SCIENTIFIC AND INFORMATION-ANALYTICAL MAGAZINE

ISSN 1024-6177 (Print), ISSN 2618-9615 (Online)

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. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 19–27

RADIATION EPIDEMIOLOGY

DOI: 10.12737/article_5b168903913783.42898182

Problems of Identifying Dose – Effect Dependence for Radiation Carcinogenesis

V.F. Demin1, A.P. Biryukov2, M.V. Zabelin3, V.Yu. Soloviev2

1. National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, 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. Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia, Moscow, Russia

V.F. Demin– Leading Researcher, Dr. Sc. Tech., PhD Phys.-Math., Assoc. Prof.; A.P. Biryukov– Head of Dep., Dr. Sс. Med., Prof.; M.V. Zabelin – Dr. Sc. Med., Prof.; V.Yu. Soloviev – Senior Researcher, Head of Lab., Dr. Sc. Biol., PhD Tech.

Abstract

Purpose: Analysis of actual unresolved problems in the field of radiation epidemiology associated with establishing the dose–effect relationship (DER).

Material and methods: The problem of establishing DER for ionizing radiation (IR) for the prognostic risk assessment based on the results of the performed biological and epidemiological studies is considered. The main characteristics of the cohorts, on which the epidemiological study (ES) was conducted, were analyzed. An algorithm is proposed for analyzing the statistical power of a real cohort in the plane with parameters accumulated dose – cohort strength, adjusted for the average duration of the cohort monitoring.

Results: It is shown that among all the analyzed cohorts the following ones respond the criterion of lifetime detection of radiation solid cancers with the 95 % confidence: the victims of the atomic bombing of Japanese cities (LSS), personnel of the Mayak Plant, members of the Branch Medical Dosimetric Register (BMDR). Limitation of the observation period to 30 year dramatically reduces the statistical power of the ES observed effects.

Overcoming of existing problems and improvement of quantitative presentation of the DER for IR can be achieved by a joint analysis of the results of already performed ES and (or) possible future ES. In this regard, it is very promising to carry out ES on the cohort of the Mayak personnel or BMDR as a whole.

Conclusion: When planning new ESs and joint analyzes, the purpose of which is to improve our knowledge of DER in the required form and quality, one should proceed from the following provisions:

– it is necessary to set the task for ES and, accordingly, for the construction of the DER model as a function of an age of exposure and an age of the oncological disease for a single exposure, taking into account the strict mathematical relationship between such dependencies of DER for single and extended impacts;

– at the initial stage of the ES it is necessary, with the proposed algorithm, to verify the possibility of a statistical justification of the expected ES results.

Averaged DER over the age of exposure is little suitable for predictive and comparative risk assessment.

Key words: radiation epidemiology, dose, radiation risk, cohort, morbidity, mortality, solid cancer, leukemia, statistical power

