DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF

RADIATION INJURIES
 SAFETY REPORTS SERIES No. 2

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF

RADIATION INJURIES
JOINTLY SPONSORED BY
THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

VIENNA, 1998
Permission to reproduce or translate the information contained in this publication
may be obtained by writing to the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria.

© IAEA, 1998

VIC Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Diagnosis and treatment of radiation injuries / jointly sponsored by the

International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization. —
Vienna : The Agency, 1998.
p. ; 24 cm. — (Safety reports series, ISSN 1020–6450 ; no. 2)
STI/PUB/1040
ISBN 92–0–100498–2
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Radiation injuries—Diagnosis. 2. Radiation injuries—Treatment.
I. International Atomic Energy Agency. II. World Health Organization.
III. Series.
VICL 98-00185

Printed by the IAEA in Austria

May 1998
STI/PUB/1040
 FOREWORD

In the publication of the International Atomic Energy Agency entitled Manual

on Early Medical Treatment of Possible Radiation Injury (Safety Series No. 47, 1978)
first aid and early medical treatment of workers who might have received external or
internal radiation exposure in an accident are discussed.
In the IAEA publication Medical Handling of Accidentally Exposed
Individuals (Safety Series No. 88, 1988) a set of general criteria and recommend-
ations are presented to aid specialists involved in the medical handling of
overexposed persons.
Many lessons have been learnt from the accidents at Chernobyl (Ukraine, 1986)
and Goiânia (Brazil, 1987), and also from those at San Salvador (El Salvador, 1989),
Soreq (Israel, 1990) and Nesvizh (Belarus, 1991), on the early medical handling of
radiation injuries. These lessons have been incorporated into this report, which is
intended to help all those physicians who may be involved in the early medical
handling of radiation victims with prompt diagnostic measures and emergency
treatment. Special attention is drawn to the localized radiation injuries which are the
most frequently observed direct health effects of ionizing radiation.
The participation of all the members of the Advisory Group meeting (April
1993) and of the consultants meetings (May 1993 and April 1996) in drafting the
report is appreciated. The major contribution of A. Barabanova (Institute of
Biophysics, Russian Federation) is especially acknowledged.
The Scientific Secretary responsible for preparation of this publication was
I. Turai of the Division of Radiation and Waste Safety.
 EDITORIAL NOTE

Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained
in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility for
consequences which may arise from its use.
The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as
registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be
construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. TYPES OF ACCIDENTAL EXPOSURE AND THEIR MEDICAL

MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1. Types of accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2. Radiation sources and modes of exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Sorting (triage) of injured persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Medical management of individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. EXTERNAL EXPOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.1. Types of external exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2. Diagnosis and treatment of local radiation injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. The clinical picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2. Main diagnostic procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.3. Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Diagnosis and treatment of acute radiation syndrome . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.1. Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.2. Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.3. Bone marrow transplantation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3.4. Use of haematopoietic growth factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3.5. Criteria for choice of therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4. CONTAMINATION WITH RADIONUCLIDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.1. Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2. Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.1. Decontamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.2. Decorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5. COMBINED RADIATION INJURIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.1. Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2. Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. CONSULTING SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

7. RECORD KEEPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

REFERENCES .............................................. 32

ANNEX I: ACCIDENTAL EXPOSURE FORM SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

ANNEX II: DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO

CAESIUM-137: THE GOIÂNIA EXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

II–1. The accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

II–2. Early medical response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
II–3. Clinical observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
II–4. Medical management of radiation injuries in Goiânia . . . . . 44
II–5. Final remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND

According to the International Basic Safety Standards an accident is “any

unintended event, including operating errors, equipment failures or other mishaps, the
consequences or potential consequences of which are not negligible from the point of
view of protection or safety” [1].
A radiological accident is defined as an unforeseen event involving overexpo-
sure or contamination of persons and/or the environment by radioactive material.
Exposure may have actually occurred or only be suspected. This distinction is impor-
tant because experience has shown that it is safer and less costly to put an accident
plan into operation when an accident is suspected, rather than wait until its occurrence
is established. Although infrequent compared to conventional accident situations,
occurrences over the past five decades have provided sufficient data to develop
guidelines for medical management of radiation casualties.
Although the March 1979 incident at Three Mile Island in the United States of
America created tremendous public concern, it caused no radiation injuries. Because
of the integrity of the containment vessel, and in spite of a fuel meltdown, the conta-
mination outside the reactor building and the release of radioiodine were negligible.
By contrast, the major nuclear and radiological accidents at Chernobyl, Ukraine, and
Goiânia, Brazil, have provided important information for the diagnosis, monitoring
and treatment of radiation injuries. The explosion of vapour in April 1986 at the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which had no containment vessel, resulted in the hos-
pitalization of 237 patients identified as having been overexposed. Of these,
134 developed acute radiation syndrome (ARS); 28 of these patients eventually died
of ARS associated with extensive radiation burns [2].
In September 1987, a shielded radioactive 137Cs source (50.9 TBq) was
removed from the protective housing of an abandoned teletherapy machine in
Goiânia, Brazil. Subsequently, the source was ruptured. As a result, many people
incurred large doses of radiation by both external and internal contamination. Four of
the casualties eventually died and 28 people developed local radiation injuries. A total
of 249 cases of radioactive contamination were detected, 129 of whom had both inter-
nal and external contamination [3]. There was extensive contamination of homes,
other buildings and surface soil in the urban area of Goiânia. This incident is
discussed in greater detail in Annex II.
In 1989 a radiological accident occurred at an industrial sterilization facility in
San Salvador, El Salvador. The accident occurred when the 60Co source became stuck
in the open position. Three workers were exposed to high radiation doses and devel-
oped ARS. The immediate acute effects were limited by specialized treatment.

1
Nonetheless, two of the men were so seriously injured that their legs had to be partly
or completely amputated. The most highly exposed worker died six months later,
death being attributed to residual lung damage and other injuries [4].
The International Atomic Energy Agency has provided detailed reports on these
accidents in various publications [3–6]. The report on the accident at Tammiku,
Estonia, is currently being prepared for publication by the Agency.

1.2. OBJECTIVE

This publication is directed at medical professionals who may be involved in the

management of radiation injuries starting from the first few hours or days after an expo-
sure of undefined severity (i.e. those handling the emergency situation may not know
the extent and severity of the accident). Experience has shown that in addition to occu-
pational physicians, the complete management of an emergency case involves other
professionals such as haematologists, oncologists, plastic surgeons, dermatologists,
vascular surgeons, psychiatrists and consultants in other medical specialties. The prin-
cipal aim of this publication is to provide guidelines to enable medical professionals to
carry out prompt diagnostic measures and to offer emergency treatment.

1.3. SCOPE

This report provides information in tabulated form on clinical criteria for dose
assessment. Additionally, it discusses the appropriate dose–effect relationship in
cases of external radiation involving either total body or local exposures, as well as
internal contamination. It is not within the scope of this report to provide details of
conventional treatment procedures. However, indications as to when to perform spe-
cific therapies are provided. The underlying principles of radiobiology and radiation
pathology are not discussed.

1.4. STRUCTURE

Section 2 covers the different types and modes of accidental exposure and their
medical management including triage, which is an important step to establish priori-
ties for medical treatment and hospitalization. Sections 3 and 4 deal with the medical
management following external exposure and internal contamination, reviewing diag-
nosis and treatment. Section 5 provides a classification of combined radiation injuries
and their treatment. Section 6 offers information on a consulting system from which
advice and assistance can be obtained in the event of a radiation accident, and
Section 7 gives instructions on how to collect data relating to patient care.
Annex I contains a set of record form samples for data collection. Annex II gives a
description of the diagnosis and treatment used at Goiânia.

2
 2. TYPES OF ACCIDENTAL EXPOSURE AND THEIR
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT

2.1. TYPES OF ACCIDENT

An accident is called a nuclear accident when it involves a nuclear facility,

especially a nuclear reactor. A radiological accident involves a sealed or unsealed
radiation source and leads to an uncontrolled release of ionizing radiation or radio-
active materials into the environment. Such radiation sources include X ray equip-
ment, sealed radioactive isotope sources (such as 60Co, 137Cs or 192Ir irradiators) used
mostly in medicine and industry, and unsealed sources used in nuclear medicine and
scientific research.
Potential accident types include the following:

(a) A radioactive source may be misplaced, lost or stolen. An obvious example

might be a γ radiography source container and source found to be missing. One
problem here is that the container may come into the possession of people who
decide to dismantle or otherwise interfere with it, thereby exposing themselves
and possibly others to an unshielded source.
(b) A radioactive source may become unshielded as the result of a failure during
routine operations. Again, γ radiography provides an example: after making an
exposure an operator may find it impossible to retract the source into its
container.
(c) A radioactive material may be dispersed. For example, a vial containing a
radioactive solution might develop a leak during storage. Another example
would be a violent release of radioactive substances from a radiochemical
facility.

In all these cases, there is a possibility of uncontrolled exposure of persons

unless appropriate protective measures are taken. From a planning point of view, it is
helpful to classify accidents according to their severity, the number of individuals
injured (e.g. more than five is considered a major accident), and their radiological
consequences, such as external exposure, external and internal contamination and
their combination.

2.2. RADIATION SOURCES AND MODES OF EXPOSURE

The facilities in which X rays and radionuclides are either produced or used, the
types of radiation source, and the levels of activity have to be identified in order to

3
TABLE I. COMMON RADIATION SOURCES, FACILITIES AND EXPOSURE
MODES

External
Group Source and/or facility Contamination Mixed
exposure

I Critical assembly Yes Yes Yes

Reactor Yes Yes Yes
Fuel element manufacture Yes Yes Yes
Radiopharmaceutical manufacture Yes Yes Yes
Fuel reprocessing plant Yes Yes Yes

II Radiation device, e.g.

Particle accelerator Yes a a

X ray generator Yes No No

III Sealed source (intact) Yes No No

Sealed source (leaking) Yes Yes Yes

IV Nuclear medicine laboratory Yes Yes Yes

In vitro assay laboratory Yes Yes Yes

V Source transportation Yes Yes Yes

VI Radioactive wastes Yes Yes Yes

a Neutrons may induce radioactivity within the body (see text).

provide information that can be used in advance preparation of proper medical

arrangements for dealing with an accident. The most frequently encountered
radiation sources are listed in Table I.
Group I includes nuclear facilities such as power reactors and industrial and
research facilities. Group II sources are encountered in both industrial and medical
facilities. Sealed sources in Group III are widely used in industry and medicine. The
most common accidents occur in industries using sealed sources. Very serious injuries
and some deaths have occurred in this group, although many of these have not yet
been reported in the medical literature. Group IV consists of the largest number of
facilities, but serious accidents are unlikely because of the low levels of activity and
the use of radionuclides with short half-lives.
In Groups IV–VI, only one individual or a very small number of people have
been involved in the accidents described in most published accounts. Although the
potential for accidents in transportation (Group V) is important, they occur only
rarely.

