. The authors analyze why, in the 30 years after the Chernobyl accident, nuclear industry specialists and radiological community failed to change this situation substantially and reflect on what one can do in the future. The authors attribute the low efficiency of the traditional approach “explaining risk in simple language", on the one hand, to the known limitations of scientific and technical rationalism in matters relating to human health, and, on the other hand, to internal inconsistency of modern approaches to regulating radiation risks in the range of fundamental scientific uncertainty. The authors present two directions to move forward. The first one is to involve social science specialists, who study the patterns of public perception of health risks (risk communication experts), in a dialogue with the public. The second one is the recognition by the professional radiological community of their moral responsibility for “side” social effects arising from the insufficient social adaptation of risk management recommendations offered to the authorities, with the subsequent transition to a value-oriented risk communication strategy.
Key words: nuclear power, public dialogue, radiation risk communication, radiation accident, moral values, professional ethics
For citation: Melikhova EM, Abalkina IL. Radiation Risk Communication Problems in the Context of Promoting a Public Dialogue. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety 2021;66(5):105-112.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-5-105-112
References
1. The state of the environment and inclusion in environmental practices. About the environmental situation, its changes, reasons for concern and environmental behavior. The Public Opinion Foundation (FOM, Russia). Online publication at the FOM website. 2018. (In Russian.) Available from: https://fom.ru/Obraz-zhizni/14146.
2. Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM). February 06, 2019 press-release No.3871. (In Russian.) Available from: https://wciom.ru/index.php?id =236&uid=9544.
3. Chernobyl disaster. The Levada Center. April 22, 2016 and July 17, 2019 press releases. (In Russian.) Available from: https://www.levada.ru.
4. Russians' fear of a new Chernobyl has fallen to a historic minimum. July 17, 2019 online publication on the RBC website. (In Russian.) Available from: https://www.rbc.ru/society/17/07/2019/5d2db1a89a7947ffb6a3569a.
5. Nuclear power. Poll "FOMnibus" April 23-24, 2016. The Public Opinion Foundation (FOM). Dominants No. 16, April 28, 2016. (In Russian.) Available from: https://bd.fom.ru/report/map/dominant/dom_1616/d161610.
6. Melikhova EM, Birkina EM, Pershina Yu. A. On the issue of certain mechanisms of social amplification of risk in media coverage of the Fukushima NPP nuclear accident. // Med. radiology and radiation safety. 2013; 58(4): 5-16. Russian.
7. Weart S.R. The rise of nuclear fear. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard Univ. Press; 2012. 367 p.
8. If nuclear power is so safe, why are we so afraid of it? June 11, 2018 online publication on the Forbes’ website. Available from: https://www.forbes.com /sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/11/if-nuclear-power-is-so-safe-why-are-we-so-afraid-of-it/#64ac85256385.
9. Ropeik D. The rise of nuclear fear – how we learned to fear the radiation. June 15, 2012 online publication on the Forbes’ website. Available from: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-rise-of-nuclear-fear-how-we-learned-to-fear-the-bomb.
10. Agapov AM, Novikov G.A, Arutyunyan RV, Melikhova EM. Who helped create the Chernobyl myth? Atomic strategy. 2004; 12:10-12. The online version published on 08/11/2005 on the ProAtom Agency website. (In Russian.) Available from: http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=191.
11. Radwaste disposal facility in Sosnovy Bor: experts’ replies. Special project “Atomic dialogues”. (In Russian.) Available from: http://www.atomic-energy.ru/statements/2015/08/03/58753.
12. Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Scientific Annex D to UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. New-York. 2012. 313 p. Available from: http://www.unscear.org.
13. UNSCEAR 2013. Report to the General Assembly. Scientific annex A. Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan earthquake and tsunami. New York: United Nations. 2014;
1. 311 p. Available from: http://www.unscear.org.
14. 20 years of the Chernobyl disaster. Results and problems of overcoming it in Russia. Russian national report. Under the general editorship of Shoigu SK and Bolshov LA. Moscow. 2006. 292 p. (In Russian.) Available from: http://www.ibrae.ac.ru/pubtext/51.
15. Covello V. Risk Communication: Linking Science with Society. Oral presentation at the International Experts’ Meeting on Radiation Protection after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Promoting Confidence and Understanding. Vienna, Austria 17-21 February, 2014. Available from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/iaeameetings/cn224p /Session9/Covello.pdf.
16. Ropeik D. Riskcom: more than facts. IAEA Bulletin. 2008; 50(1): 58–60. Available from: https://www.iaea.org/ru/publications/magazines/bulletin/50-1.
17. Melikhova EM, Abalkina IL. Risk Dialogue. Practical advices. Under the general editorship of Linge II. Moscow: IzdAt. 2003. 80 p. (In Russian.) Available from: http://library.mchs.gov.ru/libmchs/book?id=n911727.
18. Arkhangelskaya GV, Zykova IA, Perminova GS, Lipatova OV. Radiation hygiene for risk groups. Online publication on the website of the ProAtom Agency. Aug. 06, 2007. (In Russian.) Available from: http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php ?name=News&file=article&sid=191.
