Journal Description

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. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 19–31

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf2306a3b26d6.36140627

A.A. Ivanov^1,2,³, T.M. Bichkova^1,², O.V. Nikitenko^1,², I.B. Ushakov¹

Radiobiological Proton Effects

1. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. Institute of Biomedical Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia;
3. Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

A.A. Ivanov – Head of Lab., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
T.M. Bychkova – Junior Researcher;
O.V. Nikitenko – Junior Researcher;
I.B. Ushakov – Chief Researcher, Academician of the RAS, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.

Abstract

The article contains an analysis of literature data and the author’s own results on the radiobiological effects of protons at the cellular, systemic (intercellular) and organismic levels, as applied to the practical tasks of radiation therapy of oncological diseases and the protons effects on the astronauts’ organism.

It is established that the proton RBE is a variable value, depending on the LET of the particles, the amount and dose rate, the presence or absence of oxygen. Proton RBE varies depending on the object of study, the type of tissue, proton energy and particle penetration depth, as well as the method for evaluating the biological efficiency of protons. which corresponds to general radiobiology.

In particular, it has been shown that the RBE of protons adopted in radiation therapy at the level of 1.1 is conditional. A firmly established and repeatedly confirmed is an increase in RBE with a decrease in proton energy and, accordingly, an increase in LET.

The use of elements of the physical protection of a spacecraft during exposure to protons with an energy of 170 MeV leads to an increase in LET and RBE of protons in terms of the cellularity of the bone marrow.
Pharmacological agents effective in photon irradiation are also effective when exposed to a proton beam. It has been shown that natural melanin pigment and recombinant manganese superoxide dismutase helps to preserve and accelerate the resumption of blood formation in animals irradiated by protons. The Grippol vaccine increases radioresistance during proton irradiation. Neuropeptide Semax has a positive effect on the central nervous system and the strength of the forepaws of animals irradiated with protons at Bragg’s peak.

Key words: protons, RBE, Bragg peak, central nervous system, hematopoiesis, chromosomal aberrations, survival, radioprotective agents, radiation therapy, space radiation, mice, rat

REFERENCES

1. Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and liners energy transfer. Phys Med Biol. 2014 Nov 21;59(22): R419–72. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/22/R419.

2. Gazenko OG, Calvin M. Foundations of Space Biology and Medicine. Vol I. Space as a Habitat. Moscow: Nauka; 1975; 430 p. (Russian).

3. Nurlybaev K, Martinyuk Yu, Karakash A. Radiation Protection in Radiotherapy Using Electron Accelerators. ANRI. 2014;1(76):15-21. (Russian).

4. Grigor’ev YuG. The biological effect of high-energy protons. Moscow: Atomizdat. 1967; 508 p. (Russian).

5. Grigor’ev AI, Krasavin EA, Ostrovskij MA. Galactic heave charged particles damaging effect on biological structures. Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology – Sechenov Physiology Journal. 2013; 99(3); 273-80. (Russian).

6. Fedorenko BS. Radiobiological effects of corpuscular radiation: radiation safety of space flight. Moscow: Nayka. 2006; 189 p. (Russian).

7. Cucinotta A, Durante M, Loeffler J. Editorial: Charged Particles in Oncology. Front Oncol. 2017 Dec 8;7:301. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00301.

8. Durante M, Tommasino F. Proton radiobiology. Cancers (Basel). 2015 Feb 12;7(1):353-81. DOI: 10.3390/cancers7010353.

9. Girdhani S, Sachs R, Hlatky L. Biological Effects of proton radiation: what we know and don’t know. Radiat Res. 2013 Mar;179(3):257-72. DOI: 10.1667/RR2839.1.

10. Butomo NV, Grebenyuk AN, Legeza VN, et al. Fundamentals of Medical Radiobiology. SPb.: Foliant. 2004; 258 p. (Russian).

11. Belli M, Bettega D, Calzolari P, et al. Inactivation of human normal and tumor cells irradiated with low energy protons. Int J Radiat Biol. 2000 Jun;76(6):831-9.

12. Ushakov I.B, Shtemberg A.S. The problems of studying the effects of far long-duration space mission factors on the higher nervous activity in model experiments with animals. Aerospace and Environmental Medicine. 2012; 46(1):5-16. (Russian).

13. Parihar VK, Allen B, Tran KK, et al. What happens to your brain on the way to Mars. Sci Adv. 2015 May 1;1(4). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400256.

14. Pyatkin EK, Baranov AE, Filyushkin IV, et al. Estimation of the dose and uniformity of radiation in acute human radiation lesions using the analysis of chromosomal aberrations. Guidelines. Moscow: USSR Ministry of Health, 1988; 25 p. (Russian).

15. Govorun RD, Deperas-Kaminska M, Zaitseva EM, et al. Study of chromosomal abnormalities in human cells after irradiation with a therapeutic beam of protons of the phasotron of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. Letters to ECHA. 2006;3(1):92-101. (Russian).

16. Dorozhkina OV, Bulynina TM, Ivanov AA. Effect of individual and group housing of mice on the level of radioresistance. Saratov. Nauch.-Med. Zh. 2015;60(5):653-6. (Russian).