4
TABLE II. RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS RESULTING IN
RADIATION INJURY

Possible number of
Area of application Source, radionuclide Part of body exposed
persons injured

Industry
Sterilization Co-60, Cs-137 Whole body, hands 1–3
Radiography Ir-192, Cs-137 Hands, other parts 1–10
Gauging Ir-192, Cs-137 Hands, other parts 1–2

Medicine
Diagnostics X ray generators Hands, face 1–10
Therapy Co-60, Cs-137 Whole body, hands 1–10
and accelerators and other parts (more in extremely
rare cases)

Research Broad spectrum of Hands, face, 1–3

sources, including other parts (more at research
reactors reactors)

Spent sources Co-60, Cs-137 Hands, other parts 1–20

and others (more in extremely
rare cases)

Nuclear reactors Cs-137, Sr-90 Whole body 1–500

I-131 Thyroid gland (usually much less
Pu-210 Lung than the number of
persons affected)

Table II categorizes radiological and nuclear accidents according to the

radioisotopes involved, the parts of the body exposed and the possible number of
persons injured.
The most important exposure routes in the early stage of an accident are:

— direct radiation from the source or facility and from any radioactive material
released;
— inhalation of airborne material (volatiles, aerosols, particulates);
— direct radiation from ground or surface deposition;
— contamination of skin and clothing.

5
 For these exposure routes it has been shown that direct radiation from the
source is the strongest contributor to the doses received [7, 8]. In particular, accidents
associated with γ radiography are likely to have significant radiological conse-
quences. In nuclear accidents the radioactive plume may act as a main source of exter-
nal radiation, while radioactive airborne material, especially radioactive isotopes of
iodine, may significantly contribute to the internal dose of the thyroid gland.

2.3. SORTING (TRIAGE) OF INJURED PERSONS

Triage refers to the sorting of patients into classes on the basis of their injury
and/or disease, for the purpose of expediting clinical care and maximizing the use of
the available clinical services and facilities. One of its main tasks is to determine the
level of emergency care required. If the accident produces only a small number of
casualties, medical management should not cause major problems in most countries.
An accident involving tens or hundreds of individuals exposed, or suspected of hav-
ing been exposured, would cause great difficulties, especially regarding hospitaliza-
tion. Thus, planning is very important and should be adapted to the system of med-
ical care contemplated for catastrophic event situations. This chain of sorting and care
becomes crucial when both relief personnel and facilities are limited. Triage is
widely employed in all kinds of catastrophe; radiation injury is not unique in this
regard.
The organization of medical treatment should be assessed on the basis of
whether an injury constitutes an emergency or not. Emergency treatment will be
determined initially by conventional injuries such as trauma, wounds and thermal or
chemical burns. Contamination with radionuclides is a problem in relatively few
cases. Persons contaminated either externally or internally should be identified and
treated immediately and specifically. In all other cases the need for treatment of radi-
ation injuries does not constitute a medical emergency, although some early essential
actions should be taken (such as blood sampling for assessing the degree of severity
of the exposure and for human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) typing).
The early clinical symptoms serve as a basis for sorting persons exposed to
radiation and deciding upon proper medical care at an individual level. The most
important prodromal early clinical signs are nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and skin and
mucosa erythema. The decision on hospitalization, in cases of whole body exposure
(WBE) or local exposure (LE), depends on the presence of early clinical signs as
described in Table III.

2.4. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS

The first task is to divide the persons exposed (or suspected of having been
exposed) into groups, taking into account the estimated severity of the radiation

6
TABLE III. GUIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF RADIATION INJURIES
BASED ON EARLY SYMPTOMS

Clinical signs Corresponding dose (Gy)

Decision
WBE LE WBE LE

No vomiting No early erythema <1 <10 Outpatient with five

week surveillance
period (blood, skin)
Vomiting 2–3 h Early erythema or 1–2 8–15 Surveillance in a
after exposure abnormal sensation general hospital
12–24 h after exposure (or outpatient for
3 weeks followed
by hospitalization
if necessary)

Vomiting 1–2 h Early erythema or 2–4 15–30 Hospitalization in

after exposure abnormal sensation a haematological
8–15 h after exposure or surgical (burns)
department

Vomiting earlier Early erythema, >4 >30 Hospitalization in

than 1 h after within the first 3–6 h a well equipped
exposure and/or (or less) after exposure, haematological or
other severe of skin and/or mucosa surgical department
symptoms, with oedema with transfer to a
e.g. hypotension specialized centre
for radiopathology

induced injuries and the type and level of medical care needed. Three main categories
of exposed persons can be distinguished.
The first category includes those individuals, whether overexposed or suspect-
ed of overexposure, that display signs of conventional injuries such as trauma,
wounds, burns and/or chemical contamination. These individuals should be managed
as in any medical emergency. In addition, they should undergo specific testing with-
out delay (blood cell counts, blood sampling for cytogenetic studies and HLA typ-
ing), in order to assess the severity of the exposure and to provide the basis for treat-
ment initiation. If a sufficient number of first aid personnel are available, then specif-
ic testing on-site should be implemented as soon as feasible.
The second category includes individuals who are likely to have been exposed
externally or who have external or internal contamination, or who are suspected of
having been exposed at such dose levels that they may require a certain degree of
medical management. For this category, preplanned actions are required. These

7
victims should be regrouped in a treatment centre where a secondary triage into three
subcategories should be carried out. These subcategories include: persons whose
whole body has been exposed; those whose body has been locally exposed; and those
who have been contaminated with radionuclides. Simultaneously, the availability of
medical facilities at regional and/or national level should be determined. In the days
immediately following the exposure, most victims can be handled by physicians, to
ensure that examinations and follow-up are carried out properly. These basic exami-
nations should be listed on a special protocol drawn up by the medical centre respon-
sible for handling the accident. In a second phase, a further classification into cate-
gories of severity will be based on clinical and biological findings.
The last category comprises individuals who are likely to have received only
low doses and are free from any other injury. These individuals should be registered
and monitored as outpatients for a few days.
The severity of the injury depends on the dose level incurred, the dose rate, the
radiosensitivity of the tissues involved, the area of the body exposed and the extent of
exposure suffered by the organ system. The severity of the injury is greater when the
whole body is exposed; partial body exposure to the same dose has less impact on
health. An absorbed radiation dose of about 3.5 Gy is generally expected to result in
the death of 50% of the exposed population group within two months if there is no
medical treatment. This LD50/60 value can be increased to about 5.0–6.0 Gy with ade-
quate supportive treatment. Table IV presents the main diagnostic methods used in
cases of whole body exposure.

TABLE IV. METHODS FOR EARLY DIAGNOSIS OF RADIATION INJURIESa

Minimum exposure
Procedure Finding Time of onset
(Gy)
Clinical Nausea, vomiting Within 48 h ~1
observations Erythema Within hours to days ~3
Epilation Within 2–3 weeks ~3

Laboratory
examinations
Blood count Absolute lymphocyte Within 24–72 h ~0.5
countb < 1 G/L

Cytogeneticsc Dicentrics, rings, Within hours ~0.2

fragments
a Partly from Ref. [9].
b Lymphocytes may decrease within hours. The baseline count should be obtained as soon as
possible and the counting repeated daily. Lymphocyte count (G/L) expressed as 109 cells/L.
c Requires 48–72 h for analysis.

8
 The severity of the exposure will usually be assessed in an iterative manner:
(a) A very early classification will be based on clinical symptoms such as nausea,
vomiting, diarrhoea, erythema and fever. These signs, as well as the time of their
appearance, their frequency and their severity, should be carefully recorded. This
permits the classification of victims into two categories according to whether the
absorbed dose is greater or less than 2 Gy.
(b) Confirmation and more precise classification will be based on haematological
counts, including, in particular, tests to observe the decline of lymphocytes
within the first two days, allowing a more detailed classification within the
category where the dose exceeded 2 Gy.
(c) Further confirmation will be effected in hospital, on the basis of the evolution
of clinical and laboratory findings, and of more specific means of analysis such
as haematological examinations, and biological (cytogenetic) and physical
dosimetry.
To meet the requirements of this assessment (a–c), planning a medical response
and training the necessary medical personnel are of prime importance. Planning effi-
ciency depends mainly upon the incorporation of a catastrophic event medical
response action into the medical plan, with regular drills to test the performance of
the medical response team. The medical management of large groups of victims in the
wake of large scale accidents will depend upon local and national capabilities and
available resources. The need for specialized units and/or personnel may require
international collaboration.

3. EXTERNAL EXPOSURE

3.1. TYPES OF EXTERNAL EXPOSURE

The prognosis and medical handling of individuals exposed to external radiation

depend upon whether the whole body has been exposed, or whether exposure has been
localized. It is very important for the prognosis and choice of treatment to know how
the absorbed dose has been distributed within the body. The dose distribution depends
on the condition of exposure and the circumstances of the accident.
If a source, small in size, were very close to the body — in a pocket or touched
by the hand — only local exposure could take place. Conversely, if an individual were
relatively far from the source and/or the size of the source were commensurate with
the person’s body size and he/she moved around the source, then this would result in
a whole body exposure with a more or less uniform dose distribution. The farther
away the source, and the more movements made by the person, the more uniform the
dose distribution.

9
 If a source were located relatively close to the body and there were some
shielding, partial or local exposure would result. The closer the source to the body,
the smaller the area exposed.
The duration of the exposure, or dose rate, is also important. If the same dose
were delivered within a shorter time (higher dose rate) a more severe radiation effect
would be observed.

3.2. DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF LOCAL RADIATION INJURY

Local radiation injury (LRI) is much more frequent than WBE and hence
described in detail in the specialized literature [10]. LRI caused by high doses of radi-
ation (>8–10 Gy) produces signs and symptoms similar to a thermal burn except for
the striking delay in the onset of clinical changes, from several days to a week or
longer. The severity of LRI depends not only on the dose and type of radiation, but also
on the location and size of the area exposed. Although not usually life threatening, its
delayed effects can result in serious impairment.

3.2.1. The clinical picture

A gradual, incremental development of skin reaction with underlying tissue

involvement is a typical feature of LRI. In general, the higher the dose received, the
more rapid the development of pathological symptoms and the more severe the prog-
nosis. Intractable pain of increasing intensity is a typical symptom and poses a chal-
lenge to patient management. Table V illustrates the dose range and time delays
observed for the onset of clinical signs in situations where skin has been exposed to
γ radiation or high energy X rays.