19. Perko T, Van Oudheusden M, Turcanu C, Pölzl-Viol Ch., Oughton D, Schieber C, Schneider Th, Zölzer F, Mays C, Martell M, Baudé S, de Witte ICh, Prlic I, Cantone MC, Salomaa S, Duranova T, Economides S and Molyneux-Hodgson S. J. Radiol. Prot. 2019; 39:766–782. DOI:10.1088/1361-6498/ab0f89.
20. Guskova AK, Galstyan IA, Gusev IA. Accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (1986-2011): health consequences, doctor’s thoughts. Under the general editorship of Guskova AK. Moscow: FMBC named after Burnazyan AI. 2011. 254 p. Russian.
21. About accidental, extremely high and high environmental pollution in the Russian Federation in the period from October 6 to 13, 2017. Online publicatiob on the Roshydromet website. (In Russian.) Available from: http://www.meteorf.ru/product/infomaterials/91/15078/?sphrase_id=134576.
22. Experts: the release of ruthenium in 2017 could not affect the health of the population. Online publication on the official website of the TASS News Agency from February 1, 2018. (In Russian.) Available from: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/4923864.
23. Abalkina IL, Marchenko TI, Panchenko SV. Chernobyl radiation in questions and answers. Moscow: Komtekhprint. 2005. 42 p. (In Russian.) Available from: http://ibrae.ac.ru/pubtext/63.
24. Jolly D., Grady D. March 23, 2011. Anxiety Up as Tokyo Issues Warning on Its Tap Water. March 23, 2011 online publication on The New York Times website. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/asia/24japan.html.
25. Ramsey J.B. Why do students find statistics so difficult? Online publication of the New York University, Dept. of Economics. Available from: https://www.stat.fi/isi99/proceedings/arkisto/varasto/rams0070.pdf.
26. FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On. World Health Organization. Available from: https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/.
27. 'People are suffering from radiophobia'. Interview with Japanese scientist Shunichi Yamashita conducted by Cordula Meyer. Spiegel online. August 19, 2011. Available from: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/studying-the-fukushima-aftermath-people-are-suffering-from-radiophobia-a-780810.html.
28. IAEA Report on radiation protection after the Fukushima Daiichi accident: promoting confidence and understanding. International experts meeting. Vienna, 17–21 February 2014. Organized in connection with the implementation of the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety. Vienna: IAEA. 2014. Available from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/IEM-6_web.pdf.
29. Golikov VYu, Romanovich IK. Justification of radiological criteria for the use of territories with residual radioactive contamination. Rehabilitation criteria. Radiation hygiene. 2017; 10(4):6–22. (In Russian.) DOI:10.21514/1998-426X-2017-10-4-6-22.
30. Basic sanitary rules for ensuring radiation safety (OSPORB - 99/2010). Sanitary rules and standards SP 2.6.1.2612-10. Approved by the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation, April 26, 2010. Russian.
31. Harash A. Voice from the dead Pripyat. Bulletin of Chernobyl. 1995. No 20:3. (In Russian.) Available from: http://media.slav.gov.ua/778/.
32. Melikhova EM, Panchenko SV, Abalkina IL et al. Radiation. Economy.Life. A new look at the southwest of the Bryansk region. Moscow: IBRAE RAS. 2001. 24 p. (In Russian.) Available from: https://rbic.mchs.gov.by/upload/iblock/349 /3496a48bc8ca021155d1986f2c1f70d3.pdf.
33. Analysis of information needs of the population affected by the Chernobyl accident: research in Russia (ICRIN). Moscow. 2005. 44 p. Russian.
34. Peters R, McCallum D, Covello VT. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis. 1997;17(l): 43–54.
35. ICRP, 2018. Ethical foundations of the system of radiological protection. ICRP Publication 138. Ann. ICRP, 2018; 7(1):1–65.
36. Ilyin LA. The realities and myths of Chernobyl. Second edition, revised and supplemented. Moscow: ALARA-Limited. 1996. 480 p. Russian.
37. Baskut Tuncak, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/environment/toxicwastes/pages/baskuttuncak.aspx.
38. IAEA. 2015. Evaluation of reference levels for remediation and development of a framework for post-accident recovery. Annex I of Technical Volume 5. The Fukushima Daiichi accident. Post-accident recovery. 2015. 10 p. Available from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/SupplementaryMaterials /P1710/TV5/AnnexI.pdf.
39. Radiation safety. Wikipedia. (In Russian.) Available from: https://ru.wikipedia.org.
40. Tsuda, T. Lindahl L, Tokinobu A. Ethical issues related to the promotion of a "100 mSv threshold assumption" in Japan after the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011: Background and consequences. Curr. Environ. Health Rpt. 2017; 4(2): 119–129. DOI: 10.1007/s40572-017-0145-0.
41. Smeesters P. Ethical issues debated after Fukushima. // Rad.Prot. №183. EU Seminar 2014 “Fukushima – Lessons learned and issues”. Proceedings of a scientific seminar held in Luxembourg on 18 November 2014. Working Party on Research Implications on Health and Safety Standards of the Article 31 Group of Experts. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016. 84 p.