17. Fedorenko BS, Shevchenko VA, Snigireva GP, et al. Cytogenetic studies of blood lymphocytes of cosmonauts after long-ter, space flights. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2000;40(5):596-602. (Russian).

18. Nugis VYu. Estimation of radiation dose from cytogenetic studies of peripheral blood and bone marrow. In: Radiation damage of humans. Ed. L.A. Ilyin. Moscow: Izd. At. 2001. Vol. 2:249-53 (Russian).

19. Hayata I. Biological dosimetry by chromosome analysis. Radiation and Risk. 1996;(7):72-5.

20. Voskanian KSh, Mitsyn GV, Gaevsky VN. Effectiveness of the biological action of protons and gamma-radiation on cells C3H10T1/2. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2005;39(5):50-3. (Russian).

21. Tang JT, Inoue T, Yamazaki H, et al. Comparison of radiobiological effective depths in 65 MeV modulated proton beams. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(2):220-5.

22. Calugaru V, Nauraye C, Noel G, et al. Radiobiological characterization of two therapeutic proton beams with different initial energy spectra used at the Institute Curie Proton Therapy Center in Orsay. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Nov 15;81(4):1136-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.09.003.

23. Sgura A, Antoccia A, Cherubini R, et al. Micronuclei, CREST-positive micronuclei and cell inactivation induced in Chinese hamster cells by radiation with different quality. Int J Radiat Biol. 2000 Mar;76(3):367-74.

24. Gerelchuluun A, Hong Z, Sun L et al. Induction of in situ DNA double-strand breaks and apoptosis by 200 MeV protons and 10 MV X-rays in human tumour cell lines. Int J Radiat Biol. 2011 Jan;87(1):57-70. DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2010.518201.

25. Di Pietro C, Piro S, Tabbi G, Ragusa M, Di Pietro V, Zimmitti V, et al. Cellular and molecular effects of protons: apoptosis induction and potential implications for cancer therapy. Apoptosis. 2006 Jan;11(1):57-66.

26. Green LM, Tran DT, Murray DK, et al. Response of thyroid follicular cells to gamma irradiation compared to proton irradiation: II. The role of connexin 32. Radiat Res. 2002 Oct;158(4):475-85.

27. Ristic-Fira AM, Todorovic DV, Koricanac LB, et al. Response of a human melanoma cell line to low and high ionizing radiation. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2007 Jan;1095:165-74.

28. Lee KB, Lee JS, Park JW, et al. Low energy proton beam induces tumor cell apoptosis through reactive oxygen species and activation of caspases. Exp Mol Med. 2008 Feb 29;40(1):118-29.

29. Pawlik TM, Keyomarsi K. Role of cell cycle in mediating sensitivity to radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 15;59(4):928-42.

30. Moertel H, Georgi JC, Distel L, et al. Effects of low energy protons on clonogenic survival, DSB repair and cell cycle in human glioblastoma cells and B14 fibroblasts. Radiother Oncol. 2004 Dec;73 Suppl 2:S115-8.

31. Antoccia A, Sgura A, Berardinelli F, et al. Cell cycle perturbations and genotoxic effects in human primary fibroblasts induced by low-energy protons and X/gamma-rays. J Radiat Res. 2009 Sep;50(5):457-68.

32. Desouky O, Ding N, Zhou G. Targeted and non-targeted effects of ionizing radiation. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2015;8(2):247-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrras.2015.03.003.

33. Childs SK, Kozak KR, Friedmann AM, et al. Proton radiotherapy for parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma: clinical outcomes and late effects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):635-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.048.

34. Sheets NC, Goldin GH, Meyer AM, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, proton therapy, or conformal radiation therapy and morbidity and disease control in localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2012. Apr 18;307(15):1611-20. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.460.

35. Yarmonenko SP, Weinson AA. Radiobiology of Humans and Animals. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. 2004. 549 p. (Russian).

36. Gerweck LE, Kozin SV. Relative biological effectiveness of proton beam in clinical therapy. Radiother Oncol. 1999 Feb;50(2):135-42.

37. Skarsgard LD. Radiobiology with heavy charged particles: a historical review. Phys Med Biol. 1998 Jul;14 Suppl 1:1-19.

38. Wambersie A, Menzel HG, Andreo P, et al. Isoeffective dose: a concept for biological weighting of absorbed dose in proton and heavier-ion therapies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011 Feb;143(2-4):481-6. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq410.

39. Kase Y, Yamashita W, Matsufuji N, et al. Microdosimetric calculation of relative biological effectiveness for design of therapeutic proton beams. J Radiat Res. 2013 May;54(3):485-93. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrs110.

40. Gueulette J, Bohm L, Slabbert JP, et al. Proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for survival in mice alter thoracic irradiation with fractionated doses. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jul 1;47(4):1051-8.

41. Tilly N, Johansson J, Isacsson U, et al. The influence of RBE variations in a clinical proton treatment plan for a hypopharynx cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2005 Jun 21;50(12):2765-77.

42. Giovannini G, Böhlen T, Cabal G, et al. Variable RBE in proton therapy: comparison of different model predictions and their influence on clinical-like scenarios. Radiat Oncol. 2016 May 17;11:68. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-016-0642-6.

43. Matsumoto Y, Matsuura T, Wada M, et al. Enhanced radiobiological effects at the distal end of a clinical proton beam: in vitro study. J Radiat Res. 2014 Jul;55(4):816-22. DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrt230.