TABLE V. TIME OF ONSET OF CLINICAL SIGNS OF SKIN INJURY

DEPENDING ON THE DOSE RECEIVED

Stage/symptoms Dose range (Gy) Time of onset (d)

Erythema 3–10 14–21

Epilation >3 14–18
Dry desquamation 8–12 25–30
Moist desquamation 15–20 20–28
Blister formation 15–25 15–25
Ulceration (within skin) >20 14–21
Necrosis (deeper penetration) >25 >21

10
TABLE VI. CLINICAL SIGNS OF LRI TO THE HAND FOLLOWING LOW
ENERGY RADIATION EXPOSURE
Period of onset of clinical signs Time and Estimated
in the acute phase evolution of Delayed dose
Primary Secondary Erosion, late phase effects effects range
Blisters Necrosis (d) (Gy)
erythema erythema ulceration

None or 12–20 d 30–35 None 12–18a

12–24 h Dry 10–15b
desquamation

6–12 h 6–14 d 8–15 d 40–50 None, or 20–30a

Moist slight 18–25b
desquamation, atrophy
epithelialization

4–6 h 3–7 d 5–10 d 10–18 d 50–70 Atrophy, 35–80a

Epithelialization depigmentation, 30–70b
telangiectasia

1–2 h 0–4 d 3–5 d 6–7 d 6–10 d 60–80 Atrophy, >80

Scar formation, depigmentation,
no healing telangiectasia,
without surgery possible
functional
incapacity
a Fingers only.
b Whole hand.

Skin exposure to β radiation or low energy X rays is characterized by an

earlier appearance of all clinical signs, but the prognosis is not as severe (Table VI).

3.2.2. Main diagnostic procedures

Physical dosimetry is very important, since no appropriate biodosimetric

method is available for the early stages of local radiation injury. A detailed history of
the accident should be taken and recorded. As regards physical examination, skin
reaction should be observed daily with the aid of serial colour photo documentation.
In the case of LRI, the use of electron spin resonance methods can be helpful
to estimate the dose incurred when applied to teeth, clothes, buttons, earrings, or any
organic substance exposed [11, 12]. During the first week following an accident, daily
blood counts can help to discount the possibility of whole body exposure, since in
LRI only certain non-specific changes can be observed such as mild leucocytosis or
increase of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [13]. Chromosomal aberration can be

11
found in only a small number of cultured lymphocytes at a local exposure with a dose
range of 5–10 Gy [14] and provides qualitative rather than quantitative information.
Two diagnostic procedures can be used to assess the severity of local over-
exposures: thermal and radioisotopic methods. Both are most reliable when the
irradiated area can be compared with a corresponding unirradiated one.
Thermography can be used to identify any injury and to determine its extent. It
is a useful and sensitive technique for detecting local radiation injuries, especially in
the early and latent phases when clinical symptoms are not evident [15]. Additionally,
both contact thermography and infrared telethermovision are useful. Although the
latter technique is possibly superior in the diagnosis of a partial body irradiation, prin-
cipally when the extremities are affected, it is also significantly more expensive. A
radioisotopic method can be used to record the vascular circulation in an organ or part
of the body when 99Tcm pertechnate is injected intravenously, the distribution being
monitored with a scintillation camera [16].
Thermography and the radioisotopic method are complementary. They do
not permit an exact assessment of the dose, but can assist in assessing the clinical
severity of the injury. Promising new techniques, such as hair cortical cell counting,
are being studied, as indicators of radiation exposure to parts of the human
body [17].

3.2.3. Treatment

Erythema and dry desquamation can be treated symptomatically. Lotions or

sprays containing hydrocortisone can be used to relieve the symptoms associated with
severe erythema accompanied by oedema. To treat moist desquamation, daily dress-
ings and bathing of the affected skin in antiseptic solutions is helpful. Antibiotic
creams can also be used.
For ulceration, isolation of the limb in a sterile environment or daily dressing
and bathing of the ulcer in antiseptic solutions is recommended. Analgesics or
stronger opioids may be necessary. In the event of suspected or verified secondary
infection, topical or systemic antibiotic therapy should be considered.
For necrosis, only surgical treatment is effective. This consists of the excision
of a deep necrosis followed by skin grafts or other kinds of grafting. The extent, tim-
ing and type of surgical intervention should be assessed on a case by case basis. Skin
grafting is possible only when the underlying vasculature is stable, otherwise a
myocutaneous flap or pedicle flap should be made. Surgery is justified whenever irre-
versible alterations appear which require ulcerectomy, necrectomy and amputation.
In practice, in almost all cases of γ exposure with a local dose in excess of
20–25 Gy, surgical treatment might be justified, since spontaneous recovery may not
be possible. Healing is not expected, even after superficial epithelialization, as a
secondary ulcer may appear in the higher dose range. When irreversible alterations

12
are clinically evident, the operation should be undertaken as soon as possible, after
the necessity of the procedure has been explained to the patient. Indications for ampu-
tation include very severe lesions with destruction of underlying tissues, including
vascular damage, intractable pain and lack of infection control. Table VII illustrates
the clinical aspects and the diagnostic and therapeutic options available for acute local
radiation injuries and their chronic evolution [18].

3.3. DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME

3.3.1. Diagnosis

Diagnosis of ARS is based on clinical and laboratory data. The prodromal phase
may occur within hours after exposure and is characterized by anorexia, nausea and
vomiting (Table VIII). In this phase of ARS, laboratory evidence of haematopoietic
damage can already be observed after an exposure of about 0.5 Gy (Table IX). There
is usually a remission in the symptoms, allowed by a relatively asymptomatic latent
phase that lasts one to three weeks, depending upon the dose incurred (Table X). The
latent phase is followed by the critical phase (Table XI).
The circulating lymphocytes are one of the most radiosensitive cell lines,
and a fall in the absolute lymphocyte count is the best and most useful laboratory
test to determine the level of radiation exposure in the early phase of observation
(Tables IX–XI). Immunological dysfunction appears within 48 h. Gastrointestinal
symptoms are observed at doses in excess of 10–15 Gy, and sometimes even with a
lower dose, overlapping the bone marrow syndrome. Accelerated prodromal and
shortened latent phases may be followed by diarrhoea. Neurovascular syndrome
occurs after exposures exceeding 20 Gy and is characterized by the immediate onset
of severe prodromal signs, leading to vasomotor collapse and death within one to
two days.
Among the assays for biological dosimetry, the chromosomal aberration analy-
sis from cultured circulating lymphocytes is the most widely accepted and reliable
one. The dose–response relationships are well established in many laboratories
around the world [14, 19–21]. The sensitivity of the technique depends on the dose
and radiation qualities. The lower limit of detection of a dose by using this
cytogenetic method is approximately 0.2 Gy of γ rays or X rays and approximately
10–20 mGy of fission spectrum neutrons [22–24].
There are limitations for using this technique in cases of partial body irradia-
tion [25, 26]. The presence of chromosomal aberrations might indicate the radiation
injury but does not permit a precise dose assessment. In addition, doses from internal
radiation sources cannot always be assessed, owing to the varying distributions of
different radionuclides.

13
 TABLE VII. CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC ASPECTS, AND THERAPEUTIC OPTIONS FOR LOCAL RADIATION INJURIES:
14

ACUTE PHASE
History

Dose estimation
{ Physical dosimetry
Accident reconstruction
Biological dosimetry

{
Peripheral blood counts
Sperm counts Vascular
Irradiation Routine examinations Slit lamp examination of eyes thermography
Serial colour photographs

{
Vascular scintigraphy
CAT scan
Specialized studies MRI
Thermography
end of ↓ 1st day end of ↓ 1st week end of ↓ 1st month
PRODROMAL PHASE LATENT PHASE ACUTE PHASE
Pain
Heat sensation
Itching
Symptoms Itching Minor (itching, pain), if any
Paresthesia
Tenderness
Clinical Hyperalgia
picture Erythema
Oedema
Signs Transient erythema Minor epilation, if any
Blistering
Moist desquamation
Pain relief
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
Avoidance of trauma drugs (NSAIDs)
Analgesics Local antibiotics
Treatment Symptomatic Hydration emulsion Vasodilators
(sweet almond oil) Healing drugs
Anti-adherent platelet drugs
Epidermal growth factors
Debridement
 TABLE VII. (cont.) CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC ASPECTS, AND THERAPEUTIC OPTIONS FOR LOCAL RADIATION
INJURIES: CHRONIC PHASE (continued time-scale)

Vascular scintigraphy Vascular scintigraphy Vascular scintigraphy

Thermography Bone scan Bone scan
Biopsy (histo- and immunocytochemical studies) Thermography Thermography

1st year 2nd year

HEALING OR CHRONIC EVOLUTION (SCLEROSIS AND FIBROSIS) (SECONDARY INFECTION POSSIBLE)

Injury Pain
Reopening Altered tactile and thermal sensitivities
Pain
Vasculitis (possible) Paresthesia
Pain Skin dryness
Late erythema
Oedema Atrophy, telangiectasia, pigmentary changes, keratoses,
Ulceration
Ulcer epilation or problems with hair, deformity (ankilosis),
Necrosis
Necrosis (spontaneous healing impossible) functional incapacity

Conservative Avoidance of trauma

Surgery Analgesics Rehabilitation
(necrectomy, skin grafts, amputation) NSAIDs Superoxide dismutase (liposomal and topical)
Surgery (necrectomy) Surgery
15
16

TABLE VIII. PRODROMAL PHASE OF ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME

ARS degree and the approximate dose of acute WBE (Gy)

Symptoms and
medical response Mild Moderate Severe Very severe Lethala
(1–2 Gy) (2–4 Gy) (4–6 Gy) (6–8 Gy) (>8 Gy)
Vomiting
Onset 2 h after 1–2 h after exposure Earlier than 1 h Earlier than 30 min Earlier than 10 min
exposure or later after exposure after exposure after exposure
% of incidence 10–50 70–90 100 100 100
Diarrhoea None None Mild Heavy Heavy
Onset — — 3–8 h 1–3 h Within minutes or 1 h
% of incidence — — <10 >10 Almost 100
Headache Slight Mild Moderate Severe Severe
Onset — — 4–24 h 3–4 h 1–2 h
% of incidence — — 50 80 80–90
Consciousness Unaffected Unaffected Unaffected May be altered Unconsciousness
(may last
seconds/minutes)
Onset — — — — Seconds/minutes
% of incidence — — — — 100 (at >50 Gy)
Body temperature Normal Increased Fever High fever High fever
Onset — 1–3 h 1–2 h <1 h <1 h
% of incidence — 10–80 80–100 100 100
Medical response Outpatient Observation in general Treatment in Treatment in Palliative treatment
observation hospital, treatment in specialized hospital specialized hospital (symptomatic only)
specialized hospital if needed
a With appropriate supportive therapy individuals may survive whole body doses as high as 12 Gy [36].
TABLE IX. CHANGE OF LYMPHOCYTE COUNTS (G/L) IN THE INITIAL
DAYS OF ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME DEPENDING ON THE DOSE OF
ACUTE WHOLE BODY EXPOSURE
Lymphocyte counts (G/L)a
Degree of ARS Dose (Gy)
after 6 d since first exposure

Pre-clinical phase 0.1–1.0 1.5–2.5

Mild 1.0–2.0 0.7–1.5
Moderate 2.0–4.0 0.5–0.8
Severe 4.0–6.0 0.3–0.5
Very severe 6.0–8.0 0.1–0.3
Lethal >8.0 0.0–0.05
a Expressed as 109 cells/L.

