60Co Accident, Shandon Jining, China, 21 October 2004 |
Accident scenario | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On 21 October 2004, a
radiation accident occurred in Shandon Jining, China. While using 60Co
to irradiate vegetables for refreshing processing in a irradiation fabrication
plant, two workers (A and B) entered the irradiation room misguidedly because
of damage to safety interlock indicating lamp of the radiation source, and
severely exposed to gamma-rays. The activity of the 60Co source at
the time of accident was 1.42×1015 Bq. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Early clinical symptoms | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three min after exposure, worker A felt
scorching on his face, stomach-ache and weakness, and developed nausea,
vomiting. Ten min after exposure, worker B suffered from headache, stomach-ache
and started to vomiting. Both workers were transferred to Hospital in Beijing 55 hour after the accident. Absolute number of lymphocyte counts were 0.1×109/L and 0.117×109/L in worker A and B, respectively. The blood samples were obtained from the workers for chromosome aberration analysis.
Both workers received peripheral blood stem cells transplantation, but worker A died 33 days after the accident and worker B died 75 days after. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reference |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yao, B., Jiang, R., Ai, H. S., Li, Y. F., Liu, G. X. and Qiu, L. J. (2010): Biological dose estimation for two severely exposed patients in a radiation accident in Shandon Jining, China, in 2004. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 86:800-808. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chromosome aberration analysis |
. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Subject | Sex | Age | No. of | No. of | Distribution of dicentrics (Dic) + centric rings (Rc) | ||||||||||||||||
(yrs) | cells | Dics+Rc | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||||
A | M | 37 | 14 | 137 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
B | M | 41 | 100 | 467 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 17 | 14 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | ||||||
. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Subject | Sex | Age | No. of | No. of | Distribution of MN | ||||||||||||||||
(yrs) | CB cells | MN | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||||
B | M | 41 | 100 | 242 | 5 | 22 | 28 | 22 | 17 | 5 | 1 | ||||||||||
. |
Commentary at data compilation The dose-distribution profiles by unfolding
Dic+Rc distribution. The dose distribution profiles and equivalent whole
body dose (EWBD) in right panel are not adjusted by lymphocyte survival
(For the method, see Sasaki MS, Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 79:83-97, 2003).
Incidentally, the authors estimated 20.0 Gy and 8.8 Gy for worker A and
B, respecively, by infering to their in vitro dose response curves. |
![]() |