44. Tronov VA, Vinogradova YuV, Poplinskaya VA, et al. Investigation of the adaptive response of the retina in mice to proton irradiation: connection with DNA repair and photoreceptor cell death. Letters to ECHA. 2015;12(1):241-55 (Russian).

45. Sapetsky AO, Ushakov IB, Sapetski NV, et al. Radiation neurobiology of distant space flights. Successes of Modern Biology. 2017;137(2):165-94 (Russian).

46. Taketa ST, Castle BL, Howard WH et al. Effects of acute exposure to high-energy protons on primates. Radiat Res Suppl. 1967;7:336-59.

47. Bushmanov AYu, Torubarov FS. Neurological aspects of radiation damage. Radiation Medicine. Ed. Ilyin L.A. Vol. 2. – Moscow: Izd. At. 2001; 275-305. (Russian).

48. Darenskaya NG. Reaction of the hematopoietic system. Radiation Medicine. Vol. 1. Moscow: Izd. At. 2004. P. 295-307. (Russian).

49. Darenskaya NG, Kozlova LB, Akoev IG, Nevskaya TF. Relative Biological Efficiency of Radiation. The Time Factor of Exposure. Moscow: Atomizdat. 1968. 376 p. (Russian).

50. Seraya VM. Investigation of hematopoietic systems in experimental animals irradiated with 120 MeV protons: PhD Med: Moscow. 1970. 155 p. (Russian).

51. Ryzhov NI. Biological Action of Protons. In: Ugolev A.M. editors. Biophysical bases of the action of cosmic radiation and accelerator radiation. L.: Science. 1989;60:170-8. (Russian).

52. Shmakova NL, Yarmonenko SP. Cytological analysis of the action of high-energy protons: 1. Cellular degeneration and mitotic activity of the bone marrow of mice subjected to proton irradiation. Radiobiology. 1963;3:291-3. (Russian).

53. Ware JH, Sanzari J, Avery S, et al. Effects of proton radiation dose, dose rate and dose fractionation on hematopoietic cells in mice. Radiat Res. 2010 Sep;174(3):325-30. DOI: 10.1667/RR1979.1.

54. Sanzary JK, Wan XS, Krigsfeld GS, et al. The effects of gamma and proton radiation exposure on hematopoietic cells counts in the ferret model. Gravit Space Res. 2013 Oct;1(1):79-94.

55. Rithidech KN, Honikel LM, Reungpatthanaphong P, et al. Effects of 100 MeV protons delivered at 0,5 or 1 cGy/min on the in vivo induction of early and delayed chromosomal damage. Mutat Res. 2013 Aug 30;756(1-2):127-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2013.06.001.

56. Gridley DS, Pecaut MJ, Dutta-Roy R, Nelson GA. Dose and dose rate effects of whole-body proton irradiation on leukocyte populations and lymphoid organs: Part I. Immunol Lett. 2002 Jan 1;80(1):55-66.

57. Vorozhtsova SV, Bulynina TM, Molokanov AG, Ivanov AA. Cytogenetic damage to the corneal epithelium of mice due to the in vivo exposure to ionizing radiation with different levels of linear energy transfer. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2015;49(1):50-6 (Russian).

58. Ando K, Furusawa Y, Suzuki M, et al. Relative Biological Effectiveness of the 235 MeV Proton Beams at the National Cancer Center Hospital East. J Radiat Res. 2001 Mar;42(1):79-89.

59. Ivanov AA, Molokanov AG, Ushakov IB, et al. Radiobiological effects of total mice irradiation with bragg’s peak protons. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2013;47(6):49-54 (Russian).

60. Ivanov AA, Bulynina TM, Molokanov AG, et al. Demonstration of likelihood of the negative effect of physical protection during total proton irradiation of mice. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2015;49(4):26-30. (Russian).

61. Maks CJ, Wan XS, Ware JH, et al. Analysis of White Blood Cell Counts in Mice after Gamma- or Proton-Radiation Exposure. Radiat Res. 2011 Aug;176(2):170-6. DOI: 10.1667/RR2413.1.

62. Gueulette J, Slabbert JP, Böhm L, et al. Proton RBE for early intestinal tolerance in mice after fractionated irradiation. Radiother Oncol. 2001 Nov;61(2):177-84.

63. Ilyin LA, Rudny NM, Suvorov NN, Chernov GA. Indralin is an emergency radio protector. Anti-radiation properties, pharmacology, mechanism of action, clinic. Moscow. 1994. 436 p. (Russian).

64. Vasin MV. Means of Prevention and Treatment of Radiation Injuries. Moscow: VTSMK Protection. 2006. 340 p. (Russian).

65. Zherebin YuM, Bondarenko NA, Makan SYu, et al. Pharmacological properties of enomelanin pigments. Reports of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. Series 5. 1984;(3):64-7. (Russian).

66. Zorina ZA, Poletaeva II. Zoopsychology. Elementary thinking of animals: study guide. Moscow: Aspect-Press. 2008. 320 p. (Russian).

67. Ivanov AA, Andrianova IE, Bulynina TM, et al. Pharmacological effects of melanin in irradiated mice. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2015;60(5):5-11. (Russian).