Analysis of the results can take three days, as a 48 h culturing of lymphocytes

is necessary to obtain enough metaphases to evaluate the frequency of chromosomal
aberrations. Moreover, the scoring is time consuming and requires considerable
expertise.
For a faster screening of injured persons, an assay for the detection of
lymphocytic micronuclei is possible [27–29]. This technique also involves the
culturing of lymphocytes, but the scoring is quicker and easier. In particular, auto-
mation of the assay with the aid of computerized image analysis requires less effort
than for metaphase chromosome analysis [30].

3.3.2. Treatment

Treatment should be based on actual symptoms, signs, and the results of

routine laboratory tests (see Tables VII–XII). The initial symptoms and signs are non-
specific. Careful observation and repeated laboratory studies are the only means of
evaluation until further information is gathered and clinical manifestations become
apparent [31–36]. The most useful single laboratory test to rule out severe injury
within the first 48 h is the absolute lymphocyte count (Table X).
Patients in the emergency room suffering nausea and vomiting should be treat-
ed symptomatically and should be monitored with daily blood counts. Victims who
have received external doses of less than 1 Gy may be followed up as outpatients if
the laboratory test (absolute lymphocyte count) results and dose estimate indicate this
to be appropriate. Patients exposed to radiation doses exceeding 1 Gy should be
observed. The principal therapeutic measures corresponding to different degrees of
ARS severity are summarized in Table XII.
The guiding principle in the further treatment of ARS is to prevent complica-
tions arising from bone marrow depression. This approach has replaced that of

17
18

TABLE X. LATENT PHASE OF ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME

Degree of ARS and approximate dose of acute WBE (Gy)

Mild Moderate Severe Very severe Lethal

(1–2 Gy) (2–4 Gy) (4–6 Gy) (6–8 Gy) (>8 Gy)

Lymphocytes (G/L) 0.8–1.5 0.5–0.8 0.3–0.5 0.1–0.3 0.0–0.1

(days 3–6)

Granulocytes (G/L) >2.0 1.5–2.0 1.0–1.5 ≤0.5 ≤0.1

Diarrhoea None None Rare Appears on days 6–9 Appears on days 4–5

Epilation None Moderate, beginning Moderate or complete Complete earlier Complete earlier
on day 15 or later on days 11–21 than day 11 than day 10

Latency period (d) 21–35 18–28 8–18 7 or less None

Medical response Hospitalization Hospitalization Hospitalization Hospitalization Symptomatic

not necessary recommended necessary urgently necessary treatment only
 TABLE XI. CRITICAL PHASE OF ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME

Degree of ARS and approximate dose of acute WBE (Gy)

Mild Moderate Severe Very severe Lethal

(1–2 Gy) (2–4 Gy) (4–6 Gy) (6–8 Gy) (>8 Gy)

Onset of symptoms >30 d 18–28 d 8–18 d <7 d <3 d

Lymphocytes (G/L) 0.8–1.5 0.5–0.8 0.3–0.5 0.1–0.3 0–0.1

Platelets (G/L) 60–100 30–60 25–35 15–25 <20

10–25% 25–40% 40–80% 60–80% 80–100%a

Clinical manifestations Fatigue, Fever, infections, High fever, infections High fever, diarrhoea, High fever,
weakness bleeding, weakness, bleeding, epilation vomiting, dizziness diarrhoea,
epilation and disorientation, unconsciousness
hypotension

Lethality (%) 0 0–50 20–70 50–100 100

Onset 6–8 weeks Onset 4–8 weeks Onset 1–2 weeks 1–2 weeks

Medical response Prophylactic Special prophylactic Special prophylactic Special treatment from Symptomatic only
treatment from days treatment from days the first day; isolation
14–20; isolation from 7–10; isolation from from the beginning
days 10–20 the beginning
a In very severe cases, with a dose >50 Gy, death precedes cytopenia.
19
20

TABLE XII. PRINCIPAL THERAPEUTIC MEASURES FOR ACUTE RADIATION SYNDROME ACCORDING TO DEGREE
OF SEVERITY

Whole body dose (Gy) 1–2 2–4 4–6 6–8 >8

Degree of severity of ARS Mild Moderate Severe Very severe Lethal
Oupatient observation Hospitalization
Medical management
for maximum
and treatment Isolation, as early as possible
of one month
G-CSF or GM-CSF
as early as possible IL-3 and GM-CSF
(or within the first week)
Antibiotics of broad spectrum activity (from the end of the latent period)
Antifungal and antiviral preparations (when necessary)
Blood components transfusion:
platelets, erythrocytes (when necessary)
Complete parenteral nutrition (first week)
Metabolism correction, detoxication (when necessary)
Plasmapheresis (second or third week)
Prophylaxis of disseminated intravascular coagulation
(second week)

HLA-identical
Symptomatic
allogene BMT
therapy only
(first week)

Note: BMT: bone marrow transplantation; G-CSF: granulocyte-colony stimulating factor; GM-CSF: granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating
factor; IL-3: interleukin.
administering prophylactic antibiotics and transfusing blood products (platelets and
erythrocytes). Platelet and erythrocyte transfusions are used prophylactically when
the platelet count is less than 20 G/L (1 G/L = 109 cells/L) and the haemo-
globin is less than 100 g/L. The use of prophylactic antibiotics and the administration
of blood products are decided after isolation in an antiseptic ward and careful clini-
cal observation for symptoms of fever, bleeding, oropharyngeal ulceration, and neu-
rological and vascular changes. Microbiological monitoring provides guidelines for
an efficient treatment of infection. Blood culture should be performed whenever the
fever is higher than 38°C (98.6°F).
Symptomatic and supportive treatment is also necessary. This may include the
use of tranquilizers and drugs to relieve pain, supportive fluids and adequate nutrition.
Intravenous routes should be employed as needed to supply fluid, electrolyte and
nutrition. Barriers to prevent hospital infection are desirable, as is the use of sterile
food. Raw vegetables and raw fruits should be avoided.
Because the care is directed towards preventing the consequences of agranulo-
cytosis and loss of immune competence, help from a haematologist/oncologist is
desirable.

3.3.3. Bone marrow transplantation

Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) seems to be a logical treatment for victims

of accidental whole body irradiation when the dose is sufficiently high to make spon-
taneous bone marrow recovery impossible [2, 8, 35]. Nevertheless, BMT has many
limitations. These include identification of histocompatible donors, age
constraints, HLA typing in lymphogenic patients, the need for additional immuno-
suppression and the risk of graft versus host disease.
Information gained from the accidents at Chernobyl and the Soreq irradiation
facility in Israel [2, 37] strongly suggests that BMT has a limited role for the treat-
ment of victims of radiation accidents and would benefit only a small number of
exposed individuals. Given these experiences, transplants should probably be consid-
ered only for victims receiving doses in the range of 8–12 Gy, uniformly distributed,
without serious skin injuries, and in the absence of severe internal contamination and
conventional injuries.
The timing of grafting is important and all arguments favour early marrow
transplantation, even within the first week after exposure. Grafting in the peak period
of immunosuppression may reduce the chance of graft rejection. This circumstance
underscores the importance of reliable clinical, biological and dosimetric findings to
assess the dose level and dose distribution within the body. In the absence of reliable
physical dosimetry and haematological parameters, the use of allogenic bone marrow
transplantation is unjustified.

21
3.3.4. Use of haematopoietic growth factors

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) and granulocyte macrophage-

colony stimulating factors (GM-CSF) increase the rate of haematopoietic recovery in
patients after radiation exposure and may obviate the need for BMT when stem cells
are still viable [38–40]. Interleukins (IL-1 and IL-3) act in synergy with GM-CSF.
During the past decade, these factors have been suggested as having the poten-
tial to accelerate bone marrow recovery after radiation exposure in the lethal range.
They have been used successfully for radiation victims of the Goiânia, San Salvador,
Soreq and Nesvizh accidents [3, 4, 37, 41].

3.3.5. Criteria for choice of therapy

On the basis of Tables IX–XI, the therapeutic recommendations are as follows:

(a) If the lymphocyte count during the first week is within 0.2–0.5 G/L (200–500
cells/µL), spontaneous recovery is possible. Therapy comprises isolation, anti-
biotics, and supportive treatment, including platelet infusion. Growth factors
can be used.
(b) If the lymphocyte count in the first week is lower than 0.2–0.5 G/L, the stem
cells are probably irreversibly damaged. Therapy as above. Additional growth
factor therapy is a method of choice.
(c) If the lymphocyte count within the first week is less than 0.1 G/L, treatment
with growth factors and BMT has to be considered.
It is necessary to observe the HLA compatibility for allogenic BMT. This
therapy may be recommended to patients exposed to whole body doses exceeding
9 Gy [42, 43].

4. CONTAMINATION WITH RADIONUCLIDES

Radioactive contamination can be external or internal. The biological and pos-

sible health consequences depend on the following:

(a) Mode of entry;

(b) Pattern of distribution;
(c) Site of deposition of radionuclides in the organs;
(d) Nature of the radiation emission from the contaminating radionuclide;
(e) Amount of radioactivity on/in the body;
(f) Physicochemical nature of the contaminant.

22
 This information is essential for the adequate evaluation, assessment and med-
ical management of a contaminated individual.

4.1. DIAGNOSIS

In the case of external contamination, physical measuring equipment such as

surface contamination monitors (Geiger–Müller detectors, etc.) can be used (Table
XIII). In addition, swab samples have to be taken from body surfaces and orifices and
measured. In the case of internal contamination, which may have happened through
inhalation, ingestion, or wounded or apparently undamaged skin, physical measure-
ment includes thyroid monitoring, whole body counting, gamma camera measure-
ment, and blood and excreta analysis. For the latter, all urine and faecal samples have
to be collected and labelled to record the time of sampling (Table XIV).
The purpose of contamination diagnosis is to obtain information on the time of
intake, the nature of the radioisotopes involved and the distribution of the

TABLE XIII. GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES

For attendants Protective clothes should be issued to all personnel involved,

i.e. coverall with hood, mask and gloves. The edges of both mask
and gloves should be taped. Paramedic and ambulance personnel
should be surveyed for contamination before going off duty.

Room setting An isolated room or a room away from the general emergency
area should be used. Air circulation should be prevented and a
tub or table with a drainage system provided. Other useful
items include containers for waste water and any contaminated
materials, and plastic bags.

Survey meter A well maintained Geiger–Müller counter with β and γ detection

capability is usually sufficient. A full scale meter deflection
indicates a high exposure rate and a high range instrument (ion
chamber) may be required. The survey should be conducted at a
distance of about 25 mm from the person’s body, moving the
detector no faster than 50 mm/s.

Personal dosimeter A film badge or thermoluminescent dosimeter should be regarded

as a minimum requirement, although a direct reading, personal
dosimeter is preferable. Exposures should be kept as low as
reasonably achievable, but in any case should be within the limits
set by the national competent authorities.

