. , 2017, 57, 3, .

308314

616-03:614.876:539.1.047:57.087

(DDREF)
2017. . .
, ,
E-mail: sjargin@mail.ru
23.06.2016.

(DDREF).
() DDREF . DDREF
.
-
DDREF, -
, DDREF.
. -
DDREF
.

: DDREF, ,

DOI: 10.7868/S0869803117030080

. , -
(DDREF), - , -
- [16].
, [13]. -
- DDREF ;
. DDREF, [1, 2].
DDREF
() - , .. -
, . - .
- -
.
[1]. , , -
,
, [17]. -
/2. DDREF - , -
() - ,
- .
(prudent basis for radiological ,
protection) [4]. DDREF
, - [18], -
[514]. , , -
, - ,
[19].
, , - ,
[1315]. , - ,
, - [20],
,
[9]. . -
, - -

308
 (DDREF)309

.. [12, 21]. -
, -
[3, 22, 23]. [37, 38].
, -
,
, . , -
3100 , - ()
. [33, 39, 40]
700 [24].
DDREF [1, 41].
, , -
. [22, 23, 42, 43]. -
- , -

[25]. . -
, - [44, 45]. -
-
(), ,
() -
[2628]. - 0.52 [46]
, [47], -
- [48]. , -
; , (10000
, .-, ) 3.5
[27, 29]. , , - -
, , . , -
(-
),
, - [49, 50]. -
. 1 -

250 [30], ,
. -
-
, , . , .
-
, - [49, 50],
,
200 [9, 11, 12, 31, 32]. - - -
.
LSS [33], - -
. , , -
-
( --
) [7, 34, 35]. - [39, 40, 51].
,
(--
[7, 35]. - , , -)

- [33, 5259]. --
, - , -
, ,
[36]. , - -
(fitting) - (dose-dependent self-selection). -
[60, 61];
, - . [62]. ,
- ; , -

. 3 2017
310

, - [5259] -
, ,
, [39, 40, 51, 7176],
-
(observational bias) [63]. , -
- DDREF [1, 41].
- -
. , a priori -
, -
, , -
[64]. -
- [22, 23].
[65], ,
. recall bias [63]: (-
, )
, , - ,
0.91 [52]. 90% . -
0.1 [58]. . -
1 -
- ( -
, - ) [77]; -
[52],
. [78], . -
-
- ,
, -
, -
[9, 10],
[66]. (odds averaging)
-
4050 [7], , -
40 [67]. - . -
BEIR VII, .
- - , , -
-
[27]. -
, - --
- . -
- -
12 - - .
[67]. ,
- -
(bias) -
, , ( -
[45, 62]. , ), -
- ,
- - .
[6870]. - ..,

-
- (
0.2 - ) [10, 11],
, [53]. -
, -
0.1 [54]. - [79] .. -
- ,
(), -
. - [9] -
. , ,

. 3 2017
 (DDREF)311

-
50100
1050 [17], - 1. Rhm W., WoloschakG.E., ShoreR.E. et al. Dose and
dose-rate effects of ionizing radiation: a discussion in the
light of radiological protection // Radiat. Environ. Bio-
90 phys. 2015. V. 54. P.379401.
[80], - 2. Rhm W., AzizovaT.V., BoufflerS.D. et al. Dose-rate ef-
, fects in radiation biology and radiation protection // Ann.
, - ICRP. 2016; pii: 0146645316629336.
[81].
3. Jargin S.V.Biological effectiveness of ionizing radiation:
acute vs. protracted exposures // J.Environ. Stud. 2016.
,
V. 2. 1. Art. 5.
,
, , 4. ICRP. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related can-
, - cer risk. ICRP Publication 99 // Ann. ICRP 2005. V.35.
, 4.
, 5. Baldwin J., GranthamV.Radiation hormesis: historical
[8285]. , , - and current perspectives // J.Nucl. Med. Technol. 2015.
[47, V. 43. 4. P.242246.
15, 21, 24]. , - 6. Calabrese E.J.Model uncertainty via the integration
, of hormesis and LNT as the default in cancer risk as-
sessment // Dose Response. 2015. V. 13. 4. Art.
DDREF [1, 41]. - 1559325815621764.
,
, , - 7. Doss M.Linear no-threshold model vs. radiation horme-
, - sis // Dose Response. 2013. V. 11. P.480497.
[86]. 8. Scott B.R.Its time for a new low-dose-radiation risk as-
- sessment paradigm one that acknowledges hormesis//
[87]. Dose Response. 2008. V. 6. P.333351.
9. .. -
- : pro
, - contra. // . -
. . 2011. . 51. 1. .107109.
[88, 89].
10. ..
--
// . -
. . 2008. .48. 4. .389408.
, -
, 11. .. -
- -
. -
, -
, // . -
1000 , . . 2003. .43. 2. .227236.
DDREF 110 - 12. ..Pro contra /-
4 [28]. - () -
DDREF //
2 [16]. - . . . 2001. .41. 5.
[10]. - .580588.