42. Yamaguchi I, Shimura T, Terada H, Svendsen ER. Lessons learned from radiation risk communication activities regarding the Fukushima nuclear accident. J. Natl. Inst. Public Health, 2018; 67(1): 93–102.
43. Melikhova EM. The social consequences of a severe accident at Three Mile Island and a particular perception of radiation risk. IBRAE Preprint No. IBRAE-2017-10. Moscow: IBRAE RAS. 2017. 32 p. Russian.
44. Law of the USSR of 05.15.1991 No. 2146-1 "On the social protection of citizens affected by the Chernobyl disaster". Russian.
45. Melikhova EM, Barkhudarova IE. Methodological issues of assessing the demographic situation in radiation-contaminated territories (on the example of the Bryansk region). Preprint IBRAE No. IBRAE-2012-03. Moscow: IBRAE RAS, 2012.33 p. (In Russian.) Available from: http://www.ibrae.ac.ru/pubtext/234.
46. Svendsen R., Yamaguchi I., Tsuda T. et al. Risk Communication Strategies: Lessons Learned from Previous Disasters with a Focus on the Fukushima Radiation Accident. // Curr. Envir. Health Rpt. 2016; 3: 348–359. DOI: 10.1007/s40572-016-0111-2.
47. Postnikov V. Chernobyl Deaths Top a Million Based on Real Evidence. May 24, 2012 online publication on the Science in Society Archives website. Available from: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Chernobyl_Deaths_Top_a_Million.php.
48. ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP. 2007; 37(2-4). 332 p. Available from: http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103.
49. From blogs: “Ukhta - a repository for radioactive waste?” April 21, 2013 online publication on the website of the BNK news agency. (In Russian.) Available from: https://www.bnkomi.ru/data/news/19555.
50. Ivanov VK, Chekin SYu, Menyailo AN et al. Levels of radiological protection of the population when implementing the principle of radiation equivalence: a risk-based approach. Radiation and risk. 2018; 27(3): 9–23. Russian.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 23.12.2020.
Accepted for publication: 20.01.2021.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 6. P. 5–9
Medical Radiological Consequences after 35 Years after the Accident at the Chernobyl NPP
L.A. Ilyin2, V.C. Ivanov1, I.I. Linge3, V.V. Kashcheev1, O.A. Kochetkov2, A.R. Tukov2, I.L. Shafransky2
1A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre, Obninsk, Russia
2A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
3Nuclear Safety Institute, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Tukov Aleksandr Romanovich: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: In an article prepared on the basis of the conclusion of the Russian Scientific Commission on Radiological Protection (RSCRP) at the Department of Medical Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Assessment of the radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident after 35 years according to the National Radiation and Epidemiological Register" (NRER), the main conclusions of the large-scale radiation-epidemiological studies carried out.
Material and methods: The work uses information NRER – liquidators of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident and the Branch Register of FMBA of Russia – liquidators. When assessing the excess relative risk of malignant neoplasms, the EPICURE.
Results: The current status of the National Radiation and Epidemiological Register, which is currently functioning within the framework of the Law of the Russian Federation of 30.12.2012 No. 329-FZ “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in terms of ensuring that changes in the health status of certain categories of citizens are taken into account exposed to radiation". For the first time in an integral form, the article presents the medical radiological consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant for the population of Russia. It was found that an increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer due to incorporated exposure to 131I was found in a cohort of children and adolescents (28 856 people) who received radiation doses of more than 200 mGy in 1986. There was no increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer among the adult population. Analysis of the incidence of solid cancers in the territories of the Bryansk, Kaluga, Tula and Oryol regions contaminated with radionuclides did not reveal an increase in the frequency of this pathology for children and adults. It is shown that in the cohort of liquidators of the Chernobyl accident, who received radiation doses of more than 150 mGy (35 303 people), an increase in the incidence of leukemia during the first 11 years after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and solid cancers was revealed in comparison with the spontaneous level.
Conclusions: The article points out serious limitations associated with a high degree of uncertainty in the received personal dosimetric data on liquidators in 1986–1987. and the need to use the total dose from all types of radiation (professional, emergency, medical, natural) to calculate the radiation risk. RSCRP emphasizes the high urgency of continuing work on reducing the uncertainty of dosimetry data and assessing the radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident based on a comprehensive analysis of the NRER data.
Key words: Russian Scientific Commission on Radiological Protection, National Radiation and Epidemiological Register, Chernobyl Accident, medical radiological consequences, RADRUE technology, total radiation dose, medical and social rehabilitation
For citation: Ilyin LA, Ivanov VK, Linge II, Kashcheev VV, Kochetkov OA, Tukov AR, Shafransky IL. Medical Radiological Consequences 35 years after the Chernobyl Accident. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(6):5-9.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-6-5-9
References
1. On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation to Ensure that the Changes in the Health Status of Certain Categories of Citizens Exposed to Radiation Are Taken into Account. Federal Law of 30.12.2012 No. 329-FZ. https://www.consultant.ru. (In Russian.).
