CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTING OF POPULATION AFTER RADIATION ACCIDENT: USE OF RADIATION RISK FOR ANALYSIS AND OPTIMAL DECISIONS MAKING TO LIMIT THE CONSUMPTION OF FOOD CONTAMINATED BY TECHNOGENIC RADIONUCLIDES

The purpose of this paper is to assess the compliance of criterion A, adopted in NRB-99/2009 as emergency level of dose intervention, to permissible values of specific activity of ¹³⁷Cs, ⁹⁰Sr and ¹³¹I in food products in the first year after the accident. Assessments are made on the basis of comparison of the conservativeness coefficients by dose and the magnitude of the risk. The results of the evaluation showed that estimates of the doses and risks for ¹³⁷Cs, ⁹⁰Sr, calculated on the basis of weighting by the number of age groups, are equally conservative. For ¹³¹I, the conservative factors for dose and risk vary significantly, which indicates that it is not appropriate to use an effective dose to optimization of radiation protection for the given radionuclide. The ratios of the risk-weighted average weighted by the number of individual age groups to the weighted average effective dose values for ¹³⁷Cs and ⁹⁰Sr are close to the nominal risk of death from malignant neoplasms for the population of 5×10^-5, which confirms that nominal risk factors can only be used for the general population. Two variants of the criteria for optimization of the radiation protection of the population are proposed: 1) by the value of the average weighted by the number of individual age groups, the value of the effective dose, or 2) the value of the average weighted by the number of individual age groups of risk. It is shown that to optimize the protection of individual age groups, the more preferable criterion is the risk value calculated for a given age group, since the maximum effective dose of some age group does not always correspond to the maximum risk.

1. Repin V.S. Criteria for the protection of population after radiation accident: food consumption structure and peculiarities of the internal doses formation of various age groups of the population of the Russian Federation. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2018;11(1):18-24. (In Russian)

2. UNSCEAR, 2006. Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. United Nations, New York, NY.

3. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Board on Radiation Effects Research. National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006.

4. Federal Guidance Report 13: Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides [EPA 402-R-99-001], 1999, 335p.

5. ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4) (In Russian)

6. Repin L.V. On the Use of Detriment Parameters for the Quantitative Evaluation of Radiation Exposure. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2011, V.4, № 1, pp. 35-37. (In Russian)

7. Menyaylo A.N., Chekin S.Yu., Kashcheev V.V., Maksyutov M.A., Korelo A.M., Tumanov K.A., Pryakhin E.A., Lovachev S.S., Karpenko S.V., Kashcheeva P.V., Ivanov V.K. Lifetime radiation risk due to the external and internal exposure: method of assessment. Radiatsiya i risk = Radiation and risk, 2018, Vol. 27. № 1, pp. 8-21 (In Russian)

8. Low dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk: ICRP Publication 99. Annals of the ICRP, 2005, Vol. 35, No 4.

9. Onishchenko G.G., Novikov S.M., Rakhmanin Yu.A., Avaliani S.L., Bushtueva K.A. Ed.: Rakhmanin Yu.A., Onishchenko G.G. Basics of the assessment of the risk to the health of the public due to the chemical substances contaminating the environment. Мoscow, 2002, 408 p. (In Russian)

10. Ivanov V.K., Tsyb A.F., Konogorov A.P., Rastopchin E.M., Khait S.E. Case-control analysis of leukaemia among Chernobyl accident emergency workers residing in the Russian Federation, 1986-1993. J. Radiol. Prot., 1997, V. 17, N 3, pp. 137-157.

11. Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, based on a preliminary dose estimation. Publication of the World Health Organization, 2013, 172 p.

12. Synzynys B.I., Tyantova E.N., Melekhova O.P. Ecological risk, Moscow, Logos, 2005, 167 p. (In Russian)

13. Ivanov V.K., Tsyb A.F., Agapov A.M., Panfilov A.P., Kaidalov O.V., Gorski A.I., Maksioutov M.A., Suspitsin Y.V., Vaizer V.I. Concept of optimization of the radiation protection system in the nuclear sector: management of individual cancer risks and providing targeted health care. Journal of adiation Protection, 2006, V. 26, pp. 361-374.

14. ICRP, 1990. Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides – Part 1. ICRP Publication 56. Ann. ICRP 20 (2).

15. ICRP, 1993. Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides – Part 2 Ingestion Dose Coefficients. ICRP Publication 67. Ann. ICRP 23 (3-4).

16. ICRP, 1995. Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides – Part 3 Ingestion Dose Coefficients. ICRP Publication 69. Ann. ICRP 25 (1).

17. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards GSR Part 3. IAEA, Vienna, 2015. (In Russian)

18. Official website of the Federal governmental statistical service. – Available on:http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/population/demography/#) (Accessed: August 01, 2018 ) (In Russian)

19. NCRP – National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation Dose Management for Fluoroscopically-Guided Interventional Medical Procedures. Report No. 168 – 2010.

20. IAEA Safety Standards Series. Criteria for the provision of the preparedness and response in case of nuclear or radiological emergency. Safety guide № GSG-2, 2012, 132 p. (In Russian)