, 13. Tubiana M., Aurengo A., Averbeck D., Masse R.Recent
- reports on the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation
. and its doseeffect relationship // Radiat. Environ. Bio-
phys. 2006. V. 44. P.245251.
DDREF, 14. Tubiana M., FeinendegenL.E., Yang C., Kamins-
ki J.M.The linear no-threshold relationship is incon-
sistent with radiation biologic and experimental data //
. Radiology. 2009. V. 251. P.1322.

. 3 2017
312

15. Feinendegen L.E.Evidence for beneficial low level radia- 31. Little M.P., Muirhead C.R.Curvature in the cancer mor-
tion effects and radiation hormesis // Br.J.Radiol. 2005. tality dose response in Japanese atomic bomb survivors:
V. 78. P.37. absence of evidence of threshold // Int. J.Radiat. Biol.
16. HaleyB.M., Paunesku T., GrdinaD.J. et al. The increase 1998. V. 74. P.471480.
in animal mortality risk following exposure to sparsely 32. HeidenreichW.F., ParetzkeH.G., Jacob P.No evidence
ionizing radiation is not linear quadratic with dose // for increased tumor rates below 200 mSv in the atomic
PLoS One. 2015. V. 10. Art. e0140989. bomb survivors data // Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 1997.
17. BrennerD.J., Doll R., GoodheadD.T. et al. Cancer risks V. 36. P.205207.
attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing 33. Ozasa K., Shimizu Y., Suyama A. et al. Studies of the mor-
what we really know // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2003. tality of atomic bomb survivors, Report 14, 19502003:
V. 100. 24. P.1376113766. an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases // Radiat.
18. Johansson L.Hormesis, an update of the present posi- Res. 2012. V. 177. 3. P.229243.
tion// Eur. J.Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2003. V.30. 34. Cuttler J.M.Remedy for radiation fear discard the
6. P.921933. politicized science // Dose Response. 2014. V. 12.
19. Karam P.A., Leslie S.A.Calculations of background beta- P.170184.
gamma radiation dose through geologic time // Health 35. Doss M., EglestonB.L., Litwin S.Comments on Studi-
Phys. 1999. V. 77. 6. P.662667.
es of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 14,
20. Kaludercic N., Deshwal S., Di Lisa F.Reactive oxygen 19502003: an overview of cancer and noncancer dise-
species and redox compartmentalization // Front. ases (Radiat. Res. 2012; 177:22943) // Radiat. Res.
Physiol. 2014. V. 5. P.285. 2012. V. 178. 3. P.244245.
21. .. - 36. SasakiM.S., Tachibana A., Takeda S.Cancer risk at low
. .: , 1995. doses of ionizing radiation: artificial neural networks in-
22. .. - ference from atomic bomb survivors // J.Radiat. Res.
: 2014. V. 55. 3. P.391406.
// . . - 37. DoursonM.L., Haber LT. Linear low-dose extrapo-
. 2011. 5. .7479.
lations// Cancer risk assessment, chemical carcino-