23
radioisotopes on the surface of, and within, the organism. In the event of
simple contamination, with one or several radionuclides, there will be no clinical
manifestations initially.

4.2. TREATMENT

The radionuclide should be removed by washing, dissolution or application of

strippable material to the skin. The spread of contamination through the body should
be prevented at all cost. The rule is to avoid abrasion of the skin. Products that could
facilitate the passage of material through the skin should not be used and preliminary
decontamination of the skin should be carried out on the spot. Verification of removal
of contamination and, if necessary, more elaborate treatment to remove residual or
fixed contamination should be carried out in the medical facility at the workplace. If
radioactive contamination is found, measures are required to protect attendants and
to minimize the spread of radioactive contamination at the accident site, during
transportation of patients, and at the medical facility (Tables XIII and XIV).
In cases where internal contamination is known or suspected, decorporation
procedures must be started as soon as possible.

4.2.1. Decontamination

An initial and important consideration in the emergency room is to prevent the

spread of radioactivity and provide for appropriate decontamination (Table XV).

TABLE XIV. INITIAL CONTAMINATION SURVEY AND LABORATORY

TESTS
External contamination Use instrumental contamination monitoring. Use cotton swabs
for skin, nostrils, ear canals, wounds or any contaminated
object. Each swab should be placed in a labelled test tube for
counting.a

Internal contamination Use instrumental detection methods such as whole body

counting, gamma camera, thyroid counting. Radionuclides
may be in the blood or excreted in the faeces or urine. Excreta
should be placed in appropriate containers and blood samples
in test tubes for counting.
a Every specimen should be clearly labelled and include the patient’s name, the type of
specimen taken, and the date and time the specimen was obtained.

24
TABLE XV. DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES

Materials Lukewarm water, soap or ordinary detergent, soft brush,

sponges, plastic sheets, tape, towels, sheets, iodine tablets or
solution.

Procedural priority Remove all clothing and place in plastic bags. Carry out life
saving measures first. Identify contaminated areas, mark
clearly and cover until decontamination takes place. Start with
decontamination of the wound, when present, and move on to
the most contaminated area.

Wound Irrigate the wound with a normal saline solution repeatedly.

Surgical debridement might be considered in some instances.
Eyes and ears may be irrigated gently with isotonic saline
solution.

Local contamination Cover uncontaminated area with plastic sheet and tape edges.
Soak the contaminated area, gently scrub with soap, and rinse
thoroughly. Repeat the cycle and observe changes in activity.
One cycle should not last longer than about 2–3 min. Avoid
vigorous scrubbing. A stable isotope solution may facilitate the
process.

Extensive contamination Shower for those not seriously injured. Bathing on the
operating table or stretcher for the seriously injured. Soak–
scrub–rinse cycle should also be observed.

Expected outcome Radionuclide activity is no longer detectable or is decreasing.

Prophylactic measures Cover areas still contaminated with plastic sheet and tape
edges. Gloves can be used for hands. Repeat washing after
allowing the skin to rest.

Prior notification of the arrival of a potentially contaminated person is a great aid in

preparation. Absorption of the radionuclide, especially when in ionic or other soluble
form, is very rapid in areas where the capillary network is directly exposed. Nasal and
buccal mucosae are other ready entry sites of radionuclides, and gentle nasal or oral
irrigation with isotonic solutions may reduce the level of contamination and
absorption.
The recommended procedure for local surface contamination is to cover the
surrounding uncontaminated area with a plastic sheet, tape its edges, and then wash
the affected area with soap or detergent. The contaminated surface should then be

25
blotted dry. Immersing the patient in a bath or complete showering as an initial mea-
sure is not recommended because such steps often spread contamination to clean
areas. Note that fingertips, hair, nostrils and ear canals are regions in which
decontamination is more difficult.
Clipping nails facilitates the process, and cutting or shaving hair may be
considered when shampooing does not sufficiently remove the contaminant.
Sweating of extremities by covering with plastic or rubber gloves overnight may be
helpful. Surgical debridement may be necessary to remove embedded matter from
highly contaminated wounds.
Caution is needed to avoid excessive vigour in decontamination. Patients very
rarely, if ever, suffer deleterious effects from contamination except from very high
exposures to skin, such as those occurring at Chernobyl in 1986 and in the accident
in Goiânia in 1987. The goal of decontamination is to prevent development of
late stage deleterious effects and at the same time avoid damage from efforts of
decontamination and decorporation.

4.2.2. Decorporation

The procedures recommended for the treatment of persons with acute, inter-
nally deposited radionuclides are intended to reduce the absorbed radiation dose and
hence the risk of possible future health effects (Table XVI). These aims can be
accomplished by reducing absorption, thereby preventing incorporation and internal
deposition within organs, and promoting elimination or excretion of absorbed
nuclides, which is more effective when started at the earliest opportunity. Reduction
of gastrointestinal absorption can be performed through application of stomach
lavage, mild emetics, purgatives to accelerate the removal of radioisotopes, activated
charcoal, Prussian blue (against caesium), aluminium containing antacids (against
strontium) and barium sulphate to absorb the radioactive materials.

TABLE XVI. DECORPORATION PROCEDURES

Principle Dilution, blocking, chelation, mobilization and elimination of

the contaminant.

Inhalation Irrigate nasopharynx and mouth.

Ingestion Administer cathartics for insoluble materials; diuresis by

forcing fluids for soluble contaminants.

26
 Specific decorporation procedures can be used depending on the type and meta-
bolic pathway of the contaminating radionuclides. These include blocking, diluting
and displacement agents. For radioiodine, which concentrates mostly in the thyroid,
the blocking of the gland with stable iodine (e.g. potassium iodide) will prevent the
uptake of radioiodine. The effectiveness of this treatment is strongly time dependent.
Administration of the thyroid blocking dose of a stable iodine compound 4 h after the
radioiodine intake will result in only a 50% decrease of the thyroid dose. Thyroid
blocking on the day following radioiodine inhalation is ineffective. The daily single
dose of potassium iodide should be given as rapidly as possible following an acci-
dental radioiodine intake, depending on the age of the patient as follows: 10–20 mg
to infants (those not breast fed); 20–50 mg to children of 1–10 years of age;
50–100 mg to children of 11–18 years of age; and 100–300 mg to adults. This
treatment may be continued over a few days, according to the risk of ingestion of 131I
contaminated food, such as cow’s milk and leafy vegetables or fresh fruit [44–47].
In the case of tritium intake, a large amount of fluids (water, tea) should be
administered as a dilutant over a period of one week. At the same time, diuretics may
also be given [48].
Mobilizing (displacement) agents are compounds that increase a natural
turnover process, thereby enhancing the elimination of radionuclides from body tis-
sues. These agents are more effective if they are administered soon after exposure.
However, some are still effective if they are administered within weeks. Chelating
agents such as diethyltriamidepentaacetate (DTPA) (in the form of aerosols in the
case of inhalation), desferrioxamine, etc., can be used systematically or locally, either
by application to the skin or when performing lung lavage. This last procedure should
be performed only if large amounts of contaminant have been identified and then only
performed by very well trained specialists.

5. COMBINED RADIATION INJURIES

Combined radiation injuries (CRIs) occur whenever radiation effects are

combined with mechanical, thermal or chemical injuries. Such combinations
may worsen the prognosis. Lethality increases significantly in the presence of
CRIs. Understandably, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis are much more
complex in this case. There are some peculiarities in the diagnosis of CRI.
Laboratory tests, haematological indices and others can be affected in a way that
makes diagnosis of the radiation component of combined injuries difficult.
Cytogenetics can also be influenced by toxic chemicals, and thus may not be
useful for precise assessment.

27
5.1. CLASSIFICATION

According to the combination of the radiation dose with other factors, CRIs can
be classified as follows:

(a) Thermal CRI: external and/or internal irradiation with thermal burns.
(b) Mechanical CRI: external and/or internal irradiation with wound or fracture, or
with haemorrhage.
(c) Chemical CRI: external and/or internal irradiation with chemical burns or
chemical intoxication.

5.2. TREATMENT

The medical handling of conventional trauma and life saving activities have the
highest priority. Treatment has to be individualized according to the nature and grade
of the combined injuries. Since a radiation injury is characterized by a latent period,
all important treatments of the non-radiation component of CRI should be carried out
during the first two or three weeks. Later efforts will be necessary for the treatment
of bone marrow and skin radiation injuries.

6. CONSULTING SYSTEM

In a particular radiation accident involving injuries to patients, an urgent need

may arise for expert medical consultation and help. For cases where this is not
available nationally, the World Health Organization (WHO) has designated a number
of collaborating centres around the world from which help can be obtained. These are
listed below. General advice and assistance can also be obtained from the IAEA and
WHO headquarters.

WHO Headquarters

WHO,
CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 791 0746
Tel: +41 22 791 3763

28
WHO Collaborating Centres and Liaison Institutions

Argentina Department of Health Physics,

P.O. Box 3268, Buenos Aires
Fax: +541 382 5680 or +541 381 0971
Tel: +541 382 5680

Armenia Research Centre of Radiation Medicine and Burns,

375078 Davidasben, Yerevan
Fax: +3742 340 800
Tel: +3742 341 144

Australia Radiation Protection and Radiation Emergency,

Yallambia, Victoria 3093
Fax: +613 9432 1835
Tel: +613 9433 2211

Brazil Radiation Protection and Medical Preparedness

for Radiological Accidents,
Avenida Salvador Allende (vio9), Jocorepogu,
CP 37750, CEP 22780, Rio de Janeiro
Fax: +5521 442 2539 or +5521 442 1950
Tel: +5521 442 1927 or +5521 442 9614

China Institute of Radiation Medicine,

27, Tai Ping Road, 100850 Beijing
Fax: +8610 821 4653
Tel: +8610 821 3044 or +8610 821 4653

France Centre international de radiopathologie,

B.P. 34, Bâtiment 01,
F-92269 Fontenay-aux-Roses
Fax: +331 4638 2445
Tel: +331 4554 7266

Germany Institute for Occupational Health,

University of Ulm,
Pf. 2060, D-8900 Ulm
Fax: +49 731 502 3415
Tel: +49 731 502 3400

29
India Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
400085 Mumbai
Fax: +9122 556 0750
Tel: +9122 551 1677

Japan Radiation Effects Research Foundation,

5-2 Hijiyama Park, Minami-ku,
J-732, Hiroshima
Fax: +11 8182 263 7279
Tel: +11 8182 261 3131

Russian Federation State Research Centre – Institute of Biophysics,

46, Zhivopisnaya, 123182 Moscow
Fax: +7095 190 3590
Tel: +7095 190 5156

Central Research Institute of Roentgenology

and Radiology,
Pesochnij 2, 189646 St. Petersburg
Fax: +7812 437 8787
Tel: +7812 437 8781

All-Russian Centre on Ecological Medicine,

17, Botkinskaya, 194175 St. Petersburg
Fax: +7812 541 8805
Tel: +7812 248 3419

Medical Radiological Research Centre,

4, Koroliev, 249020 Obninsk
Fax: +7095 956 1440
Tel: +7095 956 1439

Urals Research Centre for Radiation Medicine,

Medgorodok, F1B, 454076 Chelyabinsk
Fax: +73512 344 321

United Kingdom National Radiological Protection Board,

Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RQ
Fax: +441235 822 630
Tel: +441235 822 612

30
United States of America Radiation Emergency Assistance, REAC/TS,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117
Fax: +1 615 576 9522
Tel: +1 615 576 3450

IAEA Headquarters

IAEA,
Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Fax: +431 20607
+431 2060 29309 (for emergency service during office hours)
+431 239270 (for 24 h emergency service)
Tel: +431 2060

7. RECORD KEEPING

Detailed record keeping is essential, not only for patient care and subsequent
dosimetric and medical follow-up, but also for medical and legal considerations.
Record keeping is the responsibility of the respective employer or governmental
authority.
The assistance of the radiation protection officer of the facility where an acci-
dent has occurred is essential for the collection of data and for consultations with the
physicians and governmental authorities involved. The officer will be in a position to
provide information on the type of accident, sources and kinds of radioactivity, and
dosimetry of the affected subjects and the environment. The following approaches
might be suggested:

(a) Use of a still camera (preferably colour) as serial, frequent and dated photos are
of great value;
(b) Use of a video camera and tape recorder for the preservation of patient inter-
views and narrative, and for a reconstruction of events;
(c) Computerization of all data.