2. 35 Years of the Chernobyl Accident. Results and Prospects of Overcoming its Consequences In Russiania. 1986–2021. Russian National Report. Ed. Bolshov L.A. Moscow, Akadem-Print Publ., 2021. 104 p. (In Russian.).
3. Ivanov V.K., Maksyutov M.A., Tumanov K.A., Kochergina E.V., et al. 35-Year Experience of NRER Functioning as a State Information System for Monitoring the Radiological Consequences of the Chernobyl Disaster. Radiation and Risk. 2021;30;1:7–39. (In Russian.).
4. Ivanov V.K., Kashcheyev V.V., Chekin S.Yu., Maksyutov M.A., et al. Assessment of Radiation Risks of Malignant Neoplasms among the Population of Russian Regions Contaminated with Radionuclides as a Result of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Radiation and Risk. 2021;30;1:131–146. (In Russian.).
5. Kryuchkov V.P. Radiation and Dosimetric Aspects of Liquidation of the Consequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Moscow, IzdAT Publ., 2011. 252 p. (In Russian.).
6. Ilyin L.A., Kryuchkov V.P., Osanov D.P., Pavlov D.A. Exposure Levels of the Participants in the Liquidation of the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident in 1986-1987. and Verification of Dosimetry Data. Radiation Biology. Radioecology 1995;35;6:803-828. (In Russian.).
7. Ilyichev S.V., Kochetkov O.A., Kryuchkov V.P., Mazurik V.K., Nosovskiy A.V., Pavlov D.A., et al. Retrospective Dosimetry of Participants in the Liquidation of the Consequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Ed. Kryuchkova V.P., Nosovskiy A.V. Kiev, Seda-Stil Publ., 1996. 234 p. (In Russian.).
8. Standards of Radiation Safety (NRB-99): Hygienic Standards. Moscow Publ., 1999. 116 p. (In Russian.).
9. On the Radiation Safety of the Population. Federal Law of January 9, 1996 N 3-FZ. http://base.garant.ru/10108778/. (In Russian.).
10. Ilyin L.A. Realities and Myths of Chernobyl. Moscow, ALARA Limited Publ., 1994, 448 p. (In Russian.).
11. Ilyin L.A. Realities and Myths of Chernobyl. Ed. 2-e. Moscow, ALARA Limited Publ., 1996.494 p. (In Russian.).
12. Tukov A.R., Shafranskiy I.L., Biryukov A.P., Fomin A.A. Comparative Analysis of the Risk in the Radiation-Epidemiological Study of Persons Who Took Part in the Elimination of the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident, Using Various Types of Radiation. Honey. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2015;60;6:27–33 (In Russian.).
13. Tukov A.R., Biryukov A.P., Shafranskiy I.L. Is Radiation Safety Safe? Radiation and Risk. 2018;27;2:7–19 (In Russian.).
14. Tukov A.R., Biryukov A.P., Shafranskiy I.L., Prokhorova O.N. Radiation Safety Assessment Requires Correct Epidemiological Data. Nuclear and Radiation Safety. 2019;4:22–28. (In Russian.).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 10.08.2021
Accepted for publication: 21.09.2021.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 4. P. 113–121
Radiation and Environmental Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Energy
I.I. Linge, S.S. Utkin
Nuclear Safety Institute, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Utkin Sergey S: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
The article focuses on the role of radiation criteria and its evolution in the structure of arguments underlying the establishment, operation and development of nuclear energy. It demonstrates that the dominant role of radiation criteria should be reconsidered to allow broader consideration of environmental and other factors associated with sustainable development.
Based on in-depth analysis of certain aspects relevant for the mutual development of nuclear energy and radiation and environmental safety requirements, the paper shows that fully-fledged regulatory and technological systems have been deployed to date to ensure the radiation safety of workers and the public: these systems cover all the tasks required to be addressed to limit the technogenic exposure under normal operation. At the same time, an unprecedented gap was noticed between the actual role of radiation factor across human health risks and its perception by the overwhelming part of society.
In the near future (some hundred years), urgent tasks in the field of radiation safety will be driven, on the one hand, by the need to ensure the internal consistency of the national security system addressing health risks in general, and on the other, by global processes in the world economy associated with slow growth in energy demand, rapid reduction in the share of fossil fuels in almost all sectors of the economy among the developed countries, including transport, growing general environmental trends towards material recycling and decarbonization. The study shows what should be the attitude to radiation risks so that the nuclear energy could successfully meet the requirements arising from these trends. In this regard, the paper also provides some rational interpretation of the principle suggesting that no undue burden should be imposed on future generations.
Key words: nuclear energy, radiation safety, environmental safety, sustainable development, energy efficiency, decarbonization, future generations
For citation: Linge II, Utkin SS. Radiation and Environmental Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Energy. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(5):113-121.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-5-113-121
References
1. Europen Commission Joint Research Centre. JRS Science for Policy Report. Technical Assessment of Nuclear Energy with Respect to the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ Criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’). JRC124193. Petten. 2021. 383 p.
