Fundamental Difficulties in Dose Calculation

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The modern system of radiation protection is based on the calculations of effective doses. These doses are not physically measured, but only calculated. Some basic assumptions underlying these calculations are effective only under strictly controlled conditions (almost exclusively for the personnel, but not to the public). For effective public protection against the consequences of the nuclear disasters the dose concept has to be seriously reshaped.

Keywords

Effective dose Low doses Radiation protection Radiosensitivity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bandazhevsky YI (2001) Radicesium and congenital malformations. In: Proceedings of International Conference on “Health effect of the Chernobyl accident: results of 15-years follow-up studies”, Kyiv, Ukraine, 4–8 JuneGoogle Scholar
  2. Broda R (1987) Gamma spectroscopy analysis of hot particles from the Chernobyl fallout. Acta Physica Polica B18:935–950Google Scholar
  3. Burlakova EB (2002) Low doses of radiation: are they dangerous? Nova Science Publisher, Huntington, 329 pGoogle Scholar
  4. ECRR (2003) Recommendations of the European Committee on radiation risk. Health effects of ionizing radiation exposure at law doses for radiation protection porpoises. Regulators’ Edition. Brussels, Green Audit Book, Aberystwyth, 186 pGoogle Scholar
  5. Grodzinsky DM (1999) General situation of the radiological consequences of the ChernobylGoogle Scholar
  6. ICRP (2009) Adult reference computational phantoms. ICRP Publication 110. Ann ICRP 39(2). http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20110
  7. Kovalev EE, Smirnova OA (1996) Estimation of radiation risk based on the concept of individual variability of radiosensitivity. AFRRI Contact Rep 96—1. Bethesda, 1996. V + 202 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Kryshev II, Ryazantsev EP (2000) Environmental safety of Russian nuclear power complex. “IzdAT”, Moscow, 384 p (Russian)Google Scholar
  9. Larsen RJ, Sanderson CJ, Rivera W, Zamicvhieli M (1986) The characterization of radionuclides in North America and Hawaiian surface air and deposition following the Chernobyl accident. Compend Environ Measur Lab Кyзю EML-460, US Department of Energy, New York, 104 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Makhijani A (2009) The use of reference man in radiation protection standards and guidance with recommendations for change. IEER Tech Rep. http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/downloads/reports/referenceman.pdf
  11. Plachinda YI (2001) The use of discriminant analysis in biological dosimetry. In: Abstract 3rd International Conference on Health effects of the Chernobyl disaster: the results of 15 years of research. 4–8 June 2001, Kiev, Ukraine, pp 271–272 (Russian)Google Scholar
  12. Pshenichnikov BV (1996) Low doses of radiation and radiation sclerosis. Kiev, “Soborna Ukraina” Publ: 40 p (Russian)Google Scholar
  13. Roy GC, Cote JE, Machfound A et al (1988) On the transport of Chernobyl radioactivity to Eastern Canada. J Environ Radioact 6:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sinkko A, Altonen H, Mustonen R et al (1987) Airborn radioactivity in Finland after Chernobyl accident in 1986. Report/STUK-A56. Helsinki: 56 pGoogle Scholar
  15. Snigireva GP (2009) The effects of ionizing radiation: cytogenetic changes in human blood lymphocytes. Doctoral thesis, MSU, 264 p (Russian)Google Scholar
  16. Tel’nov AI, Sotnik NV (2001) The relative nature of the genetic mechanisms of the human radiosensitivity. In: Abstract Conference no medical aspects of radiation and chemical safety, 11–12 Oct 2001, SPb: 257 (Russian)Google Scholar
  17. Tscheglov AI (1999) Biogeochemistry of the anthropogenic radionuclides in the forest ecosystems. Nauka Publication, Moscow, 268 p (Russian)Google Scholar
  18. Visenberg YV (2008) Villages: social, environmental and ecological factors affecting irradiation doses. Probl Ecol Health (Gomel) 17:30–38 (Russian)Google Scholar
  19. Yablokov AV (2002) The myth of the safety of low-dose radiation. Moscow, Center Rus Environ Policy 178 p (Russian)Google Scholar
  20. Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB, Nesterenko AV, Preobrazhenskaya NM (2011) Chernobyl: consequences of the Catastrophe for people and Nature. “Universarium” Publication, Kiev, 589 p (Russian)Google Scholar
  21. Yablokov AV (2013) A review and critical analysis of the “effective dose of radiation” concept. J Health Pollut 3(5):34–40Google Scholar
  22. Zubovich VK, Petrov GA, Beresten SA et al (1998) Characters of human milk and infant health in contaminated regions of Belarus. Zdravookhranenie (Healthcare, Minsk) 5:28–30 (Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.N.K. Koltzoff’ Institute of Developmental Biology RASMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations