Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “RADIATION PROTECTION”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,621 records · Page 90Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Concept of optimisation of the radiation protection system in the nuclear sector: management of individual cancer risks and providing targeted health care.

The paper discusses the provision of targeted health care to nuclear workers in Russia based on radiation-epidemiological estimates of cancer risks. Cancer incidence rates are analysed for the workers of the Institute of Physical Power Engineering (the first nuclear installation in the world) who were subjected to individual dosimetric monitoring from 1950 to 2002. The value of excess relative risk for solid cancers was found to be ERR Gy(-1) = 0.24 (95% CI: -4.22; 7.96). It has been shown that 81.8% of the persons covered by individual dosimetric monitoring have potential attributive risk up to 5%, and the risk is more than 10% for 3.7% of the workers. Among the detected cancer cases, 73.5% of the individuals show an attributive risk up to 5% and the risk is in excess of 10% for 3.9% of the workers. Principles for the provision of targeted health care, given voluntary health insurance, are outlined.

Body Burden↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Radiation-protective effect of agonists of alpha-2 adrenergic receptors. Methyldopa].

MethylDOPA has the considerable (60-80%) and lasting RPE at both intraperitoneal (0.5-3.8 mmol/kg) and per os (3.8-7.1 mmol/kg) introduction in radiation dose 8 Gr (LD97/30). Optimal time for introduction is 0.5-3.0 hours intraperitoneally and 3-6 hours per os. Evidently, methylDOPA RPE is realized via alpha 2-adrenoceptors.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1998

Radiation protection recommendations as applied to the disposal of long-lived solid radioactive waste. A report of The International Commission on Radiological Protection.

(79) Waste, by definition, has no benefit. It should be viewed as one aspect of the beneficial practice that gave rise to it. Furthermore, radioactive waste management should be placed in the context of the management of society's waste in general. (80) A major issue in evaluating the acceptability of a disposal system for long-lived solid radioactive waste is that doses or risks may arise from exposures in the distant future. There is uncertainty surrounding any estimate of these doses or risks due to lack of knowledge about future conditions. Such exposures are treated as potential exposures as their magnitude depends on future processes and conditions that have probabilities associated with them. (81) Nevertheless, the Commission recognises a basic principle that individuals and populations in the future should be afforded at least the same level of protection from the action of disposing of radioactive waste today as is the current generation. This implies use of the current quantitative dose and risk criteria derived from considering associated health detriment. Therefore, protection of future generations should be achieved by applying these dose or risk criteria to the estimated future doses or risks in appropriately defined critical groups. These estimates should not be regarded as measures of health detriment beyond times of around several hundreds of years into the future. In the case of these longer time periods, they represent indicators of the protection afforded by the disposal system. (82 Constrained optimisation is the central approach to evaluating the radiological acceptability of a waste disposal system; dose or risk constraints are used rather than dose or risk limits. By this transition from limitation to optimisation, the needs of practical application of the radiological protection system to the disposal of long-lived solid waste disposal are met: determination of acceptability now for exposures that may occur in the distant future. Optimisation should be applied in an iterative manner during the disposal system development process and should particularly cover both site selection and repository design. (83) Two broad categories of exposure situations should be considered: natural processes and human intrusion. The latter only refers to intrusion that is inadvertent. The radiological implications of deliberate intrusion into a repository are the responsibility of the intruder. Assessed doses or risks arising from natural processes should be compared with a dose constraint of 0.3 mSv per year or its risk equivalent of around 10(-5) per year. With regard to human intrusion, the consequences from one or more plausible stylized scenarios should be considered in order to evaluate the resilience of the repository to such events. (84) The Commission considers that in circumstances where human intrusion could lead to doses to those living around the site sufficiently high that intervention on current criteria would almost always be justified, reasonable efforts should be made at the repository development stage to reduce the probability of human intrusion or to limit its consequences. In this respect, the Commission has previously advised that an existing annual dose of around 10 mSv per year may be used as a generic reference level below which intervention is not likely to be justifiable. Conversely, an existing annual dose of around 100 mSv per year may be used as a generic reference level above which intervention should be considered almost always justifiable. Similar considerations apply in situations where the thresholds for deterministic effects in relevant organs are exceeded. (85) Compliance with the constraints can be assessed by utilising either an aggregated risk-oriented approach, with a risk constraint, or a disaggregated dose/probability approach, with a dose constraint, or a combination of both. A similar level of protection can be achieved by any of these approaches; however, more information may

Hazardous Waste↗