REFERENCES

  1. Rakhmanin YuA, Demin VF, Ivanov SI. General approach to the assessment, comparison and normalization of the risk to human health from various sources of harm. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2006;(4):5-8. Russian.
  2. Demin VF, Zakharchenko IE. The risk of exposure to ionizing radiation and other harmful factors on human health: assessment methods and practical application. Radiat Biology. Radioecology. 2012;52(1):77-89. Russian.
  3. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIRVII). Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2005. 710 p.
  4. Shigematsu I. The 2000 Sievert Lecture – Lessons from Atomic Bomb Survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Health Phys. 2000;79(3):234-41.
  5. EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population. April 2011, U.S. EPA, Washington DC; 2011. 164 p.
  6. Gonzales AG. The Sievert Lecture. Int. Radiat. Prot. Assotiat. 11th Int. Congress. Madrid, Spain; 2004 May 23–28. Available from: http://irpa11.irpa.net/pdfs/pps0-2.pdf.
  7. UNSCEAR 2006 Report. Vol. I. Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Annex A: Epidemiological Studies of Radiation and Cancer. UN, New York; 2008. 310 p.
  8. Cancer in Russia in 2013 (morbidity and mortality). Ed. by AD Kaprin, VV Starinskij, GV Petrova. Herzen Moscow Scientific Oncological Institute; 2015. Available from: www.oncology.ru/service/statistics/malignant_tumors/2013.pdf. Russian.
  9. Soloviev VYu. Mathematical methods and models in emergency dosimetry, radiation medicine and radiation epidemiology. Мoscow: State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency; 2016. 120 p. Russian.
  10. Cardis E, Wijheid M, Blettner M, et al. Cancer Risk Following Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation – a Retrospective Cohort Study in 15 Countries. Brit Med J. 2005;331:77-80.
  11. Freser P, Carpenter L, Maconochie E, et al. Cancer Mortality and Morbidity in Employees of the United Kindom Atomic Energy Authority, 1946–1986. Brit J Cancer. 1993:615-24.
  12. Howe G, Zablotska LB, Fix JJ. Analysis of the Mortality Experience among U.S. Nuclear Power Workers after Chronic Low-Dose Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. Radiat Res. 2004;(162):517-26.
  13. Cardis E, Gilbert E, Carpenter L, et al. Effects of Low Doses and Low Dose Rates of External Ionizing Radiation: Cancer Mortality among Nuclear Industry Workers in Three Countries. Radiat Res. 1995;142:724-32.
  14. Gorskij AI, Maksyutov MA, Tumanov KA, et al. Analysis of mortality of liquidators of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident according to the data of the National Radiation and Epidemiological Register for the observation period 1992–2010. Radiation and Risk. 2013;22(2):35-51. Russian.
  15. Ilyin LA, Kiselev MF, Panfilov AP, et al. Medical Dosimetric Registry of Russian atomic industry employees: current status and perspectives. Int J Low Radiation. 2006;2(3/4):207-17.
  16. Ilyin LA, Ivanov AA, Kochetkov OA, et al. Technogenic Exposure and Human Safety. Ed. by LA Ilyin. Moscow: IzdAT; 2006. 303 p. Russian.
  17. Richardson DB, Cardis E, Daniel RD, et al. Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). Brit Med J. 2015:351. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h5359.
  18. Koshurnikova NA, Shilnikova NS, Okatenko PV, et al. Cohort characteristics of Mayak Plant personnel. Med Radiol Radiat Safety. 1998;43(6):43-57. Russian.
  19. Shilnikova NS, Preston DA, Koshurnikova NA, Okatenko PV. Comparative analysis of leukemia in the cohorts of Mayak workers and among those exposed to radiation in the atomic explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In: Chronic radiation exposure: risk of long-term effects. Moscow: IzdAT. 1996;2:115-20. Russian.
  20. Tukov AR, Shafranski IL, Biryukov AP, Prokhorova ON. The branch register of exposed persons in the Chernobyl accident. Med Radiol Radiat Safety. 2016;61(3):62-7. Russian.
  21. Soloviev VYu, Semenov VG, Kravchenko MV, Koshurnikova NA. The method of analyzing the information of medical dosimetry registers for estimating the yield of cancer-related mortality potentially induced by radiation. Med Radiol Radiat Safety. 2004;49(1):45-52. Russian.
  22. Soloviev VYu, Semenov VG, Koshurnikova NA, et. al. “Early” Leukemia Effect in Prolonged Exposure with High Doses. Int J Low Radiation. 2006;2(3/4):275-84.
  23. Soloviev VYu, Semenov VG, Koshurnikova NA. “Early” leukemia effect in prolonged exposure with high doses. Radiat Biology Radioecology. 2007;47(6):701-6. Russian.
  24. Demin VF, Zhukovski MV, Kiselev SM. Method of human health risk assessment of radon exposure. Gygiena and Sanitaria. 2014;(5):64-9. Russian.

For citation: Demin VF, Biryukov AP, Zabelin MV, Soloviev VYu. Problems of Identifying Dose – Effect Dependence for Radiation Carcinogenesis. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(3):19-27. Russian. DOI: 10.12737/article_5b168903913783.42898182

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 12-18

RADIATION MEDICINE

DOI: 10.12737/article_5b1687794549a4.24841276

Psychological Preconditions of the Staff Stability During Work at Facilities after Radiation Accidents

A.A. Kosenkov

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.

A.A. Kosenkov – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.

Abstract

Purpose: Identification of the psychological preconditions of the staff stability during work at facilities after radiation accidents.

Material and methods: This paper includes the comparative analysis of findings of psychological examination of the personnel of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) over the aftermath period (July 1986 – April 1987) and those of the control group consisted of the workers of the Smolensk NPP (102 persons). The psychological examination was based on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF).