23. .. genesis, hazard evaluation, and risk quantification /
// EdsC.H.Hsu, T.Stedeford. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
. . . 2008. 3. & Sons, 2010. P.615635.
.1722.
38. Dourson M., BeckerR.A., HaberL.T. et al. Advancing
24. Mitchel R.E.The dose window for radiation-induced human health risk assessment: integrating recent advisory
protective adaptive responses // Dose Response. 2009. committee recommendations // Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2013.
V.8. P.192208. V. 43. 6. P.467492.
25. ShuryakI., BrennerD.J., UllrichR.L.Radiation-in- 39. KrestininaL.Y., DavisF.G., Schonfeld S. et al. Leukae-
duced carcinogenesis: mechanistically based differences
mia incidence in the Techa River Cohort: 19532007 //
between gamma-rays and neutrons, and interactions with
Br.J.Cancer. 2013. V. 109. 11. P.28862893.
DMBA // PLoS One. 2011. V. 6. Art. e28559.
40. Ostroumova E., PrestonD.L., Ron E. et al. Breast cancer
26. ucinotta F.A. A new approach to reduce uncertainties
incidence following low-dose rate environmental expo-
in space radiation cancer risk predictions // PLoS One.
sure: Techa River Cohort, 19562004 // Br.J.Cancer.
2015. V. 10. Art. e0120717.
2008. V. 99. 11. P.19401945.
27. National Research Council of the National Academies.
Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing ra- 41. Jacob P., Rhm W., Walsh L. et al. Is cancer risk of ra-
diation (BEIR VIIPhase 2). Washington, D.C., USA: diation workers larger than expected? // Occup. Environ.
National Academy Press, 2006. Med. 2009. V. 66. 12. P.789796.
28. UNSCEAR. Report to the General Assembly. Sources 42. Jargin S.V.Thyroid carcinoma in children and adoles-
and Effects of Ionizing Radiation // Annex F: Influence cents resulting from the Chernobyl accident: possible
of Dose and Dose Rate on Stochastic Effects of Radia- causes of the incidence increase overestimation// Ces-
tion. New York, NY, USA: United Nations, 1993. ko-Slovenska Patologie. 2009. V. 45. . 5052. http://
ceskpatol.cz/docs/88-fulltext.pdf
29. Task Group on Radiation Quality Effects in Radiological
Protection. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), qual- 43. Jargin S.V.Hypothesis: overestimation of Cherno-
ity factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor (w(R)). A byl consequences // J.Environ. Occup. Sci. 2016. V. 5.
report of the International Commission on Radiological P.5965.
Protection // Ann. ICRP. 2003. V. 33. 4. P.1117. 44. Jargin S.V.On the low-dose-radiation exposure in the
30. ICRP Lung cancer risk from radon and progeny and Techa River Cohort and mortality from circulatory
statement on radon. ICRP Publication 115 // Ann. ICRP. diseases // Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2013. V. 52. 3.
2010. V. 40. 1. P.419420.