68. Ivanov AA, Abrosimova AN, Bulynina TM. Effects of the vaccine Grippol on resistance of mice after irradiation by protons. Saratov. Nauch.-Med. Zh. 2015;11(4):656-8. (Russian).

69. Ambesi-Impiombato FS, Ivanov AA, Mancini A, et al. Effect of recombinant manganese superoxide dismutase (rMnSOD) on the hematologic status in mice irradiated by protons. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2014;59(6):5-11.

70. Lyakhova KN, Ivanov AA, Molokanov AG, et al. Effect of neuropeptide semax on the exploratory behavior reaction and strength of skeletal musculature of proton-irradiated mice. Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 2018;52(4):71-6. (Russian).

For citation: Ivanov AA, Bichkova TM, Nikitenko OV, Ushakov IB. Radiobiological Proton Effects. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):19-31. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf2306a3b26d6.36140627

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 32–39

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf22ff1aea865.52579823

A.B. Mayzik¹, I.P. Korenkov², A.G. Tsovyanov², T.N. Laschenova^2,³, V.N. Klochkov²

Comprehensive Organizational and Methodical Approaches to Decommissioning of Radwaste Repositories

1. SC “A.A. Bochvar High-tech Research Institute of Inorganic Materials”, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia;
3. RUDN University, Moscow, Russia

A.B. Mayzik – Deputy Chief Engineer, Chief of Service, Post-Graduate Student;
I.P. Korenkov – Chief Researcher, PhD Tech., Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof.;
A.G. Tsovyanov – Head of Lab.;
T.N. Laschenova – Leading Researcher, PhD Chem., Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof.;
V.N. Klochkov – Chief Researcher, Dr. Sci. Tech., Associate Prof.

Abstract

Purpose: Development of comprehensive organizational and methodical approaches to decommissioning of shallow radwaste (RW) repositories.

Material and methods: The following researches were conducted during assessment of radiation and hygiene situation:
– assessing the state of physical barriers of repositories (tanks) of solid and liquid RW;
– assessing radiation situation at the repository site before and after remediation;
– measuring specific activity of ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³⁷Cs in ground and subsurface water, core sample, soils, building structures.
Methods: on foot gamma survey; gamma-ray spectrometric measurement of radionuclides in environmental samples using a stationary spectrometer; radiochemical extraction of radionuclides and their radiometry.

Results: The surveys were performed in 2014–2016. They delivered data on gamma dose rate at the RW repository site, specific activity of ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³⁷Cs in ground and subsurface water, core sample, soils, building structures.
The surveys showed that content of ⁹⁰Sr in subsurface water varied from 0.25 to 0.4 Bq/kg, while content of ¹³⁷Cs was below the detection threshold (0.01 Bq per sample). It was founded that distribution of ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³⁷Cs in soil (core sample) forming the top layer of the area is highly uneven. In some cases specific activity of soil exceeded 1000 Bq/kg (С-23 well at the depth of 2.75 m and С-24 well at the depth of 5 m). In all other cases specific activity of the core sample did not exceed 10 Bq/kg, and specific activity of soil was up to 50 Bq/kg which is over background values. The ambient dose equivalent rate at the site varied from 0.1 to 0.3 µSv/h.

More than 6700 measurements were performed (more than 2400 measurements of the ambient dose equivalent rate, more than 4100 measurements of beta-contamination of work surfaces and equipment, and more than 200 measurements of specific and volumetric activity of environmental samples).
After remediation activities content of radionuclides in soil and subsurface water was at the levels of background values.

Conclusions: This work allowed to substantiate technical solutions, procedure of RW accounting and control, using of shelters and mobile systems for radiation safety of the personnel and environmental protection.
It was demonstrated that average external radiation doses for the workers involved in decommissioning activities did not exceed 0.7 mSv (variation from 0.16 to 1.7 mSv), while internal radiation doses varied from 0.35 to 3.3 µSv.
Density of beta-contamination of the site did not exceed 38 beta-particles/(cm2∙min) which corresponds to background values. The ambient dose equivalent rate of the site was within 0.09–0.15 µSv/h after the work has been done.

Key words: liquid and solid radioactive waste, repositories, specific and volumetric activity, decontamination, remediation