To achieve the purpose of this study, additional information was collected concerning the time of dismissal of previously examined employees of the Chernobyl NPP. Two groups of the surveyed workers were selected on the basis of the obtained information:

– individuals who continued to work at the Chernobyl NPP after the accident until 1995 (group 1) – 74 persons;

– individuals who resigned voluntary from the plant within a year and a half following the accident (group 2) – 29 persons.

Results: The results of the examination using MMPI and 16-PF revealed significant differences in the generalized psychological portraits of group 1, group 2 and the control group.

Individuals of the group 2 were more different in psychological parameters from the control group than those of group 1. So, according to the MMPI data, significant differences were found on the L (Lie) scale and on seven clinical scales: scale 1 (Hypochondriasis), scale 2 (Depression), scale 3 (Hysteria), scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviate), scale 6 (Paranoia), scale 7 (Psychasthenia) and scale 8 (Schizophrenia). The values in the group 2 were significantly higher than in the control group for all listed above scales. In addition, the group 2 had lower levels of 16PF factors: the Q1 (Openness to Change/Radicalism) and the secondary F4 factor (Independence). Also, a large proportion of individuals with abnormally pronounced personality traits (more than 70 T-score) were obtained in this group according to the MMPI data (41.4 %). The most frequently anomalous peaks were met on the scales 2 (Depression) and 1 (Hypochondriasis). The anomalous peaks on the MMPI profiles in the group 2 have been detected more than three times often than in the group 1. In addition, the group 2 had lower levels of 16PF factors: C (Emotional Stability) and F (Liveliness) than these factors of the group 1.

Comparison of the examination results of the group 1 and the control group revealed the similarity of their generalized psychological portraits. At the same time, the group 1 demonstrated much higher values (p < 0.05) on MMPI scales: 1 (Hypochondriasis) and 2 (Depression) in comparison with the control group, however, these values were a bit higher than the general population standards (50 T-scores).

Conclusion: The group of employees who quitted the job shortly after the accident was characterized by a pronounced uniqueness according to indicators of psycho-diagnostic tests, in comparison both with the control group, and with those who remained working at the plant for a long time. Apparently, these differences confirm our assumption about the existence of psychological characteristics that can be considered as preconditions for workers to make the decision to leave or continue working at the enterprise under changed conditions. This demonstrates the importance of taking into account the psychological characteristics of workers and the need for psychological support for personnel working under the exposure of harmful and hazardous factors after major radiation accidents.

Key words: staff turnover, personnel of nuclear power plants, radiation accidents, psycho-diagnostic examination

REFERENCES

  1. Khalin SM. Sociology of labor collectives: textbook. Tyumen: Tyumen State University; 2004. 70 p. Russian.
  2. Glebbeek AC, Bax EH. Labour turnover and its effects on performance: an empirical test using firm data (SOM Research Report). Groningen: University of Groningen, SOM Research School; 2002. 27 p.
  3. Berezin FB. Some aspects of the psychic and psychophysiological human adaptation. In: Psychic Human Adaptation under the North Conditions. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR; 1980. p. 4–43. Russian.
  4. Berezin FB. Psychic and Psychophysiological Human Adaptation. Leningrad: Nauka; 1988. 270 p. Russian.
  5. Berezin FB, Miroshnikov MP, Rozhanets RV. Method of Multi-Lateral Personality Research in Clinical Medicine and Pscycho-Hygyene. Moscow: Meditsina; 1976. 186 p. Russian.
  6. Berezin FB, Miroshnikov MP, Sokolova ED. Method of Multi-Lateral Study of Personality. Structure, Basis of Interpretation, Some Areas of Application. 3rd ed., fully rev. and expand. Moscow: Publishing House «Berezin Feliks Borisovich»; 2011. 320 p. Russian.
  7. Melnikov VM, Yampolsky LT. Introduction to experimental personality psychology. Moscow: Publishing House “Prosveschenie”; 1985. 319 p. Russian.
  8. Gorelova ES, Krupnik AM, Mikhailov AN, Sokolova ED. Psychological studies of human adaptation in the North. In: Psychic Human Adaptation under the North Conditions. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR; 1980. p. 44-76. Russian.
  9. Darley JM. Fear and social comparison as determinants of conformity behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1966;4(1):73-8.
  10. Smirnov VN. Psychology of personnel management in the extremal situations. Moscow. The Publishing Center “Academy”; 2007. 256 p. Russian.
  11. Brown JS. The motivation of behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1961. 404 p.
  12. Rafferty AE, Griffin MA. Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91(5):1154-62.

