Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:16:11.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cancer risk incidence from hypothetical accident of VVER-1000 nuclear power plant based on BEIR VII model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2018

Mir Rashid Hosseini Aghdam ,
Hamid Reza Baghani  and
Afsaneh Hosseini Aghdam
Mir Rashid Hosseini Aghdam
Affiliation:
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Abhar Islamic Azad University, AbharIran
Hamid Reza Baghani*
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
Afsaneh Hosseini Aghdam
Affiliation:
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Abhar Islamic Azad University, AbharIran
*
Correspondence to: Hamid Reza Baghani, Physics Department, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar 617976487, P.O. Box: 397, Iran. Tel: +985144013159. E-mail: Hamidreza.baghani@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Safety is a mandatory issue during the operation of a nuclear power plant. A nuclear reactor can have some atmospheric dispersion due to any errors in the safety system.

Purpose

The aim of this study is to estimate the cancer risk incidence for different body organs due to accidentally released radionuclides from Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).

Materials and methods

The assumed hypothesis was atmospheric dispersion of radionuclide into the environment due to the safety failure of BNPP. Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) from radionuclide diffusion in the medium was calculated using HOTSPOT code at two different wind speeds. Finally, the risk of cancer incidence for different organs of male and female sex has been estimated by Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII model.

Results

The results showed that with increasing the exposure age and attained age, the risk of cancer incidence for different organs is decreased. The value of TEDE was increased at lower wind speed. The most probable organ for cancer incidence at different levels of TEDE in male and female sex was colon and bladder, respectively. On the other hand, prostate and uterus had the lowest radiation sensitivity and cancer risk incidence in male and female sex, respectively. Increasing the wind speed reduces the risk of cancer incidence for all of organs understudy.

Conclusion

Based on the obtained results, it can be concluded that the younger persons are more subject to the cancer risk incidence because of both the intrinsically greater radio-sensitivity of their organs and their longer remaining life expectancy during which a cancer may develop. The overall risk of cancer incidence as well as the site specific solid cancer incidence were highly dependent to the sex of exposed person, so that the female sex was more exposed to the cancer risk incidence at all of the irradiation levels understudy.

Keywords

BEIR VII modelBushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP)cancer riskhypothetical nuclear accidenttotal effective dose equivalent (TEDE)
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 212 - 218
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Yamashita, S, Takamura, N, Ohtsuru, A, Suzuki, S. Radiation exposure and thyroid cancer risk after the fukushima nuclear power plant accedent in comparision with the chernobyl accident. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2016; 171: 41–46.Google Scholar
2. Yamashita, S, Takamura, N. Post-crisis efforts towards recovery and resilience after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2015; 45: 700–707.Google Scholar
3. Cember, H, Johnson, T E. Introduction to Health Physics, 4th edition. Mc Graw Hill Companies, New York, NY, 2008: 280–328.Google Scholar
4. Taira, Y, Hayashida, N, Yamaguchi, H, Yasashita, S, Endo, Y, Takamura, N. Evaluation of environmental contamination and estimated radiation dose for the return to residents’ homes in Kawauchi village, Fukushima prefecture. PLoS One. 2012; 7: 4556–4563.Google Scholar
5. International Atomic Energy Agency. Methods for Estimating the Probability of Cancer from Occupational Radiation Exposure. Vienna: IAEA-TECDOC-870, 1996.Google Scholar
6. Puskin, J, Nelson, C. Estimates of radiogenic cancer risks. Health Phys. 1995; 69: 93–101.Google Scholar
7. Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Final safety analysis report. NPP Bushehr Unit 1, 2003: 40–590.Google Scholar
8. Zali, A, Zafarghandi, M S, Feghhi, S A, Taherian, AM. Public member dose assessment of Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant under normal operation by modeling the fallout from stack using the HYSPLIT atmospheric dispersion model. J Environ Radioac 2017; 171: 1–8.Google Scholar
9. Chung, M, Ahn, W, Min, B, Seo, J, Moon, J. An analytical method for developing appropriate protection profiles of instrumentation & control system for nuclear power plants. J Supercomput. 2017; 73: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-017-2034-6.Google Scholar
10. National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press, 2006.Google Scholar
11. Vincent, C T, Merkhoher, M W. Risk Assessment Methods: Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 1993.Google Scholar
12. ICRP. statement on tissue reactions/early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs – threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 41 2012; 41: 1–2.Google Scholar
13. International Atomic Energy Agency. Manual for Reactor Produced Radioisotoes. Vienna: IAEA-TECDOC 1340, 2003.Google Scholar
14. Sadeghi, N, Sajadi, H, Salartash, R. Radioactive dispersion model for Tehran research reactor and radioisotope laboratory stacks. Environmental Engineering and Applications, Singapore 2010; 223–225 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEEA.2010.5596133.Google Scholar
15. Homann, S G. HotSpot Health Physics Codes, Version 2.07, User’s Guide. New York: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2009.Google Scholar
16. Yves, S T L, Cabral, P A M, Brum, T et al. Terrorist radiological dispersive device (rdd) scenario and cancer risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2012; 18: 971–983.Google Scholar
17. Shoaib Raza, S, Iqbal, M. Atmospheric dispersion modeling for an accidental release from the Pakistan Research Reactor-1 (PARR-1). Ann Nucl Energy 2005; 32: 1157–1166.Google Scholar