REFERENCES

Abramov AA. Final results of implementation of the NRB FTP and challenges for the future. The 15th anniversary Russian scientific conference. Moscow, IBRAE, 2015. P. 15–21. (Russian).
RF Government Regulation of the 15 December 2016 No. 1248 “Nuclear and radiation safety for 2016–2020 and till 2030”.
Engatov IA, Mashkovich VP, Orlov YuV, et al. Radiation safety at decommissioning of civil- and military-oriented nuclear facilities. Moscow, Atomizdat, 1997. 213 p. (Russian).
Agapov AM, Linge II, Melikhov EM, et al. Radiation and new safety issues. Problems related to nuclear legacy and their solutions. Moscow, Papers of the Conference in honor of the 15th anniversary of IBRAE, 2012. P. 13-7. (Russian).
Bylkin BK, Engatov IA. Decommissioning of nuclear reactor systems. Moscow, National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, 2018, 223 p. (Russian).
Volkov VG, Danilovich AS, Zverkov YuA, et al. The experience of decontamination of radioactive soil at the site of National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”. Atomnaya Energia, 2011;110(2):106-112. (Russian).
Korenkov IP, Shandala NK, Laschenova TN, Sobolev AI. Environmental protection at operation and decommissioning of radiation-hazardous facilities. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media, 2014, 432 p. (Russian).
Best foreign practices of site decommissioning and remediation. Vol. 1. Eds.: Linge II, Abramov AA. IBRAE, 2017, 336 p. (Russian).
Best foreign practices of site decommissioning and remediation. Vol. 2. Eds.: Linge II, Abramov AA. IBRAE, 2017, 187 p. (Russian).
GOST R 8.563-2009. State system for ensuring the uniformity of measurements. Procedures of measurements. Moscow, Standartinform, 2010. (Russian).
Korenkov IP, Laschenova TN, Shandala NK, Kiselev MM. Guidance on radiation and hygienic monitoring of the environment. Eds.: Ilyin LA, Samoylov AS. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media, 2018. 459 p. (Russian).
Guidance manual on calculation of emissions from uncontrolled sources in the industry. ZAO NIMIOTSTROM. Novosibirsk, 2002. 30 p. (Russian).

For citation: Mayzik AB, Korenkov IP, Tsovyanov AG, Laschenova TN, Klochkov VN. Comprehensive Organizational and Methodical Approaches to Decommissioning of Radwaste Repositories. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):32-9. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf22ff1aea865.52579823

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 46–53

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf2364cb49523.98590475

M.O. Degteva¹, B.A. Napier², E.I. Tolstykh¹, E.A. Shishkina¹^,3, N.G. Bougrov¹, L.Yu. Krestinina¹, A.V. Akleyev¹^,3

Individual Dose Distribution in Cohort of People Exposed as a Result of Radioactive Contamination of the Techa River

1. Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, USA;
3. Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

M.O. Degteva – Head of Lab., PhD Tech.;
B.A. Napier – Leading Researcher, UNSCEAR Member;
E.I. Tolstykh – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol.;
E.A. Shishkina – Senior Researcher, Senior Lecturer, PhD Biol.;
N.G. Bougrov – Senior Researcher, PhD Tech.;
L.Yu. Krestinina – Head of Lab., PhD Med.;
A.V. Akleyev – Director, Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof., UNSCEAR Member

Abstract

Purpose: Descriptive analysis of the distributions of organ/tissue doses for individuals exposed to radiation as a result of liquid waste releases into the Techa River by the Mayak Production Association (PA) in 1949–1956.

Material and methods: The dosimetry system TRDS-2016D has been used to compute individual doses of external and internal exposures. TRDS-2016D databases include information on radionuclide intakes and dose rates in air for settlements located in the contaminated areas of the Techa River and the East Ural Radioactive Trace (EURT). Combining these village-average data with the residence history and age of a particular person, the system produces an individual scenario of external exposure and individual radionuclide intakes and then calculates corresponding external and internal doses from the Techa River and EURT. Available 90Sr body-burden measurements and available information on individual household locations relative to the contaminated river have been used for refinement of individual dose estimates.

Results: Individual doses have been calculated for 29,647 persons included in the Techa River Cohort (TRC). According to residence history data, 5,280 members of the TRC were additionally exposed due to residency in the EURT villages. The cohort-average dose for the majority of extra-skeletal tissues does not exceed 100 mGy, while for the red bone marrow (RBM) it is equal to 350 mGy. In addition to the doses from the Techa River and EURT, individual thyroid doses for TRC members exposed to the Mayak PA atmospheric ¹³¹I releases have been calculated in a separate computer program. The cohort–average thyroid dose is 210 mGy. Maximum doses (about 1 Gy to the majority of extra-skeletal tissues and over 7 Gy to the thyroid and RBM) are observed for the persons who lived in their childhood and adolescence in the upper Techa region at close distance to the Mayak PA.

Conclusion: The TRC members were exposed to chronic radiation over a wide range of doses, but at low-to-moderate-dose rates. Estimates of absorbed doses can be used to analyze the dose dependences of the incidence of solid cancers and leukemias. This can make it possible to verify risk coefficients of low-dose-rate effects of ionizing radiation which can be used for radiation protection purposes.

Key words: dose reconstruction, Mayak Production Association, Techa river, East Urals Radioactive Trace, Strontium-90, Cesium-137, Iodine-131

