To the Question of the Interpretation of the Terms “Dose Limit” and “Radiation Accident” in the Development of New Norms of Radiation Safety

S.A. Ryzhov, B.Ya. Narkevich, A.V. Vodovatov
{"title":"To the Question of the Interpretation of the Terms “Dose Limit” and “Radiation Accident” in the Development of New Norms of Radiation Safety","authors":"S.A. Ryzhov, B.Ya. Narkevich, A.V. Vodovatov","doi":"10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-5-38-43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To analyze the existing in NRB-99/2009 and proposed in the journal “Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety” interpretations of the terms “dose limit” and “radiation accident” when developing a new version of this regulatory document. Material and methods: The features of the interpretation of these terms are considered both in NRB-99/2009 and in a number of domestic and international reference books and glossaries on radiation safety, including proposals published in No. 4 of the journal “Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety” for 2023. Results: The interpretation of the numerical values of the dose limits proposed in the indicated journal seems to be poorly substantiated, while their traditional interpretation remains more preferable. The addition of the concept of a radiation accident with the term “emergency” with its own explanation by the authors of the article contradicts the recommendations of the IAEA. The necessity of taking into account the specifics of radiation accidents in medicine when interpreting the term “radiation accident” is shown. Conclusions: 1. There is no need to revise the traditional interpretation of the numerical values of dose limits. 2. It is expedient to replace the wording of the concept of a radiation accident existing in NRB-99/2009 with the wording of the same concept from the IAEA glossary on radiation safety. 3. Taking into account the need for a correct interpretation of the concept of a radiation accident in medicine, the terms “radiation incident”, “unintentional (accidental) medical exposure” and “radiation accident” with their corresponding interpretations should be added to the new version of the NRB.","PeriodicalId":37358,"journal":{"name":"Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-5-38-43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze the existing in NRB-99/2009 and proposed in the journal “Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety” interpretations of the terms “dose limit” and “radiation accident” when developing a new version of this regulatory document. Material and methods: The features of the interpretation of these terms are considered both in NRB-99/2009 and in a number of domestic and international reference books and glossaries on radiation safety, including proposals published in No. 4 of the journal “Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety” for 2023. Results: The interpretation of the numerical values of the dose limits proposed in the indicated journal seems to be poorly substantiated, while their traditional interpretation remains more preferable. The addition of the concept of a radiation accident with the term “emergency” with its own explanation by the authors of the article contradicts the recommendations of the IAEA. The necessity of taking into account the specifics of radiation accidents in medicine when interpreting the term “radiation accident” is shown. Conclusions: 1. There is no need to revise the traditional interpretation of the numerical values of dose limits. 2. It is expedient to replace the wording of the concept of a radiation accident existing in NRB-99/2009 with the wording of the same concept from the IAEA glossary on radiation safety. 3. Taking into account the need for a correct interpretation of the concept of a radiation accident in medicine, the terms “radiation incident”, “unintentional (accidental) medical exposure” and “radiation accident” with their corresponding interpretations should be added to the new version of the NRB.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于制定辐射安全新规范中“剂量限值”和“辐射事故”的解释问题
目的:分析现有的NRB-99/2009和《医疗放射学与辐射安全》杂志上提出的对“剂量限值”和“辐射事故”术语的解释,以制定本法规文件的新版本。材料和方法:NRB-99/2009以及一些关于辐射安全的国内和国际参考书和词汇表,包括2023年《医疗放射学和辐射安全》杂志第4期发表的建议,都考虑了这些术语解释的特点。结果:在指定的期刊上提出的剂量限值的数值解释似乎是缺乏证据的,而他们的传统解释仍然更可取。将辐射事故的概念加上"紧急情况"一词,并加上该条作者自己的解释,与原子能机构的建议相矛盾。在解释“辐射事故”一词时,必须考虑到医学上辐射事故的具体情况。结论:1。没有必要修改对剂量限值数值的传统解释。2. 将NRB-99/2009中现有的辐射事故概念的措辞替换为原子能机构辐射安全术语表中相同概念的措辞是权宜之计。3.考虑到需要对医学上的辐射事故概念作出正确解释,应在新版《自然资源规则》中增加"辐射事件"、"无意(意外)医疗照射"和"辐射事故"等术语及其相应的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of the Radiation Risk of Death from Cardiovascular Diseases among the Liquidators Involved in the Cleaning up of the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident – Workers in the Nuclear Industry Sector The Mitochondrial 18 kDa Translocator Protein as a Biomarker of Radiation-Induced Neuroinflammatory In Memory of Radiotoxicologist Yuri Alexandrovich Klassovsky for the 100th Anniversary of his Birth on 01/15/1924–04/27/1982 The Importance of SPECT/CT in Simultaneous Assessment of Calcinosis of Coronary Arteries, Perfusion and Contractile Function of the Myocardium among Men’s with Coronary Heart Disease Study of Clinical, Hematologic and Immunologic Parameters in Assessing the Anti-Radiation Efficacy of the Therapeutic Agent Based on the Microorganism Fusobacterium Necrophorum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1