Cytogenetic biodosimetry for Fukushima travelers after the nuclear power plant accident: No evidence of enhanced yield of dicentrics

Journal of Radiation Research

Volumn 53, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 876-881

  Lee, Jin Kyung ^a   Han, Eun Ae ^a   Lee, Seung Sook ^a   Ha, Wi Ho ^a   Barquinero, Joan Francesc ^b   Lee, Hyo Rak ^a   Cho, Min Su ^a  

^a Korea Institute of Radiation and Medical Science   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

biodosimetry; dicentrics; Fukushima travel; medical exposure

Indexed keywords

NUCLEAR FUELS; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENTS;

ABSORBED DOSE; BIODOSIMETRY; CONTAMINATED AREAS; CONTROL GROUPS; DICENTRIC CHROMOSOMES; DICENTRICS; FUKUSHIMA; FUKUSHIMUM TRAVEL; MEDICAL EXPOSURE; NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ACCIDENT;

CHROMOSOMES;

EID: 84870011914     PISSN: 04493060     EISSN: 13499157     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrs065     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Kim TJ. Korean aid groups stream into Japan. The Korea Times. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/ 03/117-83028.html (March 13, 2011) (March 14 2011, date last accessed).
2. Krolicki K, Fujioka C. Special report: Japan's "Throwaway" Nuclear Workers. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/ 2011/06/24/us-japan- nuclear-idUSTRE75N18A20110624 (June 24, 2011) (July 17 2011, date last accessed).
3. Butler D. Fukushima health risks scrutinized: Nature News. Nature 2011;472:13-4 (Published online April 5, 2011).
4. Pinto MMP, Santos NFG, Amaral A. Current status of biodosimetry based on standard cytogenetic methods. Radiat Environ Biophys 2010;49:567-81.
5. National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006.
6. Preston RJ. Update on linear non-threshold dose-response model and implications for diagnostic radiology procedures. Health Phys 2008;95:541-6.
7. Léonard A, Rueff J, Gerber GB et al. Usefulness and limits of biological dosimetry based on cytogenetic methods. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;115:448-54. (Pubitemid 43103462)
8. International Atomic Energy Agency. Introduction and application of dose concepts in biological dosimetry. Extension of dose calculations for more complex exposure scenarios. In: IAEA. Cytogenetic Dosimetry: Applications in Preparedness for and Response to Radiation Emergencies. Vienna: EPR-biodosimetry, 2011, 1-8 and 68-74.
9. Dauer LT, Zanzonico P, Tuttle RM et al. The Japanese tsunami and resulting nuclear emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi power facility: technical, radiologic, and response perspectives. J Nucl Med 2011;52:1423-32.
10. Vano E, Ohno K, Cousins C et al. Radiation risks and radiation protection training for healthcare professionals: ICRP and the Fukushima experience. J Radiol Prot 2011;31:285-7.
11. Becker SM. Learning from the 2011 Great East Japan Disaster: insights from a special radiological emergency assistance mission. Biosecur Bioterror 2011;9:394-404.
12. Coleman CN, Whitcomb RC, Miller CW et al. Commentary on the combined disaster in Japan. Radiat Res 2012;177:15-7.
13. Akiba S. Epidemiological studies of Fukushima residents exposed to ionizing radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant prefecture - a preliminary review of current plans. J Radiol Prot 2012;32:1-10.
14. Christodouleas JP, Forrest RD, Ainsley CG et al. Short-term and long-term health risks of nuclear-power-plant accidents. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2334-41.
15. Mettler FA, Jr, Gus'kova AK, Gusev I. Health effects in those with acute radiation sickness from the Chernobyl accident. Health Phys 2007;93:462-9. (Pubitemid 350287269)
16. Ohnishi T. The disaster at Japan's Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant after the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and the resulting spread of radioisotope contamination. Radiat Res 2012;177:1-14.
17. Voisin P, Roy L, Benderitter M. Why can't we find a better biological indicator of dose? Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2004;112:465-9. (Pubitemid 40185863)
18. Vinnikov VA, Ainsbury EA, Maznyk NA et al. Limitations associated with analysis of cytogenetic data for biological dosimetry. Radiat Res 2010;174:403-14.
19. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277-84. (Pubitemid 350190758)
20. Gonzalez AB, Mahesh M, Kim KP et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071-7.
21. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009;69:2078-86.
22. Stephan G, Schneider K, Panzer W et al. Enhanced yield of chromosome aberrations after CT examinations in paediatric patients. Int J Radiat Biol 2007;83:281-7. (Pubitemid 46676528)
23. M'kacher R, Violot D, Aubert B et al. Premature chromosome condensation associated with fluorescence in situ hybridization detects cytogenetic abnormalities after a CT scan: evaluation of the low-dose effect. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2003;103:35-40. (Pubitemid 36124084)