REFERENCES

Degteva MO, Shagina NB, Vorobiova MI, Shishkina EA, Tolstykh EI, Akleyev AV. Contemporary understanding of radioactive contamination of the Techa River in 1949–1956. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2016;56(5):523-34. DOI: 10.7868/S0869803116050039. (Russian).
Shagina NB, Vorobiova MI, Degteva MO, Peremyslova LM, Shishkina EA, Anspaugh LR, Napier BA. Reconstruction of the contamination of the Techa River in 1949-1951 as a result of releases from the “MAYAK” Production Association. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2012;51:349-66. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-012-0414-0.
Consequences of Radioactive Contamination of the Techa River. Akleyev AV (ed). Chelyabinsk: Kniga; 2016. 400 p. (Russian).
Davis FG, Krestinina LYu, Preston D, Epifanova S, Degteva M, Akleyev AV. Solid Cancer Incidence in the Techa River Incidence Cohort: 1956–2007. Radiat Res. 2015;184:56-65. DOI: 10.1667/RR14023.1.
Krestinina LYu, Davis FG, Schonfeld S, Preston DL, Degteva M, Epifanova S, AkleyevAV. Leukaemia incidence in the Techa River Cohort: 1953–2007. Brit J Cancer. 2013;109:2886-93. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.614.
Schonfeld SJ, Krestinina LYu, Epifanova SB, Degteva MO, Akleyev AV, Preston DL. Solid cancer mortality in the Techa River Cohort (1950-2007). Radiat Res. 2013;179(2):183-9. DOI: 10.1667/RR2932.1.
Preston DL, Sokolnikov ME, Krestinina LYu, Stram DO. Estimates of radiation effects on cancer risks in the Mayak worker, Techa River and atomic bomb survivor studies. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2017;173(1):26-31. DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncw316.
Ruhm W, Woloschak GE, Shore RE, Azizova TV, Grosche B, Niwa O, et al. Dose and dose-rate effects of ionizing radiation: a discussion in the light of radiological protection. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2015;54(4):379-401. DOI 10.1007/s00411-015-0613-6.
Degteva MO, Tolstykh EI, Vorobiova MI, Shagina NB, Shishkina EA, Bougrov NG, et al. Techa River Dosimetry System: Current status and future. Radiation Safety Issues. 2006;(1):66-80. (Russian).
Napier BA, Degteva MO, Shagina NB, Anspaugh LR. Uncertainty analysis for the Techa River Dosimetry System. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013;58(1):5-28. (Russian and English).
Degteva MO, Tolstykh EI, Suslova KG, Romanov SA, Akleyev AV. Analysis of the results of long-lived radionuclide body burden monitoring in residents of the Urals region. Radiation Hygiene. 2018;11(3):30-9. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426X-2018-11-3-30-39. (Russian).
Tolstykh EI, Degteva MO, Peremyslova LM, Shagina NB, Shishkina EA, Krivoschapov VA, et al. Reconstruction of long-lived radionuclide intakes for Techa riverside residents: Strontium-90. Health Phys. 2011;101(1):28-47. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e318206d0ff.
Shagina NB, Tolstykh EI, Degteva MO, Anspaugh LR, Napier BA. Age and gender specific biokinetic model for strontium in humans. J Radiol Prot. 2015;35(1):87-127. DOI: 10.1088/0952-4746/35/1/87.
Tolstykh EI, Peremyslova LM, Degteva MO, Napier BA. Reconstruction of radionuclide intakes for the residents of East Urals Radioactive Trace (1957-2011). Radiat Environ Biophys. 2017;56(1):27-45. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-016-0677-y.
Napier BA, Eslinger PW, Tolstykh EI, Vorobiova MI, Tokareva EE, Akhramenko BN, et al. Calculations of individual doses for Techa River Cohort members exposed to atmospheric radioiodine from Mayak releases. J Environ Radioact. 2017;178-179:156-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2017.08.013.
Tolstykh EI, Degteva MO, Peremyslova LM, Shagina NB, Vorobiova MI, Anspaugh LR, Napier BA. Reconstruction of long-lived radionuclide intakes for Techa riverside residents: 137Cs. Health Phys. 2013;104(5):481-98. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e318285bb7a.
Degteva MO, Shagina NB, Shishkina EA, Vozilova AV, Volchkova AY, Vorobiova MI, et al. Analysis of EPR and FISH studies of radiation doses in persons who lived in the upper reaches of the Techa River. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2015;54:433-44. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-015-0611-8.
Akleyev AV, Krestinina LYu, Degteva MO, Tolstykh EI. Consequences of the radiation accident at the Mayak production association in 1957. J Radiol Prot. 2017;37:R19-R42. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/aa7f8d.
Degteva MO, Shagina NB, Tolstykh EI, Bougrov NG, Zalyapin VI, Anspaugh LR, Napier BA. An approach to reduction of uncertainties in internal doses reconstructed for the Techa River population. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2007;127:480-5. DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncm410.
Shishkina EA, Volchkova AYu, Degteva MO, Napier BA. Evaluation of dose rates in the air at non-uniform vertical distribution of gamma-emitting radionuclides in different types of soil. Radiation Safety Issues. 2016;(3):43-52. (Russian).
Hiller MM, Woda C, Bougrov NG, Degteva MO, Ivanov O, Ulanovsky A, Romanov S. External dose reconstruction for the former village of Metlino (Techa River, Russia) based on environmental surveys, luminescence measurements and radiation transport modelling. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2017;56(2):139-59. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-017-0688-3.
Degteva MO, Shishkina EA, Tolstykh EI, Vozilova AV, Shagina NB, Volchkova AYu, et al. Application of EPR and FISH methods to dose reconstruction for people exposed in the Techa River area. Radiation Biology. Radioecology. 2017;57:30-41. DOI: 10.7868/S0869803117010052. (Russian).