. 3 2017
 (DDREF)313

45. Jargin S.V.Leukemia and cardiovascular diseases in the 60. ZablotskaL.B., Bazyka D., LubinJ.H. et al. Radiation
Techa river cohort: New interpretation required // J.En- and the risk of chronic lymphocytic and other leukemias
viron. Occup. Sci. 2014. V. 3. P.6364. among Chornobyl cleanup workers // Environ. Health.
46. .., .., .. . - Perspect. 2013. V. 121. 1. P.5965.
- 61. McGeoghegan D., Binks K., Gillies M. et al. The non-can-
// . . 1990. 12. .1115. cer mortality experience of male workers at British Nu-
47. .., .., .. clear Fuels plc, 19462005 // Int. J.Epidemiol. 2008. V.
. - 37. P.506518.
// . 62. Jargin S.V.On the radiation-leukemia dose-response re-
. . 2000. 6. .1014. lationship among recovery workers after the Chernobyl
48. TokarskayaZ.B., ScottB.R., ZhuntovaG.V. et al. Inter- accident // Dose Response. 2013. V. 12. P.162165.
action of radiation and smoking in lung cancer induc- 63. Watanabe T., Miyao M., Honda R. et al. Hiroshima survi-
tion among workers at the Mayak nuclear enterprise// vors exposed to very low doses of A-bomb primary radia-
Health. Phys. 2002. V. 83. 6. P.833846. tion showed a high risk for cancers // Environ. Health.
49. .., ., ..- Prev. Med. 2008. V. 13. P.264270.
- - 64. Bay I.A., Oughton D.H.Social and economic effects//
// . . . 2004. Chernobyl Catastrophe and Consequences / ds
3. .3036. J.Smith, N.A.Beresford. Chichester: Springer, 2005.
50. .., .., .. . P.239266.
, - 65. Jargin S.V.Cardiovascular mortality trends in Russia:
- possible mechanisms // Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2015. V. 12.
. .: , 2001. 12. P.740.
51. .., .. 66. VallisK.A., Pintilie M., Chong N. et al. Assessment of
// . coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality after ra-
. 2010. 6. .3439. diation therapy for early breast cancer // J.Clin. Oncol.
52. .., .., .. - 2002. V. 20. 4. P.10361042.
67. UNSCEAR. Report to the General Assembly. Effects of
, Ionizing Radiation // Annex B: Epidemiological evalua-
19481958. // . - tion of cardiovascular disease and other non-cancer dise-
. . 2012. .52. 2. .149157. ases following radiation exposure. New York, NY, USA:
53. AzizovaT.V., MuirheadC.R., MoseevaM.B. et al. Cere- United Nations, 2006.
bro-vasculardiseases in nuclear workers first employed at 68. UNSCEAR. Report of the United Nations Scientific
the Mayak PA in 19481972 // Radiat. Environ. Biophys. Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation // An-
2011. V. 50. P.539552. nex D: Somatic effects of radiation. New York, NY, USA:
54. .., ., .. . - United Nations, 1962.
- 69. HopewellJ.W., Campling D., Calvo W. et al. Vascular irra-
: 1948 diation damage: its cellular basis and likely consequences
1982 // . . . // Br.J.Cancer. Suppl. 1986. V. 7. P.181191.
2015. 4. .4361. 70. Schultz-Hector S.Radiation-induced heart disease: review
55. AzizovaT.V., HaylockR.G., MoseevaM.B. et al. Cerebro- of experimental data on dose response and pathogene-
vascular diseases incidence and mortality in an extended sis// Int. J.Radiat. Biol. 1992. V. 61. 2. P.149160.
Mayak Worker Cohort 19481982 // Radiat. Res. 2014. 71. KrestininaL.Y., Davis F., Ostroumova E. et al. Solid can-
V. 182. 5. P.529544. cer incidence and low-dose-rate radiation exposures in
56. AzizovaT.V., MuirheadC.R., DruzhininaM.B. et al. Car- the Techa River cohort: 19562002 // Int. J.Epidemiol.
diovascular diseases in the cohort of workers first em- 2007. V. 36. 5. P.10381046.
ployed at Mayak PA in 19481958 // Radiat. Res. 2010. 72. SokolnikovM.E., GilbertE.S., PrestonD.L. et al. Lung,
V. 174. 2. P.155168. liver and bone cancer mortality in Mayak workers // Int.
57. AzizovaT.V., ZhuntovaG.V., HaylockR.G. et al. Chronic J.Cancer. 2008. V. 123. 4. P.905911.
bronchitis in the cohort of Mayak workers first employed 73. Sokolnikov M., Preston D., Gilbert E. et al. Radiation ef-
19481958 // Radiat. Res. 2013. V. 180. 6. P.610621. fects on mortality from solid cancers other than lung, li-
58. KrestininaL.Y., Epifanova S., Silkin S. et al. Chronic low- ver, and bone cancer in the Mayak worker cohort: 1948
dose exposure in the Techa River Cohort: risk of mortality 2008 // PLoS One. 2015. V. 10. Art. e0117784.
from circulatory diseases // Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 74. Azizova T.V., Korobkin A.V., Osovets S.V., Banniko-
2013. V. 52. 1. P.4757. va M.V.Latency period of acute leukemia in the cohort
59. Yablokov A.V.Nonmalignant diseases after the Cher- of Mayak workers // Chronic radiation exposure: low-
nobyl catastrophe // Ann. N.Y.Acad. Sci. 2009. V. 1181. dose effects: Abstr. 4th Int. Conf., November 911, 2010,
P.58160. Chelyabinsk, Russia. 2010. P.1415.

