Advertisement

Chromosome Analysis in Accidental, Occupational and Environmental Radiation Exposure

  • H. Fender
  • U. Wolf
  • F. Gensicke
  • G. Wolf
  • D. Arndt

Abstract

There is no doubt, that chromosome analysis is nowadays one of the best methods to ascertain radiation exposure, although it has to be taken into consideration, that chromosome aberrations including the dicentric chromosome are not radiation-specific. Many literature data exist on biological dosimetry in cases of accidental exposure (for review see Hübner and Fry 1980), but the method is likewise well suited to monitor chronic occupational exposure below the annual dose limits or substantial environmental exposure, for instance to radon and its daughter products (Pohl-Rüling and Fischer 1979).

Keywords

Nuclear Power Plant Chromosome Aberration Chromosome Analysis Dicentric Chromosome Aberration Frequency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Al-Sabti K, Lloyd DC, Edwards AA, Stegnar P (1992) A survey of lymphocyte chromosomal damage in Slovenian workers exposed to occupational clastogens. Mutation Res 280: 215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauchinger M, Kolin-Gerresheim J, Schmid E, Dresp J (1980) Chromosome analyses of nuclear power plant workers. Int. J. Radiat Biol 38: 577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandom WF, Saccomanno G; Archer VE; Archer PG; Bloom AD (1978) Chromosome aberrations as a biological dose-response indicator of radiation exposure in uranium mines. Radiat Res 76: 159–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigatti P, Lamberti L, Ardito G, Armellino F (1988) Cytogenetic monitoring of hospital workers exposed to low-level ionizing radiation. Mutation Res 204: 343–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans HJ, Buckton KE, Hamilton GE, Carothers A (1979) Radiation induced chromosome aberrations in nuclear dockyard workers. Nature (London) 277: 531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hübner KF, Fry SA (1980) The medical basis for radiation accident preparedness. Elsevier/North Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Kubelka D, Fucic A, Milkovic-Kraus S (1992) The value of cytogenetic monitoring versus film dosimetry in the hot zone of a nuclear power plant. Mutation Res 283: 169–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leonard A, Deknudt G, Leonard EP. Decat G (1984) Chromosome aberrations in employees from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Mutation Res 138:205–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Littlefield G, Joiner E, DuFrain RJ, Coyler S, Breitenstein B (1983) Six year cytogenetic follow-up study of an individual with heavily contaminated with Americium 241. Proc. 7th Int. Congress of Radiation Research, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  10. Lloyd DC, Purrot RJ, Reeder EJ (1980) The incidence of unstable chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes from unirradiated and occupationally exposed people. Mutation Res 72: 523–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pohl-Rüling J, Fischer P (1979) The dose-effect relationship of chromosome aberrations to alpha and gamma irradiation in a population subjected to an increased burden of natural radioactivity. Radiat Res 80: 61–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Fender
    • 1
  • U. Wolf
    • 1
  • F. Gensicke
    • 1
  • G. Wolf
    • 1
  • D. Arndt
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical-diagnostic DivisionFederal Health OfficeGermany

Personalised recommendations