For citation: Degteva MO, Napier BA, Tolstykh EI, Shishkina EA, Bougrov NG, Krestinina LYu, Akleyev AV. Individual Dose Distribution in Cohort of People Exposed as a Result of Radioactive Contamination of the Techa River. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):46-53. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf2364cb49523.98590475

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 40–45

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf232752e83d4.66034976

F.S. Torubarov, M.V. Kuleshovа, S.N. Lukyanova, Z.F. Zvereva, A.S. Samoylov

Spectral Correlation Analysis of EEG of Liquidators of the Chernobyl Accident with Neurological Disorders

A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

F.S. Torubarov – Head of Lab., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
M.V. Kuleshova – Doctor-Neurologist, PhD. Med.;
S.N. Lukyanova – Chef Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol., Prof.;
Z.F. Zvereva – Senior Researcher, Dr. Sci. Med.;
A.S. Samoylov – Director General, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof. RAS;

Abstract

Purpose: Comparative analysis of spectral correlation characteristics of EEG from liquidators of the Chernobyl accident and persons group, with neurological disorders.

Material and methods: A study carried out with the participation of 141 of the liquidator of the Chernobyl accident and 84 people group. Ionizing effects could be subject only to the liquidators. The average radiation dose in a group of liquidators was 110 ± 14 mSv. Groups were matched on age and employment. All persons have passed clinical neurological and electrophysiological examination. The focus of the article given that spectral and correlation analysis of EEG.

Results: Clinical examination made it possible to diagnose neurological disorders in both groups as: vegetovascular dystonia, neurocirculatory dystonia, dyscirculatory encephalopathy of different etiology. Their number and extent dominated statistically in a group of liquidators of the Chernobyl accident. It is important to note that increasing the frequency of their manifestations depending on the liquidators received radiation doses have not been identified. However, the disorder is diagnosed more often in the psychoemotional sphere among liquidators, than in the group mapping (61.7 % and 29.7 %, respectively). The analysis reveals statistically significant differences in EEG spectra in the presence of specified diagnoses compared with known characteristic of norms. Spectral and correlation analysis of EEG complements these data, demonstrating the existence of correlative considered diagnoses and significant differences between groups of liquidators and mappings. Liquidators increased delta-range observed in the authentically greater degree (as compared to a matched group) and combined with a significant reduction in the alpha-frequency index. The observed changes among liquidators are functional and non-specific in nature. Picture of the totality of the observed changes is not specific. It is regarded as one of the non-pathogenic mechanisms of development of the asthenic symptoms of different etiology.

Conclusions: In the group of liquidators revealed a significant increase in the quantity and the degree of neurological disorders. In the spectrum of EEG liquidators reliably amplifies the index delta-activity and decreases the severity of alpha range compared to a mappings group. It is important that these changes are accompanied by a weakening of the correlations between brain structures and disruption EEG rest.

Key words: liquidators of the Chernobyl NPP accident, group comparison, clinical neurological examination, spectral and correlation analysis of EEG, significant differences

REFERENCES

Torubarov FS, Blagovechenscaya VV, Cheselin PV, Nikolaev MP. J. Neuropathology and Psychiatry.1989;89(2):48-52. (Russian).
Kryzhanivskaya LA. The Chernobyl catastrophe and biomedical rehabilitation. Sat. Conference Materials. Minsk, 1992:50-2. (Russian).
Neagu AI, Noshenko AG, Loganovsky KN. J. Neuropathology and Psychiatry. 1992;92(4):72-7. (Russian).
Neagu AI. Distant neuropsychiatric effects of the Chernobyl accident. Abstracts of Int. Conf. Actual Problems of Forecasting and Mental Health Violations after a Nuclear Holocaust. 1995;95-101. (Russian).
Kuleshova MV. Clinical EEG-study of the consequences of the accident Chernobyl exposed to low doses of ionizing radiation. Moscow: Autoref. PhD. Med. 1998. 18 p. (Russian).
Kuleshova MV, Torubarov F.S. Frequency of neurological disorders in persons who took part in liquidation of consequences of the Chernobyl accident, depending on the dose and time of work load. Abstracts. Moscow, III All-Russian Congress of Radiobiologists. 1997. (Russian).
Kuleshova MV, Torubarov FS. neurological disorders, structure, particularly the development of pathology in persons who took part in liquidation of consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Abstracts. Moscow, III All-Russian Congress of Radiobiologists. 1997. (Russian).
Zhermunskaja EA. Functional interdependence of large hemispheres of the human brain. Leningrad: Science, 1989. 52 p. (Russian).
Zhermunskaja EA. Clinical electroencephalography (digits, bar graph, illustration). Moscow: Veta-print. 1993.47 p. (Russian).
Kalyuzhny LV, Zacharova IN. EEG data about the interaction of visual cortex, hippocampus and hypothalamus, midbrain reticular formation in the processes of education temporary connection. In: Physiology and Pathology of Limbiko-Reticular System. Ed. P.K. Anokhin, A.M. Wein. Moscow. Nauka, 1971. P. 32-5. (Russian).
Wayn AM, Solovyeva AD, Kolosova OA. Vegetovascular Dystonia. Moscow. Medicine, 1981. 318 p. (Russian).
Swiderscaya NE. Synchronous Electrical Brain Activity and Mental Processes. Moscow. Science, 1987. 155 p. (Russian).
Iljuchenok Ru, Shurgaia AM, Lukyanenko FYa, et al. Mapping of the cortex-subcortex- interaction in the syndrome of asthenic neurosis. J Top Nerv Activity. 1992;(42):911-8. (Russian).
Nerobkova L, Tkachenko SB. Clinical Electroencephalography. Moscow. 2016. 200 p. (Russian).
Reticular Formation of the Brain. Eds. Jasper GG, Proctor LD, Knighton RS. Moscow. Medicine, 1962. 663 p. (Russian).
Vinogradova OS. Hippocampus and Memory. Moscow. Science, 1975. 332 p. (Russian).