2. World Nuclear Association. Climate Change - The Science. 2020 May. (сited 2021 May 24). Available from: https://www.world-nuclear.org/focus/climate-change-and-nuclear-energy/climate-change-the-science.aspx.
3. Rosatom. Nuclear Power for Sustainable Development: How Nuclear Power Can Contribute to Sustainable Development Goals in the age of Climate Change Challenge. 2019 (cited 2021 May 24). Available from: https://www.rosatom.ru/upload /iblock/d68/d687667b600aca117dc06560562ea503.pdf
4. Adamov EO, Bolshov LA, Ganev IKh, Zrodnikov AV, Kuznetsov AK, Lopatkin AV, et al. White Paper of Nuclear Power. Moscow: GUP NIKIET; 2001. 269 p. (In Russian).
5. Bolshov LA, Linge II. Development Strategy of Nuclear Energy in Russia and Environmental Issues. Atomic Energy. 2019;127;6:303-9. (In Russian).
6. Velikhov EP, Goltsev AO, Davidenko VD, Elshin AV, Kovalishin AA, Rodionova EV, et al. Acceptability of Closing the Fuel Cycle of Nuclear Energy. VANT. Ser. Thermonuclear Fusion, 2021;44;1:5-12. (In Russian).
7. Kuryndin AV, Polyakov RM, Ponizov AV, Felitsyn MA, Shapovalov AS, Sharafutdinov RB, et al. Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of The Safety of The Implementation of Open and Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycles in the Russian Federation. Methodology and results. Proceedings of the Scientific and Technical Center for Nuclear and Radiation Safety. Moscow: STC NRS Publ., 2021. 59 p. (In Russian).
8. Abalkina IL, Bolshov LA, Linge II, Utkin SS, Saveleva EA, Svitelman VS, Utkin SS. Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Deep Geological Disposal Long-Term Safety Assessment For 10 000 Years and Over: Methodology and the Current State. IBRAE Preprint No. IBRAE-2019-03. 2019. 40 p. (In Russian).
9. White Paper of Nuclear Power. Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle with Fast Reactors. Ed. Adamov EO.Moscow, NIKIET Publ., 2020. 496 p. (In Russian).
10. Nuclear Energy Agency Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Nuclear Energy Data 2020. OECD NEA. 2021. No.7556. 28 p.
11. Decommissioning. Vol. 3. Problems of Nuclear Legacy and Ways to Solve Them. Ed. Bolshov LA, Laverov NP, Linge II. Moscow Publ., 2015. 316 p. (In Russian).
12. State Corporation "Rosatom". Strategy for the Development of Nuclear Power in Russia Until 2050 and Prospects for the Period up to 2100. Moscow Publ., 2018. 62 p. (In Russian).
13. Nuclear Energy Agency Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Options: A Comparative Study. NEA OECD. 2000. 124 p.
14. Adamov EO, Aleksakhin RM, Bolshov LA, Dedul A.V., Orlov V.V., Pershukov V.A., et al. Breakthrough Project – Technological Basement for Large-Scale Nuclear Energy. News of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Energy. 2015;1:5-13. (In Russian).
15. Ignatiev VV, Kormilitsyn MV, Kormilitsyna LA, Semchenkov YuM, Fedorov YuS, Fainberg ОС, et al. Liquid Salt Reactor for Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle for All Actinides. Atomnaya Energiya. 2018;125;5:251-5. (In Russian).
16. Nevstrueva MA, Ramzaev PV, Moiseev AA, Troitskaya MN, Bel'tsev DI, Ibatullin MS, et al. Dynamics of Pollution Levels in the Chain Lichens - Deer - Reindeer Herders Cs-137 and Sr-90 for 1961-1964. Selected Materials of the Bulletin of Radiation Medicine. Ed. Ilyin LA, Samoilov AS. Moscow: FMBC FMBA of Russia Publ., 2016. p.70-77. (In Russian).
17. Special Radioactive Waste. Ed. Linge II. Moscow, Sam Polygraphist Publ., 2015. 240 p. (In Russian).
18. Antipov SV, Arutyunyan RV, Akhunov VD, Bogatov SA et al. Strategic Planning During Decommissioning of Nuclear and Radiation Hazardous Facilities of the Nuclear Fleet in the North-West of Russia. Ed. Sarkisov AA. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2011. 346 p. (In Russian).
19. Utkin SS. Strategies for Transferring the Techensky Cascade of Water Bodies of FSUE PA Mayak to a Radiation-Safe State. Izvestiya RAN. Energy. 2016;5:132-9. (In Russian).
20. Major Radiation Accidents: Consequences and Protective Measures. Ed. Ilyin LA, Gubanov VA. Moscow, IzdAT Publ., 2001.752 p.
21. IAEA International Chernobyl Project: Technical Report. Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Protective Measures. Report of the International Advisory Committee. Vienna; 1992. 740 p.