Annex I provides examples of record forms for the collection of data. Careful
use of these forms, together with the use of the technical devices listed above, will be
of great value in the often lengthy clinical treatment of the injured.

31
 REFERENCES

[1] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS,

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
ORGANISATION, OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, PAN AMERICAN
HEALTH ORGANIZATION, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, International
Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of
Radiation Sources, Safety Series No. 115, IAEA, Vienna (1996) 295.
[2] IL’IN, L.A., Chernobyl — Myth and Reality, Megapolis, Moscow (1995).
[3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Accident in
Goiânia, IAEA, Vienna (1988).
[4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Accident in
San Salvador, IAEA, Vienna (1990).
[5] INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY ADVISORY GROUP, Summary Report on
the Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident, Safety Series
No. 75-INSAG-1, IAEA, Vienna (1986).
[6] INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY ADVISORY GROUP, The Chernobyl
Accident: Updating of INSAG-1 — A Report by the International Nuclear Safety
Advisory Group, Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-7, IAEA, Vienna (1992).
[7] CROSBIE, W.A., GITTUS, J.H. (Eds), Medical Response to Effects of Ionising
Radiation, Elsevier, London and New York (1989).
[8] FLIEDNER, T.M., The need for an expanded protocol for the medical examination of
radiation-exposed persons, Stem Cells 13 Suppl. 1 (1995) 1–6.
[9] HÜBNER, K.F., FRY, S.A. (Eds), The Medical Basis for Radiation Accident
Preparedness, Elsevier, London and New York (1980).
[10] BARABANOVA, A., OSANOV, D.P., The dependence of skin lesions on the depth–dose
distribution from β-irradiation of people in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident,
Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 57 (1990).
[11] ALEKHIN, I.A., et al., Experience from application of radioluminescence and electron
paramagnetic resonance to dosimetry of accidental irradiation, At. Ehnerg. 53 (1982)
91–95 (in Russian).
[12] MIOT, E., et al., Quantitative magnetic resonance and isotopic imaging: Early evalua-
tion of radiation injury to the brain, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 32 (1995) 121–128.
[13] JAMMET, H., et al. (Eds), Radiation damage to skin: Fundamental and practical aspects,
Br. J. Radiol., Suppl. 11 (1986) 158.
[14] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Biological Dosimetry:
Chromosomal Aberration Analysis for Dose Assessment, Technical Reports Series
No. 260, IAEA, Vienna (1986).
[15] KÖTELES, G.J., BENKÖ, I., Thermography in radiation injuries, Thermolog. Österr.
4 (1994) 55–65.
[16] NENOT, J.C., Medical and surgical management for localized radiation injuries, Int. J.
Radiat. Biol. 57 (1990) 783–795.

32
[17] HAMILTON, C., POTTEN, C., “Hair cortical cell counts as an indicator of radiation dose
and sensitivity in humans”, Proc. Int. Congr. on Radiation Research, Würzburg, 1995
(abstract).
[18] OLIVEIRA, A.R., “Clinical features of internal radiation exposure and main principles
of medical handling”, paper presented at Interregional Training Course on Management
of Radiological Accidents, Rio de Janeiro, 1995.
[19] ISHIHARA, T., SASAKI, M.S., Radiation Induced Chromosome Damage in Man,
Alan R. Liss, New York (1983).
[20] LLOYD, D.C., EDWARDS, A.A., MOQUET, J.E., FINNON, P., Doses in radiation
accidents investigated by chromosome aberration analysis. XX. Review of cases
investigated 1991–1993, Rep. NRPB-R-268, National Radiation Protection Board,
Didcot, UK (1994).
[21] NATARAJAN, A.T., et al., Goiânia radiation accident: Results of initial dose estimation
and follow-up studies, Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. 372 (1994) 145–154.
[22] BENDER, M.A., Cytogenetics research in radiation biology, Stem Cells 13 Suppl. 1
(1995) 172–181.
[23] RAMALHO, A., CURADO, M.P., NATARAJAN, A.T., Lifespan of human
lymphocytes estimated during a six year cytogenetic follow-up of individuals
accidentally exposed in the 1987 radiological accident in Brazil, Mutat. Res. 331
(1995) 47–54.
[24] DARROUDI, F., NATARAJAN, A.T., “Premature chromosome condensation: A novel
method for biological dosimetry”, High Levels of Natural Radiation (Proc. Int. Conf.
Ramsar, 1990) (SOHRABI, M., AHMED, J.U., DURRANI, S.A., Eds), IAEA, Vienna
(1993) 479–485.
[25] WELLS, J., SIEBER, V.K., HOPEWELL, J.W., HALL, S.C., Biological dosimetry of
non-uniform radiation exposure, CEGB Res. (1989) 17–22.
[26] FONG, I., et al., Chromosome aberrations induced in human lymphocytes after partial
body irradiation, Radiat. Res. 144 (1995) 97–101.
[27] LIVINGSTONE, G.K., FOSTER, A.E., ELSON, H.R., Effect of in vivo exposure to
iodine-131 on the frequency and persistence of micronuclei in human lymphocytes, J.
Toxicol. Environ. Health 40 (1993) 367–376.
[28] FENECH, M., The cytokinesis-block micronucleus technique: A detailed description of
the method and its application to genotoxicity studies in human populations, Mutat. Res.
285 (1993) 35–44.
[29] KÖTELES, G.J., BOJTOR, I., Radiation induced micronucleus frequency alterations in
lymphocytes from individuals of an urban population, Centr. Eur. J. Occup. Environ.
Med. 1 (1995) 187–198.
[30] SZIRMAI, S., BÉRCES, J., KÖTELES, G.J., Computerized image analysis for deter-
mination of micronucleus frequency, Environ. Health Perspect. 101 (1992) 57–60.
[31] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Medical Handling of Accidentally
Exposed Individuals, Safety Series No. 88, IAEA, Vienna (1988).
[32] GUSKOVA, A.K., BARABANOVA, A.V., DRUTMAN, R.D., MOISEEV, A.A., The
Manual of Medical Handling of Radiation Accidents, Energoatomizdat, Moscow (1989).
[33] BROWNE, D., WEISS, J.F., MACVITTIE, T.J., PILLAI, M.V. (Eds), Treatment of
Radiation Injuries, Plenum Press, New York (1990).

33
[34] RICKS, R.C., FRY, S.A. (Eds), The Medical Basis for Radiation Accident Preparedness.
II. Clinical Experience and Follow-up since 1979, Elsevier, London and New York
(1990).
[35] NENOT, J.C., THIERRY, D., “Clinical approaches to treatment of radiation-induced
haematopoietic injury”, Radiation Toxicology — Bone Marrow and Leukaemia
(HENDRY, J.H., LORD, B.J., Eds), Taylor and Francis, London (1995) 195–243.
[36] METTLER, F.A., Jr., KELSEY, C.A., RICKS, R.C., Medical Management of Radiation
Accidents, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1990).
[37] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Accident in
Soreq, IAEA, Vienna (1993).
[38] GROOPMAR, J.E., Colony-stimulating factors: Present status and future applications,
Hematology 26 Suppl. 30 (1988).
[39] TESTA, N.G., GALE, R.P. (Eds), Hematopoiesis: Long Term Effects of Chemotherapy
and Radiation, Marcel Dekker, New York (1988).
[40] APPLEBAUM, F.R., Clinical use of hematopoietic growth factors, Semin. Hematol. 26
Suppl. 7 (1989).
[41] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Accident at the
Irradiation Facility in Nesvizh, IAEA, Vienna (1996).
[42] LIESCHKE, G.J., BURGESS, A.W., Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granu-
locyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (Parts I and II), N. Engl. J. Med. 327
(1992) 28–35, 99–106.
[43] BARANOV, A., “Bone marrow transplantation in patients exposed to the Chernobyl
accident”, Medical Aspects of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant
(ROMANENKO, A.E., Ed.), Zdorovya, Kiev (1988) 155–161.
[44] IL’IN, L.A. (Ed.), Radioiodine as a Radiation Safety Problem, Atomizdat, Moscow
(1972).
[45] TURAI, I., TOIVONEN, M., Radiohygiene of Fission Isotopes of Iodine, Rep.
STL-A42, Institute of Radiation Protection, Helsinki (1983).
[46] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, Guidelines for Iodine Prophylaxis Following
Nuclear Accidents, WHO Regional Office, Copenhagen (1989).
[47] WALT, H., LAUSMANN, D., CONRADY, J., SEHER, C., Schutz der Schilddrüse vor
radioaktivem Jod, Kaliumjodid-Prophylaxe bei nuklearem Unfall, Rep. 386, Staatliches
Amt für Atomsicherheit und Strahlenschutz, Berlin (1990).
[48] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Assessment and Treatment of
External and Internal Radionuclide Contamination, IAEA-TECDOC-869, Vienna
(1996).