. 3 2017
314

75. Yablokov A.V.Oncological diseases after the Cherno-
byl catastrophe // Ann. N.Y.Acad. Sci. 2009. V. 1181.
P.161191.
76. IvanovV.K., GorskiA.I., TsybA.F. et al. Solid cancer in-
cidence among the Chernobyl emergency workers resid-
ing in Russia: estimation of radiation risks // Radiat. En-
viron. Biophys. 2004. V. 43. 1. P.3542.
77. Duport P., Jiang H., ShilnikovaN.S. et al. Database of ra-
diogenic cancer in experimental animals exposed to low
doses of ionizing radiation // J.Toxicol. Environ. Health.
B Crit. Rev. 2012. V. 15. 3. P.186209.
78. Dreicer M.Book review. Chernobyl: Consequences of the
catastrophe for people and the environment // Environ.
Health. Perspect. 2010. V. 118. P. A500.
79. Bertell R.Behind the cover-up. Assessing conservatively
the full Chernobyl death toll // Pacific Ecologist. 2006.
Winter.
80. Ron E., Modan B., Preston D. et al. Thyroid neoplasia fol-
lowing low-dose radiation in childhood // Radiat. Res.
1989. V. 120. 3. P.516531.
81. Wing S., Richardson D., Stewart A.The relevance of oc-
cupational epidemiology to radiation protection stan-
dards// New Solut. 1999. V. 9. 2. P.133151.
82. Little J.B.Low-dose radiation effects: interactions and
synergism // Health Phys. 1990. V. 59. 1. P.4955.
83. Tidd M.J.The big idea: polonium, radon and ciga-
rettes// J.R.Soc. Med. 2008. V. 101. P.156157.
84. Zhang R., LiJ., Burns F.J, Huang C.Ionizing radiation
synergistic induction of cyclooxygenase2 with benzo[a]
pyrene diol-epoxide through nuclear factor of activated T
cells in mouse epidermal Cl 41 cells // Oncol. Rep. 2006.
V. 15. 3. P.721727.
85. Jargin S.V.Hormetic use of stress in gerontological in-
terventions requires a cautious approach // Biogerontol.
2016. V. 17. P.417422.
86. Tanaka S., TanakaI.B. 3rd, Sasagawa S. et al. No lengthe-
ning of life span in mice continuously exposed to gamma
rays at very low dose rates // Radiat. Res. 2003. V. 160.
3. P.376379.
87. Caratero A., Courtade M., Bonnet L. et al. Effect of a con-
tinuous gamma irradiation at a very low dose on the life
span of mice // Gerontol. 1998. V. 44. 5. P.272276.
88. van der WorpH.B., HowellsD.W., SenaE.S. et al. Can
animal models of disease reliably inform human stu-
dies?// PLoS Med. V. 2010. V. 7. Art. e1000245.
89. Higley K.A., Kocher D.C., Real A.G., Chambers D.B.
Relative biological effectiveness and radiation weigh-
ting factors in the context of animals and plants // Ann.
ICRP. 2012. V. 41. 34. P.233245.

On the Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor (DDREF)

S. V.Jargin
Peoples Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
-mail: sjargin@mail.ru
This mini-review comments on the current discussion of the dose and dose rate effectiveness factor (DDREF)
equal to 2, recommended by the ICRP. The LNT hypothesis, combined with DDREF for extrapolation from
high doses and dose rates, is regarded as a prudent basis for radiation protection. Arguments against the linear
no-threshold hypothesis are also discussed. Several studies cited in the literature in favor of DDREF lowering,
their potential biases and limitations are overviewed. In the authors opinion, the dose-effect relationships
with non-neoplastic diseases found in certain exposed populations call into question dose-effect relationships
with cancer. The dose-response relationships should be clarified in large scale experiments involving different
animal species. In conclusion, the LNT and under-estimation of DDREF tend to exaggerate radiation-related
health risks at low radiation doses and dose rates.

. 3 2017