22. Barkovsky AN, Bratilova AA, Kormanovskaya TA, Akhmatdinov RR. Dynamics of Exposure Doses to the Population of the Russian Federation for the Period From 2003 to 2018. Radiation Hygiene. 2019;12;4:96-122. (In Russian).
23. Panfilov AP. Historical Aspects of Creation and Development of the Main Objects of the Atomic Industry of the Country. Radiation Impact on Personnel in Different Periods of Time. ANRI. 2020;3:3–25. (In Russian).
24. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Report of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2000 to the UN General Assembly with scientific annexes. Volume II: Effects (Part 3). Translation from English. Ed. Ilyin LA, Yarmonenko SP. Moscow: RADEKON Publ., 2002. 352 p. (In Russian).
25. Publication 103 of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP): Translation from English. Ed Kiselyov MF, Shandala NK. Moscow, Alana Publ., 2009. 344 p. (In Russian).
26. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards - IAEA Safety Standards No GSR Part 3. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2014. 471p.
27. Consequences of Exposure to Human Health as a Result of the Chernobyl Accident. Scientific Annex D to the 2008 UNSCEAR Report to the General Assembly. New York. 2012. 182 p.
28. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. INFCIRC. 602. Rev 5. 2014. 14 p.
29. Ilyin LA, Knizhnikov VA, Knyazhev VA, Korenkov IP, Komleva VA, Novikova Mya, et al. Oncological Price of Thermal and Nuclear Power. Ed. Ilyin LA, Korenkov IP. 2001. 240 p. (In Russian).
30. Hirschberg, S., Burgherr P., Hunt A. Accident Risks in the Energy Sector: Comparison of Damage Indicators and External Costs. Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management. 2004:2314-19. DOI: 10.1007 / 978-0-85729-410-4_372.
31. Novikov SM, Shashina TA, Dodina NS, Kislitsin VA, Skovronskaya SA, Matsyuk AV, et al. Practical Research Experience on the Comparative Assessment of Radiation and Chemical Risks to Public Health from the Impact of Environmental Factors. Hygiene and sanitation. 2019; 98;12:1425–31. (In Russian).
32. Burgherr P., Hirschberg S. Comparative Risk Assessment of Severe Accidents in the Energy Sector. Energy Policy. 2014;74:45-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol .2014.01.035.
33. Onishchenko GG, Novikov SM, Rakhmanin YuA, Avaliani SL, Bushtueva KA. Fundamentals of Risk Assessment for Public Health when Exposed to Chemicals that Pollute the Environment. Ed. Rachmanin YuA, Onishchenko GG. Moscow: NII ECH and GOS Publ., 2002. 408 p. (In Russian).
34. Russian National Report: 35 years of the Chernobyl accident. Results and Prospects of Overcoming its Consequences in Russia. 1986-2021. Ed. Bolshov LA. Moscow, Akadem-Print Publ., 2021. 104 p. (In Russian).
35. Tsebakovskaya NS, Utkin SS, Ivanov AYu, Sakharov VK, Polunin KE. Best Foreign Practices for Decommissioning Nuclear Installations and Remediation of Contaminated Areas. Ed. Linge II, Abramov AA. Moscow, Komtekhprint Publ., 2017. Vol. 1 and 2. (In Russian).
36. State Corporation "Rosatom". Strategy for Creating a Deep Disposal Site for Radioactive Waste. Radioactive waste. Moscow. 2018;2;3:114-20. (In Russian).
37. Federal Law on the Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of the Population Dated March 30, 1999 No 52-FZ. (In Russian).
38. Vedernikova MV, Linge II, Panchenko SV, Strizhova SV, Supotaeva ОА, Utkin SS, et al. Topical Issues of Amendments to the Federal Law of January 9, 1996 No. 3-FZ On radiation safety of the population. IBRAE RAN Preprint, No. IBRAE-2020-03. Moscow: IBRAE RAN Publ., 2020. 22 p. (In Russian).
39. Shinkarev SM, Kochetkov OA, Klochkov VN, Barchukov VG. Discussion on amendments to the federal law dated 09.01.1996 No. 3-FZ On the radiation safety of the population. Med. radiology and radiation safety. 2020;65;3:77-78. DOI: 10.12737 / 1024-6177-2020-65-3-77-78. (In Russian).
40. Abramov AA, Dorofeev AN, Deryabin SA. Development of the USS RW in the Framework of the Federal Target Program for Ensuring Nuclear and Radiation Safety. Radioactive Waste. 2019;1;6:8-24. (In Russian).
41. Ivanov EA, Sharov DA, Demyanenko MV, Sharafutdinov RB, Kuryndin AV. On Some Problems of Handling Industrial Waste Containing Technogenic Radionuclides. Nuclear and Radiation Safety. 2019;3;93:3-13. (In Russian).
42. Abramov AA, Bolshov LA, Gavrilov PM, Dorofeev AN, Igin IM, Linge II, et al. On the Ideas of Expanding the System of Radioactive Waste Management to Industrial Waste Containing Technogenic Radionuclides. Radioactive Waste. 2019;4;9:6-13. DOI: 10.25283 / 2587-9707-2019-4-6-13 (In Russian).