34
 Annex I

ACCIDENTAL EXPOSURE FORM SAMPLES

Sample Accident Information Form

(To be filled in by physician)

1. Identification of informant

2. Number and condition of uncontaminated patients

3. Number and condition of contaminated patients

4. Description and extent of accident

(a) Irradiation condition
Source
Distance
Time
Estimated dose
(b) Contamination (external)
Radionuclides involved
Activity level
Body area involved
(c) Contamination (internal)
Ingestion
Inhalation
(d) Contaminated wound
(e) Whether initial decontamination done

5. Expected time of arrival of patients at the place

of special medical care

Date Signature

35
Sample Identity Tag for Accidental Exposure (front and rear view)

IDENTITY TAG
IDENTITY TAG
(FIRST AID POST)
Name (FIRST AID POST)
Dept-
Name
Dept. Contamination Y/N
Site of contamination
Contamination Y/N
Site ofInjury
contamination Y/N
InjurySite of injury Y/N
Site of injury
Overexposure Y/N
Overexposure Y/N
Preliminary actions taken
Preliminary actions taken
Treatment
First aid
Treatment
Decontamination
First aid

To: PERSONNEL DECONTAMINATION

Decontamination
CENTRE/SITE HOSPITAL
POSTERIOR ANTERIOR
To: PERSONNEL DECONTAMINATION
Mark the locations of the
contamination and injury CENTRE/SITE HOSPITAL

Note: The contamination level should be expressed in disintegrations per minute/100 cm2 or
over the affected area if less than 100 cm2. Both α and β contamination levels should be indi-
cated. If β–γ contamination levels are high, they may be given in mGy/h measured with a
Geiger–Müller probe with an open window. An estimate of the total contamination should be
given wherever possible. Both the initial level of contamination and the level of contamination
at the time the patient is referred to the personnel decontamination centre/site hospital should
be provided.

36
Sample Medical Information Form

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PATIENT

Full name
(BLOCK LETTERS)

Age Sex

2. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLETING THE FORM

Full name
(BLOCK LETTERS)

Designation

Affiliation

Date and time of completing the form

Date Time

3. DATE AND TIME OF ACCIDENT

Date of exposure Presumed time

4. EXPOSURE CONDITIONS

If known, time of beginning of exposure

end of exposure

Duration

Position of the patient

Nature of patient’s work

37
 4.1. DOSIMETRY INFORMATION

The patient had a dosimeter Yes No

If yes: Dosimeter No.

Dosimeter recovered Yes No

4.2. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION Yes No

4.3. CONTAMINATION OF CLOTHES Yes No

(if checked)

5. FIRST SYMPTOMS

5.1. CLINICAL STATE OF THE PATIENT

(Indicate presence of symptoms or complications, time of appearance,
number or duration, as applicable)

Nausea time number/duration

Vomiting time number/duration

Wound

Trauma

Burn

5.2. MEDICAL FINDINGS (to be filled in by the physician)

Full name of physician

(BLOCK LETTERS)

Date of examination

Details of symptoms/signs observed

38
 Weakness Yes No

Headache Yes No

Nausea Yes No

Vomiting Yes No frequency

Diarrhoea Yes No frequency

Temperature

Pulse

Blood pressure

Consciousness normal abnormal agitation

delirium
sleepiness
coma

Equilibrium disturbance Yes No

Co-ordination disturbance Yes No

Skin and mucosa

Oedema Yes No

Erythema Yes No

Other

6. TREATMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS

6.1. MEASURES TAKEN

Undressing Yes No

Decontamination Yes No

39
 DTPA administration Yes No

If yes, administration pathway aerosol

bathing
intravenous

Stable iodine administration Yes No

(in thyroid blocking dose)

6.2. LABORATORY TESTS

Blood samples

First sample (if possible, before the third hour)

Date Time

Blood cell count

Cytogenetic sample (10 mL) taken Yes No

Sample for radioactivity measurement Yes No

Second sample (if possible, 2 hours after the first one)

Date Time

Blood cell count

HLA typing Yes No

Urine samples
(If applicable, for radioactivity measurement) Yes No

Is it the first urination after the accident? Yes No

7. REFERRAL OF THE PATIENT (IF SENT FOR FURTHER

TREATMENT)

8. PHYSICIAN’S CONCLUSIONS

Date Signature

40
 Annex II

DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO

CAESIUM-137: THE GOIÂNIA EXPERIENCE*

As a consequence of the Goiânia accident, 249 individuals were directly

affected by radiation, receiving slight to severe external whole body or partial body
irradiation, in addition to significant internal and external contamination. Of this total,
14 patients exhibited some degree of bone marrow suppression, eight clearly mani-
fested the clinical symptoms of the haematological form of acute radiation syndrome,
and four eventually died of infectious and haemorrhagic complications. Twenty-eight
people suffered acute, localized radiation induced injuries ranging from first to third
degree, which required conservative and surgical treatment. Internal contamination
due to ingestion and/or absorption of 137Cs was removed efficiently by means of
Prussian blue.

II–1. THE ACCIDENT

The Goiânia radiological accident was caused by the removal of a 137Cs source,
formerly used in a radiotherapy unit, from an abandoned clinic in Goiânia, Brazil.
The caesium source, with an activity of 50.9 TBq (1375 Ci), was in the form of
powder, compacted into a steel capsule within the shielding container of the unit.
Persons who handled the capsule were exposed to γ radiation attenuated by the steel.
Those who handled the caesium powder directly were contaminated internally and
externally, and exposed to a mixed β and γ radiation field.
The exact duration of each exposure could not be established as the patients
were exposed to the source several times each day in different ways. The source–
subject geometry was extremely variable and for many patients there was external
contamination due to direct contact with the body surface. Part of the caesium
powder was removed and rubbed on patients’ bodies. The body irradiation was of a
heterogeneous character and the corporal distribution of localized radiation induced
lesions concentrated mainly on the extremities, especially the palms of hands and
the fingers.

* Annex II is based upon information supplied by A.R. Oliveira.

41
II–2. EARLY MEDICAL RESPONSE

II–2.1. Medical response at the accident site

A specialized medical team from Rio de Janeiro arrived in Goiânia ten hours
after the severity of the accident was established and began preliminary examinations
and treatment at the Olympic Stadium. Clinical and laboratory evaluations (blood
counts) were performed, as well as external decontamination, when necessary, with
warm water and neutral soap. The medical team promptly adapted a ward in the
Goiânia General Hospital to receive the patients and set up a control point to avoid
spreading the contamination. The ward was divided into controlled, supervised and
clean areas. To assess the severity of each patient’s condition the procedures adopted
included collection of clinical and accident histories and of haematological data, as
well as monitoring body surfaces to determine the presence of external and/or
internal contamination.
It was apparent that the accidental exposure of the majority of the victims had
a heterogeneous and protracted character. The patients had received significant whole
body and localized irradiation and suffered internal and external contamination. It
was clear from the outset that precise dose estimation, a very important parameter for
treatment and prognosis, would be a major problem.

II–2.2. Triage of victims

The triage of injured persons was based on the following criteria:

(a) Severity of the haematopoietic syndrome, based on peripheral lymphocyte and

neutrophil counts;
(b) Severity of local radiation injuries: intensity and precocity of cutaneous
reactions, i.e. erythema, blisters and bulla formation;
(c) Intensity of internal and external contamination, based on accident history,
surface radiation monitoring and, subsequently, in vitro bioassays.

The main purpose of triage was the identification and referral of the most seri-
ously injured individuals to the appropriate medical unit in Rio de Janeiro.
Additionally, it was helpful in identifying those victims who should be
hospitalized immediately in the Goiânia General Hospital.

42
II–3. CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS

II–3.1. Acute radiation syndrome

At least 14 of the 20 hospitalized patients showed varying degrees of bone

marrow suppression. The patients most affected were in poor general health when
admitted to the hospital. Eight patients developed the classical manifestations of the
prodromal phase of ARS, i.e. anorexia, nausea, vomiting, fluid diarrhoea, headache
and fever, with the onset of the symptoms varying from two to four hours after expo-
sure. Local signs of radiation exposure, such as conjunctival hyperemia and transient
erythema, were also observed.
The critical phase was basically characterized by infectious and haemorrhagic
phenomena. Infection was documented in eight patients who developed bone marrow
suppression and was a principal factor in the four deaths. Opportunistic infections,
caused by fungal specimens, developed in six patients, affecting oral, oesophageal,
vaginal and perineal mucosae. Neither herpesvirus nor cytomegalovirus infections
were documented, although a preventive antiviral therapy had been instituted.
Haemorrhagic phenomena were recognized in four out of the eight most seri-
ously ill patients and were an associated cause of death in two cases. Haematemesis,
melaena and epistaxis were the major bleeding manifestations. The autopsies showed
multiple haemorrhagic areas throughout the entire skeletal musculature and within
various organs.
In the fourth and fifth weeks following initial exposure, four patients died from
ARS complications. The other patients attained almost full recovery from
haematopoietic syndrome.

II–3.2. Local radiation induced injuries

Local symptoms appeared a few hours after contact between the source and the
skin surface. Pain, sensation of local heat, burning and itching, as well as changes in
sensitivity, were the most frequent complaints. Some patients reported the simulta-
neous appearance of transient erythema in the affected regions.
After a period of latency, ranging from a few days to two weeks, a second wave
of localized disturbances erupted, characterizing the ‘critical phase’, which was
represented by stronger pain and oedema, always preceded by secondary
erythema, resembling a classical thermal burn. Soon thereafter, blisters or bullae
developed, coinciding in general with the swollen region. This phase of bullous
epithelitis lasted approximately two weeks. In some cases the bullae were so tense
and painful that drainage was required to relieve the symptomatology and allow
movement of the extremity.

43
 The resection of dead tissues disclosed a raw and extremely painful dermis,
with a swollen aspect and sparse evidence of epithelialization. This phase was fol-
lowed by a fairly slow regeneration process, characterized by tissue granulation
beginning at the outer edges of the injury and progressing towards the middle, a
process requiring months to complete. Generally, the scar tissue was thin, translucent
and very sensitive to touch.
The final aspect of the injury was generally poor, owing mainly to its retractile
appearance. Some patients received such intense local irradiation that recovery was
never achieved. In such cases, the dermis was covered with a relatively thin layer of
fibrin, lightly fixed to the underlying dermis. The necrotic aspect of the injury was
observed in at least four patients. Seven patients developed more severe local radia-
tion induced injuries, resulting in areas of superficial necrosis caused by attenuated
(shielded) γ rays plus β emissions of caesium and in deeper necrotic injuries of a dark-
er tone, both requiring surgery. In these cases, a clear reduction in the evolutionary
phase was noticed.

II–4. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF RADIATION INJURIES IN GOIÂNIA

II–4.1. Acute radiation syndrome

All 20 patients hospitalized were subjected to a daily clinical evaluation com-

plemented by serial assessment of blood counts. Serum chemical profiles and hepat-
ic and renal functions were evaluated twice a week or every other day, when indicat-
ed. Chest X rays, electrocardiograms and stool examinations were performed on a
routine basis, or when indicated by clinical findings. Ophthalmological examinations
(fluorosceinographic studies) evidenced changes in the retinal veins in the most
affected patients. In one 56 year old patient, who received an estimated dose of
5.0 Gy, signs of lenticular opacity were observed a year after the accident. In those
patients who agreed to undergo gonadal function tests (sperm counts), a severe
reduction, if not a total disappearance, of seminal cells was observed.
Medical care was provided round the clock. All patients were kept in individ-
ual or two-bed rooms with reverse isolation. Trimethoprin and sulphamethoxazole,
and subsequently norfloxacin, were used for gut decontamination. Ketoconazole was
administered to treat fungal infections and acyclovir to prevent herpesvirus activation.
Patients with granulocytopenia and fever were given comprehensive treatment with
antibiotics. Initially, two or three antibiotics were administered and, in accordance
with clinical and bacteriological data, antibiotics were shifted. Oral moniliasis was
prevented by use of nistatin, and for cases unresponsive to this drug, amphotericin B
was given. Two patients received parenteral nutrition through a central access line. All
food was cooked and raw vegetables were avoided.