For citation: Kosenkov AA. Psychological Preconditions of the Staff Stability During Work at Facilities after Radiation Accidents. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(3):12-8. Russian. DOI: 10.12737/article_5b1687794549a4.24841276

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 71–77

MEDICAL PRACTICE ISSUE

N.I. Rozhkova, T.V. Sherstneva, O.N. Avilov, M.A. Shershneva, O.B. Tararuchina

Extraabdominal Fibromatosis of Desmoid Breast Tumor

Russian Scientific Center of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Federal Mammological Center. Moscow, Russia. e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract

Fibromatosis or desmoid breast tumor is a rare tumor, which has both characteristics of a benign and a malignant tumor. During clinical, instrumental and laboratory tests features of both malignant and benign tumor have been established. The article is a report of two desmoid breast tumor cases, observed in our clinic, and presents the pattern of the diagnostics, based on clinical experience.

Key words: extraabdominal fibromatosis, malignant tumor, fibrosarcoma

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 3. P. 5-11

RADIATION MEDICINE

DOI: 10.12737/article_5b167cf9700c61.74690336

Cerebrovascular Incidence and Death Rates in a Cohort of Workers Occupationally Exposed to Radiation

M.B. Moseeva, T.V. Azizova, E.S. Grigoryeva

Southern Urals Biophysics Institute. Ozersk, Chelyabinsk Region, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

M.B. Moseeva – Research Fellow; T.V. Azizova – PhD Med., Head of the Center for Radiation Occupational Diseases Central Medical Unit-71, Member of the Russian delegation of UNSCEAR, Member of Committee 1 of ICRP; E.S. Grigoryeva – Research Fellow

Abstract

Purpose: Cerebrovascular disease (CVD) incidence and mortality rates were estimated in the cohort of nuclear workers occupationally exposed to radiation over a long period at the Mayak PA.

Material and methods: Study cohort included 22377 workers (25 % females) of the Mayak Production Association employed during 1948–1982 and was based on “Clinic” medical dosimetry database and “Dosimetry system for Mayak workers 2008”. Statistica 6.0 software was used for statistical treatment and data analysis. Intensive (crude) and standardised incidence and mortality rates were calculated per 100 000 workers.

Results: Number of cases and deaths from CVD were 8910 and 930 respectively. The greatest number of CVD cases (84 % of males and 87 % of females) was among workers of 50–69 years old, and the greatest number of CVD deaths (85 % of males and 94 % of females) was among workers of 60 years old and older.

Conclusion: The present study showed that CVD incidence and mortality in the studied cohort of the Mayak nuclear workers occupationally exposed to radiation depended on the gender, age and calendar period. Statistically significant decreasing trends in CVD incidence and mortality over 1948–2013 period were not revealed.