43. Tukov AR, Prokhorova ON, Orlov YuV, Talalaeva TG, et al. Health Assessment of Liquidators of the Consequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant - Workers of the Nuclear Industry in Russia And Residents of the Moscow Region. Med. Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2020;65;1:17-21. (In Russian).
44. IAEA. INPRO Publications. Methodology. Available from: https://www.iaea.org /sites/default/files/20/05/inpro-publications-methodology.pdf (cited 2021 May 24).
45. Ivanov VK, Chekin SYu, Menyailo AN, Maksyutov MA, Kasheeva PV, Lovachev SS, et al. Levels of Radiological Protection of the Population in the Implementation of the Principle of Radiation Equivalence: A Risk-Oriented Approach. Radiation and Risk. 2018;3. Available from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/urovni-radiologicheskoy-zaschity-naseleniya-pri-realizatsii-printsipa-radiatsionnoy-ekvivalentnosti-risk-orientirovannyy-podhod (cited 2021 May 24). (In Russian).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 23.12.2020.
Accepted for publication: 20.01.2021.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021. Vol. 66. № 6. P. 10–17
Methodological Approaches to Measurement of Carbon-14 for Control of its Radiation
Impact on the Personnel and the Public
V.N. Klochkov, L.I. Kuznetsova, N.A. Eremina, D.I. Kabanov, A.A. Maximov,
S.V. Berezin, A.A. Androsova, E.V. Klochkova, P.P. Surin, V.K. Velichko
A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Klochkov Vladimir Nikolaevich: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Analysis of the current regulatory and methodological framework on control of doses from intake of 14С for the personnel and the public living in the control area of the nuclear power plant (NPP). Identifying the most informative methods of controlling radiation impact of 14С on a human being.
Material and methods: Research literature on radiation impact of naturally occurring 14С; 14С entering the environment as a result of nuclear weapon tests; and 14С entering workplaces and the control area of NPP has been reviewed. Dose coefficients and other radiation characteristics of 14С provided in IAEA, ICRP and UNSCEAR publications have been summarized.
Results: According to UNSCEAR, annual radiation burden caused by global 14С is the highest one (about 80 %) among radiation burdens associated with four critical naturally occurring cosmogenic radionuclides: 3Н (0.01 µSv/year), 7Be (3.0 µSv/year), 14С (12 µSv/year) and 24Na (0.2µSv/year). The main way of 14С intake is the alimentary one when this isotope enters the human body with food. Dose from this kind of intake of global 14С can reach 40 µSv. The annual dose caused by aerogenic (inhalation) way of intake of global 14С does not exceed 1 µSv.
The most informative methods of dose assessment for the personnel of NPP and the public living in the control area involve measurement of content of 14С in top soil, vegetation and food products.
Conclusions: Significant amount of 14С enters the environment within the control area during operation of NPP, which causes the public radiation dose exceeding the dose from global 14С. The most informative objects characterizing content of technogenic 14С in the control area of NPP are top soil (humus) and vegetation. The liquid scintillation spectrometry involves sample preparation by burning of samples in oxygen with capturing of generated carbon dioxide and its transfer into organic solvent. This is the most technologically viable method for mass control of 14С content in samples of top soil and vegetation.
Key words: radiation safety, carbon-14, control of specific activity, internal dose, soil, vegetation
For citation: Klochkov VN, Kuznetsova LI, Eremina NA, Kabanov DI, Maximov AA, Berezin SV, Androsova AA, Klochkova EV, Surin PP, Velichko VK. Methodological Approaches to Measurement of Carbon-14 for Control of its Radiation Impact on the Personnel and the Public. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2021;66(6):10-17.
DOI: 10.12737/1024-6177-2021-66-6-10-17
References
1. Rublevskiy V.P., Yatsenko V.N. Specifics of Radiation and Biological Impact of 14С on Living Organisms and Hazard Related to Its Accumulation in Earth's Biosphere. Atomnaya Energiya. 2018;125;5:301–306 (In Russian.).
2. Rublevskiy V.P., Yatsenko V.N., Chanyshev E.G. Role of Carbon-14 in Human Technogenic Exposure. Ed. Kochetkov O.A. Мoscow, IzdAT Publ., 2004. 197 p. ISBN 5-86656-160-3 (In Russ.).
3. Ivanov V.I., Lystsov V.N. Basics of Microdosimetry. Мoscow, Atomizdat, 1979. 192 p. (In Russian.).
4. Timofeev L.V., Maksimov A.A., Kochetkov O.A., et al. About the Dose from Tritium at the Cellular Level. Meditsinskaya radiologiya i radiatsionnaya bezopasnost. 2020 (in print) (In Russ.).
5. Panchenko S.V., Linge I.I., et al. Radioecological Situation in locations of Rosatom Facilities. Ed. Linge I.I., Kryshev I.I. Мoscow, SAM poligrafist Publ., 2015. 296 p. (In Russian.).
6. UNSCEAR 2008. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. Volume I. United Nations, New York, United Nations Publication, 2010. ISBN 978-92-1-142274-0.
