{"title":"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","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":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"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}","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}
To the Question of the Interpretation of the Terms “Dose Limit” and “Radiation Accident” in the Development of New Norms of Radiation Safety
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.