Key words : cerebrovascular diseases, occupational exposure, Mayak PA

REFERENCES

  1. Denisova EV. Actual problems of the cerebral vascular diseases in the world (literature review). Bulletin of the Public Health and Health Protection of the Russian Far East. 2011;(3):1-5. Russian.
  2. Demographic Yearbook of Russian. 2015: Stat. Coll. Rosstat. Moscow: Rosstat; 2015. 263 p. Russian.
  3. Alberts MJ. Secondary Prevention of Stroke and the Expanding Role of the Neurologist. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2002;13 Suppl 1:12-6. DOI:10.1159/000047784.
  4. Stakhovskaya LV, Klochikhina OА, Bogatyryova ED, Kovalenko VV. Stroke epidemiology in Russia based on the territory population register (2009–2010). Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry. 2013;(5):4-10. Russian.
  5. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2015: With Special Feature on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2016. 461 p.
  6. Kharchenko VI, Kakorina EP, Koryakin MV, et al. Circulatory disease mortality in Russia and economically developed countries. Necessity to strengthening of cardiological service and modernisation of the medical statistics in the Russian Federation. Analytical review of the Goscomstat official data, Ministry of Health Care and Social Development of the Russian Federation, WHO and expert estimates of the problem. Russian Cardiol Journal. 2005;(2):5-17. Russian.
  7. Johnston SC, Mendis S, Mathers CD. Global variation in stroke burden and mortality: estimates from monitoring, surveillance, and modelling. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(3):56-9.
  8. Vishnevskiy A, Andreev E, Timonin S. Circulatory disease mortality and life span in Russia. Demographical Review. 2016;3(1):6-34. Russian.
  9. Azizova TV, Bannikova MV, Moseeva MB, et al. Cerebrovascular diseases mortality in a cohort of workers occupationally exposed to radiation. Neurol Journal. 2016;21(4):226-31. Russian.
  10. Azizova TV, Bannikova MV, Moseeva MB, et al. Cerebrovascular disease morbidity in a cohort of workers occupationally exposed to radiation. Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry. 2014;(12):128-32. Russian.
  11. International classification of diseases of the 10th review (ICD-10) [cited 2017 Mar 7]. Available from: http://www.mkb-10.com. Russian.
  12. Azizova TV, Teplyakov II, Grigoryeva ES, et al. «Clinic» medical dosimetry database for the Mayak workers and their families. Med Radiol and Radiation Safety. 2009;54(5):26-35. Russian.
  13. Khokhryakov VV, Khokhryakov VF, Suslova KG, et al. Mayak Worker Dosimetry System 2008 (MWDS-2008): Assessment of internal alpha-dose from measurement results of plutonium activity in urine. Health Physics. 2013;104(4):366-78.
  14. Merkov AM, Polyakov LES. Sanitary Statistics. Manual for Physicians. Moscow. Atomizdat; 1975. 245 p. Russian.
  15. Ahlbom A, Norell S. Introduction to Modern Epidemiology. Stockholm, Sweden: Epidemiology Resources Inc; 1990. 109 p.
  16. Lipovetskiy BM. Infarction, Stroke, Sudden Death. Risk Factors, Prodrome, Preventive Measures. Saint Petersburg: Special literature; 1997. 191 p. Russian.
  17. Gusev EI, Skvortsova VI, Stakhovskaya LV. Stroke epidemiology in Russia. Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry. («Stroke» appendum). 2003;(8):4-8. Russian.
  18. Moseeva MB, Azizova TV, Grigoryeva ES, et al. Cerebrovascular disease mortality structure in a cohort of workers occupationally exposed to radiation over the follow-up period in dynamics. Ural Med Journal. 2017;(5/149):114-20. Russian.

For citation: Moseeva MB, Azizova TV, Grigoryeva ES. Cerebrovascular Incidence and Death Rates in a Cohort of Workers Occupationally Exposed to Radiation. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(3):5-11. Russian. DOI: 10.12737/article_5b167cf9700c61.74690336

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

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 59–67

REVIEW

A.K. Guskova

Present Organization of Medical Support of Radiation Exposed Persons

FSBE Burnasyan FMBC of the FMBA of Russia. Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract

The article analyses the main trends in the organization of medical support for nuclear industry employees and other persons exposed to radiation; it shows the role of timely response of hygienists and clinicians in urgent defining the most significant directions of practical and scientific activities at the separate stage. Attention is paid to the need of constant collaboration of scientists, technologists and physicians in the key problems of radiation safety solving. Such joint efforts have made the nuclear industry one of the most perfect in terms of security. Relevant standards and regulations for groups of people exposed to widely varying doses of radiation are introduced. The most topical directions of scientific and practical research in the field of radiation safety at present time are formulated. The obvious prevalence of nonradiation factors in life and labor conditions should be taken into account. The author points out the need of accurate ranging of the groups with various factors relation, both in respect of the organization of out-patient supervision and in establishing of the links between their state health changes and above mentioned factors. The utmost importance of timely address information presented in comprehensive form on the radiation exposure conditions is emphasized.

Key words: exposure, staff, population, medical management

  1. 2013-1-Arhipova-eng
  2. 2013-1-Dunaeva-eng
  3. 2013-1-Soloviev-eng
  4. 2013-1-Taranenko-eng

Contact Information

 

46, Zhivopisnaya st., 123098, Moscow, Russia Phone: +7 (499) 190-95-51. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Journal location

Attendance

2944417
Today
Yesterday
This week
Last week
This month
Last month
For all time
1260
4283
20395
20395
42713
113593
2944417
Forecast today
3360

Your IP:216.73.216.100
Visitor Counter

© Журнал "Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность" 2020г.

Яндекс.Метрика

Наверх