7. Vasilenko I.Ya., Bugryshev P.F., Istomina A.G., et al. Issues of Radiation Hazard of 14C. Atomnaya Energiya. 1980;49;5:299–303 (In Russ.).
8. Carbon-14 and the Environment. IRSN, 2012. www.irsn.fr.
9. Vasilenko I.Ya., Osipov V.A., Rublevskiy V.P. Radioactive Carbon. Priroda. 1992;12:59–65 (In Russian.).
10. Garnier-Laplace J., Roussel-Debet S., Calmon P. Modélisation des Transferts du Carbone 14, Emis par les Réacteurs а Eau Pressurisée en Fonctionnement Normal, Dans l’Environnement Proche du Site. Rapport IPSN/DPRE/SERE 98/007, IRSN, Cadarache. 1998 (In French).
11. Nazarov E.I., Ekidin A.A., Vasilyev A.V. Assessment of Going of Carbon-14 into the Atmosphere Due to Discharges from NPP. Izvestiya Vuzov. Fizika. 2018;61;12–2(732):67–73 (In Russian.).
12. Setting Authorized Limits for Radioactive Discharges: Practical Issues to Consider. IAEA-TECDOC-1638. Vienna: IAEA, 2010.
13. Ekidin A.A., Zhukovskiy M.V., Vasyanovich M.E. Identification of the Main Dose Forming Radionuclides in Discharges of NPP. Atomnaya Energiya. 2016;120;2:106–108 (In Russian.).
14. Official Site of the European Commission Radioactive Discharges Database. URL: http://europa.eu/radd/index.dox (Access date: 01.10.17) (In Russian.).
15. Official Site of the International Atomic Energy Agency. URL: https://www.iaea.org/PRIS (Access date: 01.10.2017) (In Russ.).
16. Kryshev A.I., Kryshev I.I., Vasyanovich M.E., et al. Assessment of the Public Radiation Dose from Discharge of 14С at NPP with RBMK -1000 and EGP-6. Atomnaya Energiya. 2020;128;1:48-52 (In Russ.).
17. SanPiN 2.6.1.2523–09. Radiation Safety Standards (NRB-99/2009) (In Russian.).
18. The RF Government Executive Order of 08.07.2015 No. 1316-r “On approval of the list of contaminating agents subject to governmental regulation in the field of environmental protection” (In Russian.).
19. Ekidin A.A., Vasilyev A.V., Vasyanovich M.E. Current Technologies of Management of Environmental Impact as a Mean of Compliance with ALARA Principle. Biosfernaya Sovmestimost': Chelovek, Region, Tekhnologii. 2017;2:67–74 (In Russian.).
20. Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 2. ICRP. Publication 134. Ann. ICRP. 2016;45;3/4:1–352.
21. Limits on Intakes of Radionuclides for Workers: Part 3. ICRP Publication 30 // Ann. ICRP. 1981;6;2/3.
22. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2000. New York, United Nations, 2000. V.1. Sources. ISBN 92-1-142238-8.
23. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. United Nations Sales Publication E.94.IX.2. New York: United Nations, 1993.
24. Report of the Task Group on Reference Man. ICRP Publication 23. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1975.
25. MT 1.2.1.15.1176-2016. Development and Setting of Norms for Maximum Permissible Discharges of Radioactive Substances from Nuclear Power Plants to the Atmosphere. Practice. Moscow, Contsern Rosenergoatom Publ., 2016. 69 p. (In Russian.).
26. Kulkova M.A. Radiocarbon (14С) in the Environment and Carbon Dating Method. Study Guide. St. Petersburg, RGPU Publ., 2011, 40 p. (In Russian.).
27. Braytseva O.A., Sulerzhitskiy L.D. Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Volcanology Institute at the Far East Research Center of AS USSR. Radiocarbon in Archeological and Paleoecological Researches. Ed. Zaytseva G.I., Kul’kova M.A. St. Petersburg, IIMK RAN, 2007. P. 89-94 (In Russian.).
28. Mendonça Maria Lúcia T.G., Godoy José M., da Cruz Rosana P., Perez Rhoneds A.R. Radiocarbon Dating of Archaeological Samples (Sambaqui) Using CO2 Absorption and Liquid Scintillation Spectrometry of Low Background Radiation. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2006;88;3:205-214.
29. Woo, H.J. Optimization of Liquid Scintillation Counting Techniques for the Determination of Carbon-14 in Environmental Samples / Ed. Woo H. J., Chun S. K., Cho S. Y., Kim Y. S., Kang D. W., Kim E. H. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 1999;239;3:649-655.
30. Optimizing the Counting Conditions for Carbon-14 for the Sample Oxidizer-Liquid Scintillation Counter Method. Vesa-Pekka Vartti. STUK- Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Laippatie, 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260341203.
31. Pyrolyser-6 Trio User Manual (In Russian.).
32. Sidorov L.N. Mass-Spectrometry and Mass Determination of Large Molecules. Soros Educational Magazine. 2000;6;11:41–45 (In Russian.).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 16.09.2021.
Accepted for publication: 22.10.2021.