For citation: Torubarov FS, Kuleshovа MV, Lukyanova SN, Zvereva ZF, Samoylov AS. Spectral Correlation Analysis of EEG-Liquidators of the Chernobyl accident with Neurological Disorders. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):40-5. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf232752e83d4.66034976

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 54–57

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf239edd98586.89544179

A.R. Tukov¹, I.L. Shafransky¹, A.G. Tsovyanov¹, A.P. Biriukov¹, I.V. Sidorin¹, O.N. Prokhorova¹, V.E. Zhuravleva¹, V.V. Uiba²

Estimation of Radiation Risk of the Initiation of Malignant Novelties in the Liquidators of the Consequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Workers of the Nuclear Industry,
with the Account of Doses of Various Types of Irradiation

1. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia

A.R. Tukov – Head of Lab., PhD Med.;
I.L. Shafransky – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
A.G. Tsovyanov – Head of Lab.;
A.P. Biriukov – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
I.V. Sidorin – Senior Researcher, PhD Phys-Math.;
O.N. Prokhorova – Senior Researcher;
V.E. Zhuravleva – Engineer;
V.V. Uiba – Head of the Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia, Dr. Sci. Med, Prof.

Abstract

Purpose: Estimate of the excess relative risk of malignant neoplasm disease (MND) in nuclear industry workers, participants in the elimination of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, taking into account the doses of various types of irradiation.
Material and methods: An epidemiological experiment was conducted in which the personal data of the information base of the Industry Register of persons exposed to radiation as a result of the Chernobyl accident, the doses of occupational exposure, and tabular data on the dose of natural exposure, presented in the reports on the radiation situation in populated areas ESKID, No. 4-DOZ) were used.
Results: It is shown that the risk assessment of the disease in the Chernobyl accident liquidators, obtained with the use of doses of different types of exposure, has different risk indicators (ERR at 1 Sv: the Chernobyl NPP radiation dose is 0.13, the ChNPP + professional dose is 1.13 and the ChNPP dose + professional + natural – 0.56).
Conclusions: Using any part of the total radiation dose of a person to calculate the risk of dose-induced diseases, we will get incorrect results is unknown how far from the truth. For a reliable assessment of the risk of the disease, an overall dose is required from a person from all types of radiation, which is required by the radiation safety directives.

Key words: cancer, liquidators, Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, radiation risk, doses of various types of irradiation, total dose

REFERENCES

1. Pierce D, Preston DL. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2000 Aug;154(2):178-86.

2. Kato Kazuo, Sawada Shozo. Medical X-ray Doses’ Contributions to the Ionizing Radiation Exposures of Atomic-Bomb Survivors. J Radiat Res. 2016 Nov;57(6):583-95.

3. Chekin SYu, Maksyutov MA, Kashcheev VV, Menyajlo AN, Vlasov OK, Shchukina NV, et al. Prognosis of the long-term medical radiological consequences of the Chernobyl disaster for citizens of Russia and the Republic of Belarus on the main radiation-related diseases. Radiation and Risk. 2016;25(4):7-19. (Russian).

4. Ivanov VK, Rastopchin EM, Chekin SYu, Ryvkin VB. Oncological morbidity and mortality among participants in the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster: an assessment of radiation risks. Radiation and Risk. 1995;6:123-55. (Russian).

5. Tukov AR, Biryukov AP, Shafranskij IL. The use of data on the doses of various types of irradiation in radiation epidemiology. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2014;59(1):43-9. (Russian).

6. Tsovyanov AG, Kosterev VV, Kryuchkov VP, Romanov VV, Pocyapun NP, Kuhta BA, Sivenkov AG. Informational and analytical reference book “Doses of exposure of personnel of organizations and the population in the territories served by FMBA of Russia and the Ministry of Defense of Russia in 2010”. Moscow. 2012. 86 p. (Russian).

7. EPICURE, Users Guide. Preston DL, Lubin JH, Pierce DA, McConney ME. HiroSoft International Corporation. Seattle, WA 98112, USA. 1993. 329 p.

8. Tsyb AF, Ivanov VK, Biryukov AP. Possibilities of radiation epidemiology in solving radiation safety problems of medical exposure. Radiation and Risk. 2008;17(2):50-62. (Russian).

9. Kato K, Antoku S, Russell WJ, Fujita S, Pinkston J.A, Hayabuchi N, et al. Radiation therapy among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Radiat Res. 1998 Jun;149(6):614-24.

For citation: Tukov AR, Shafransky IL, Tsovyanov AG, Birukov AP, Sidorin IV, Prohorova ON, Zhuravleva WE, Uiba VV. Estimation of Radiation Risk of the Initiation of Malignant Novelties in the Liquidators of the Consequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Workers of the Nuclear Industry, with the Account of Doses of Different Irradiation Species. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):54-7. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf239edd98586.89544179

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Page 78 of 170

MEDICAL RADIOLOGY AND RADIATION SAFETY