44
 Patients were given total blood transfusions or red packed cells in order to
maintain the level of haemoglobin within safe limits. Platelet transfusions were per-
formed to keep these elements at a level above 20 G/L or whenever bleeding occurred
in patients with a platelet count of less than 60 G/L.
GM-CSF was used for treating eight individuals with bone marrow suppres-
sion. After administration of GM-CSF (doses of 500 µg/m2 of body surface per day),
four patients responded well to the therapy with a clear myeloproliferative recovery,
reflected in the peripheral blood by a rapid and acute rise in the number of neu-
trophils. One patient died of infectious complications, although showing overt signs
of bone marrow recovery. The other patients who died, two females and one young
male, showed marked bone marrow involvement and multiple organ failure. No rela-
tion was established between GM-CSF administration and the behaviour of platelets
and haemoglobin.

II–4.2. Local radiation injuries

Patients with significant local radiation injuries underwent specialized proce-

dures to determine the extent of their lesions and to orient medical management. In
one particular case, 99Tcm red blood pool imaging studies showed no vascularization
in the affected area of a severe radionecrosis located in the right forearm. An ampu-
tation was performed to minimize the consequences of this injury to the blood econ-
omy. In another patient, this same procedure indicated areas of increasing blood sup-
ply during the critical period, thus characterizing an inflammatory reaction. A com-
puterized tomographic scan of an injury located at the lateral aspect of a patient’s
thigh demonstrated an oedema and swelling in the muscle and adjacent structures of
the affected limb. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of this injury showed
compromise of the deep muscular tissue and marked perivascular oedema involving
the femoral artery. The segment of bone marrow directly affected by radiation was
also compromised, showing a modified density in relation to the unaffected tissues.
Only images compatible with an infiltration process and oedema of the subcutaneous
tissue were assessed.
Baseline X rays of extremities performed on patients with severe local radiation
induced injuries showed a pattern compatible with osteoporosis. In one patient, a late
radioinduced and pathological fracture in a segment of the distal falange was identi-
fied and the fragment later removed surgically. Pain relief required much patience and
dedication from the medical team. Along with local analgesics, central action anal-
gesics were employed, either per os or parenterally. Meperidine, chlorpromazine and
promethazine were also administered in cases of intense and unbearable pain.
Continuous peridural anaesthesia was used for one patient who complained of
excruciating and sharp pain and who manifested suicidal intentions.

45
 To reduce skin dryness, hands and fingers were immersed in boric acid solu-
tion. With some patients, in order to avoid excessive administration of narcotics, iced
water was sprinkled on the areas surrounding the lesion, which provided pain relief.
Creams and ointments with healing and anti-inflammatory properties were applied
freely on the raw surfaces of the injuries. Attempts to increase blood flow to the bed
of the injury were made by using a peripheral vasodilator and a drug intended to
improve the flow properties of blood, by decreasing its viscosity, with action at
microcirculation level (Pentoxifylline). When blisters and bullae ruptured the exposed
surfaces were protected with non-adherent dressings coated with neomycin. Although
the majority of lesions presented bacterial colonization, in only a few instances
did infection develop during hospitalization.
All patients with deep ulceration or necrosis on hands, feet and thighs under-
went repair surgery. The success of the surgery depended essentially on the location
and depth of the lesion, as well as the viability and integrity of the tissue over which
the grafted tissue was applied.
Extensive lesions involving thick, fatty or muscular regions required removal of
all necrotic and infected tissues until reaching an area of good blood supply. Only
then could the bed of the wound be covered with a good quality split skin graft. In
two cases, lesions on the palms of the hand required ample debridement, practically
to the level of the flexor muscles and tendons, followed by coverage of the ulcer bed
with an abdominal flap. Surgical treatment of finger lesions consisted of resection of
the damage followed by coverage with a skin graft. In one case it was necessary to
perform microsurgery, transferring a segment of tissue with the intact vascular pedi-
cle to be anastomosed to the finger vessels. In two patients, the development of necro-
sis and mummification of fingers necessitated amputation as soon as the irreversibil-
ity of the damage was confirmed on clinical and laboratory grounds. Finally, in a
patient with a severe injury of the lateral aspect of the right thigh, excision was per-
formed followed by coverage of the wound bed with a skin graft of the contralateral
limb one year after exposure. An attempt to use a dermoexpansor to increase the skin
surface, which would assist closure of the wound, failed. Unfortunately, dehiscence
and infection occurred during expansion, demanding interruption of the procedure.

II–4.3. Caesium-137 decorporation

A total of 46 individuals were treated with Prussian blue in doses varying from
1 to 10 g. The drug was given orally two, three, six or ten times a day, depending on
the total dose, with a minimum of 2 h between doses. With the administration of
Prussian blue, the expected pattern of caesium elimination changed and removal via
the faeces became predominant, owing to the efficiency of Prussian blue in binding
caesium ions in the lumen of the gut, thereby interrupting its enteric cycle and pre-
venting subsequent reabsorption. With the use of the drug, caesium half-lives in

46
adults were reduced to one third of the normal value, which is consistent with the
reduction of half-lives obtained in previous studies.

II–4.4. Body surface decontamination

Conventional decontamination techniques were employed during the first two

days of the patients’ hospitalization to avoid further incorporation of 137Cs, to reduce
the equivalent dose received by the patients, and to reduce contamination of the ward.
Any contamination was easily confirmed by measuring hot spots caused by β and
γ radiation on the skin surface. Such measurements were complicated by the high
γ dose rate generated from internal contamination. The following techniques were
utilized to decontaminate the patients:

(a) Repeated baths in warm water with neutral soap, which reduced the contami-
nation levels substantially.
(b) Use of acetic acid for increasing the solubility of caesium and thus facilitating
its removal.
(c) Applications of titanium dioxide associated with hydrated lanolin, in cases
where a great amount of radioactive material was present on palms and soles.
Owing to its mildly abrasive action, titanium dioxide, after repeated applications,
was able to remove considerable quantities of caesium from non-superficial
skin layers.
(d) Additional mechanical methods for decontamination, such as callus abraders,
rigid bristle nylon brushes and pumice stone, were used for patients with severe
sole contamination.
(e) Later, after all the above described means were exhausted, use was made of an
ion exchange resin, substituting caesium for potassium. The resin was placed
inside gloves and plastic overshoes, where hands or feet would remain in
contact with it for at least 20 min. As a consequence, a 50% removal of
residual caesium was achieved.

II–5. FINAL REMARKS

The Goiânia accident is considered to be the worst radiological accident to have

occurred and is of interest from various standpoints. The difficulties confronted by the
emergency teams stemmed mainly from the delay in recognizing and identifying the
nature and severity of the accident. The fact that fragments of the caesium source were
dispersed among many persons and over many places made a proper reconstruction of
the events following the removal of the capsule containing 137Cs impossible.
As for the acute radiation syndrome, the therapeutic strategy adopted was to
treat the patients conservatively. Use of GM-CSF was based on the assumption that

47
residual stem cells existed and that a factor able to stimulate their proliferation and
differentiation might play an important role in recomposing the natural defence
mechanisms of the irradiated patients.
Regarding local radiation injuries, it became evident that conventional treat-
ment did not greatly modify the clinical evolution of severe radiation injuries.
Unfortunately, the detailed extent of radiation damage can be accurately established
only a few months after exposure, when it is possible to choose a more definitive ther-
apy. The two problems challenging physicians are determining the extent of the dam-
age and deciding which tissues will inevitably be destroyed, and choosing the most
suitable moment to perform surgery. Data provided by MRI, computerized tomogra-
phy, vascular scintigraphy, and histochemical and immunocytochemical studies of
biopsy material, as well as topographic dosimetry, including in-depth distribution of
the doses, and clinical evolution should all be taken into consideration.
Prussian blue proved to be an excellent antidote in cases of caesium contami-
nation, even when administered several days after contamination. The optimum dose
suggested is 3 g/d, administered at regular intervals, i.e. in doses of 1 g (two capsules)
every 8 h, in order to maintain its gastrointestinal availability throughout the day. The
drug can be used over long periods of time, for months if necessary. Definitive
suspension of the drug is indicated when no more caesium is detected in the excreta.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Accident in Goiânia,

IAEA, Vienna (1988).

— Medical Handling of Accidentally Exposed Individuals, Safety Series No. 88, IAEA, Vienna
(1988).

—Assessment and Treatment of External and Internal Radionuclide Contamination,

IAEA-TECDOC-869, Vienna (1996).

OLIVEIRA, A.R., “Treatment of infectious complications of the haematopoietic syndrome”,

Treatment of Radiation Injuries (BROWNE, D., WEIS, J.F., MACVITTIE, T.J., PILLAI, M.V.,
Eds), Plenum Press, New York (1990) 95–100.

OLIVEIRA, A.R., HUNT, J.G., VALVERDE, N.J.L., BRANDÃO-MELLO, C.E.,

FARINA, R., Medical and related aspects of the Goiânia accident: An overview, Health Phys.
60 (1991) 17–24.

VALVERDE, N.J.L., CORDEIRO, J.M., OLIVEIRA, A.R., BRANDÃO-MELLO, C.E., “The

acute radiation syndrome in the 137Cs Brazilian accident, 1987”, The Medical Basis for
Radiation Accident Preparedness. II. Clinical Experience and Follow-up since 1979 (RICKS,
R.C., FRY, S.A., Eds), Elsevier, London and New York (1990) 89–107.

48
 CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW

Barabanova, A. Institute of Biophysics, Russian Federation

De-Chang, W. Institute of Radiation Medicine, China

de Luca, G. Radiological and Health Protection Division, Italy

Desai, U. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, India

Iyer, G.K. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, India

Komar, V.E. Central Research Institute of Roentgenology and Radiology,

Russian Federation

Komarov, E.I. Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Russian Federation

Köteles, G.J. Frédéric Joliot-Curie National Research Institute of

Radiobiology and Radiohygiene, Hungary

Naude, J. Radiologische Klinik der Universität Wien, Austria

Nenot, J.C. Commissariat à l’énergie atomique, France

Oliveira, A.R. Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S.A., Brazil

Petrossian, L.M. Institute of Biophysics, Russian Federation

Saenger, I.E. Cincinnati Hospital, United States of America

Souchkevitch, G. World Health Organization

Szepesi, T. Radiologische Klinik der Universität Wien, Austria

Turai, I. International Atomic Energy Agency

Webb, G.A.M. International Atomic Energy Agency

Advisory Group Meeting

Vienna, Austria: 24–28 April 1993

Consultants Meetings
Vienna, Austria: 23–27 May 1993, 1–4 April 1996

49