Advertisement

Atomic Energy

, Volume 92, Issue 5, pp 448–450 | Cite as

Possible Approach to Modifying the Formula for Calculating the Effective Dose

  • M. V. Zhukovskii
  • A. V. Pavlyuk
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to provide justification for introducing a dependence on the age of an individual at the moment of irradiation into the definition of the effective dose and to estimate the numerical values of the age-weighting coefficients. A modified approach to defining the effective dose, taking account of the age at the moment of irradiation, is proposed. The numerical values of the age-weighting coefficients are determined using the basic models for extrapolating radiation risk for two different populations: the Russian population and part of the US population.

Keywords

Radiation Effective Dose Radiation Risk Russian Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Recommendations of an International Commission on Radiation Protection 1990, ICRP Publication No. 60 [Russian translation], Énergatomizdat, Moscow (1994), Part 1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Recommendations of International Commission on Radiation Protection 1990, ICRP Publication No. 60 [Russian translation], Énergoatomizdat, Moscow (1994), Part 2.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. F. Demin, V. A. Kut'kov, V. Ya. Golikov, et al., “Analysis of risk in adopting measures for radiation and social protection of the public,” At. Énerg., 87, No. 5, 384–395 (1999).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. F. Demin, V. Ya. Golikov, E. V. Ivanov, et al., “Normalization and comparison of risk to human health from different sources of harm,” ibid., 90, No. 5, 385–398 (2001).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Stather and B. Wall, “Risks associated with the medical use of ionizing radiation at various ages,” in: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Radiation Research, Wurzburg, Germany (1995), Vol. 2, pp. 1159–1162.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risks, EPA 402-R-93-076, US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington (1994).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Eckerman, R. Leggett, and C. Nelson, “Cancer risk coefficients for environmental exposure to radionuclides,” Federal Guidance Report No. 13, EPA-402-99-001, US Environmental Protection Agency (1999).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Report of the National Institute of Health Ad Hoc Working Group to Develop Radioepidemiological Tables, NIH publication 85- 2748, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1985).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Preston, S. Kusumi, and M. Tomonaga, “Cancer incidence studies in atomic bomb survivors. Part III: Leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma, 1950- 1987,” Radiat. Res., 137, S68–S97 (1994).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. E. Thompson, K. Mabuchi, E. Ron, et al., “Cancer incidence studies in atomic bomb survivors. Part II: Solid tumors, 1958- 1987,” ibid., pp. S17–S67.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    “Pregnancy and medical radiation. ICRP Publication 84,” Annals of the ICRP, 29, No. 4 (1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. V. Zhukovskii
    • 1
  • A. V. Pavlyuk
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Industrial Ecology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of SciencesRussia

Personalised recommendations