Doses of Emergency Exposure to the USSR Navy Personnel
Yuriy Skaletskiy
Head of Radiation Safety Section of the Institute of National Security Problems of Ukraine
Kyiv, Ukraine

Introduction
The operation of nuclear propulsion plants on the USSR Navy submarines led to a number ofincidents and accidents accompanied by overexposure of personnel including cases of lethal doses. The
curtain of secrecy around Navy radiation accidents started lifting with 1990’s publications in “Morskoy
Sbornik” (the official journal of the Russian Navy), newspaper “Pravda” and other periodical editions.
There were also books published based on recollections of the parties involved in these tragic events. Oneof the most comprehensive publications on radiological and radioecological consequences of Navy
accidents appeared in 1999 [1].
During more than 30 years of use of nuclear reactors on the USSR Navy submarines hundreds ofbreakdowns and accidents of radiological significance took place. The main reasons for these situations
were technical imperfections of the nuclear propulsion plants’ equipment and also errors of the personnel.
Not every case of deterioration of radiation conditions on nuclear-powered submarines was accompaniedby personnel overexposure. In most of cases, the timely taken measures to normalize the radiation
situation and radiological protection measures allowed prevention of the crew overexposure. For example,
seal failures of the primary coolant circuit happened on dozens of submarines in different periods, but only
one case in 1979 due to a variety of causes resulted in radiation injuries to personnel.
The structure of Navy radiation accidents accompanied by personnel overexposure is shown in
Table 1. By 1991, there happened seven major accidents at submarine nuclear propulsion plants: five atsea (1960, 1961, 1968, 1979, and 1989), and two at ship repair yards during reactor refueling (1965 and1985). Besides, there were six radiation accidents registered in the Navy related to the handling of spent
nuclear fuel and of other sources of ionizing radiation.
The most severe radiation accidents took place on first-generation nuclear submarines in 1961 and1968. According to the actual classification, six accidents by their character and scale belong to site
incidents, i.e. those having only on-site (or within the vessel or shipyard) impact, and one to accidents
which have off-site (outside the vessel or shipyard) impact with the risk of population overexposure [1].
In 1985 there was a particularly significant release of radioactive material following a
spontaneous chain reaction and a thermal explosion of reactor on a Pacific Fleet submarine. It happened
during reactor refueling on a ship repair yard in Chazhma Bay. The emission amounted to (1.92.6)1017 Bq. The reactor explosion led to scattering of reactor and fuel composition fragments within aradius of several dozens of meters and to massive radioactive contamination of watercraft, moorings,
constructions, territory and water area in the accident zone. The radioactive plume spread downwind
30 km, and the radioactive trace area made up 45 sq. km. This accident resulted in overexposure and death1Table 1. Structure of Navy radiation accidents resulting in military personnel overexposure
Place of accident
Type of accident
Ship repair
without
Object of accident
Total
At seayards andsignificant offwith off-site riskother places
site risk
Submarine nuclear
7
5
2
6
1
propulsion plant
Spent nuclear fuel andother sources of ionizing
6
5
5
radiation
Total number
13
5
7
11
1
Table 2. Structure of radiologic effects of the Navy radiation accidents by 1991
Radiation injured, number ofDeaths caused by radiation
Overexposed
persons
accidents, number of persons, totalObject of accident
According to
number of
Otherthe exposure
Official
Overexposure
personscausesdoses
Submarine nuclear
>1000
193
85
12
10
propulsion plant
Spent nuclear fueland other sources of
>50
37
33
ionizing radiation
Total number
~1100
230
118
12
10
Chornobyl NPP
237 (initially)135
29
2of people. The Chazhma accident which happened 8 months before the Chornobyl catastrophe was its
sinister forerunner, analogue, though with significantly lower-scale consequences. Unfortunately, forreasons of secrecy the data on the character and the consequences of the Chazhma accident did not help tostart a campaign on fundamental improvement of situation in the field of nuclear power safety in the
USSR.
During the radiation accidents on nuclear-powered submarines at sea, the personnel were exposedto the combined effect of the next radiation factors:External uniform  and  radiation from the cloud of radioactive noble gases and radioactive
aerosols;

External non-uniform  and  radiation from contaminated surfaces and from conduits andreservoirs filled with highly radioactive liquids and gases;Inhalation of radioactive gases and aerosols, mainly radioactive isotopes of iodine;

Deposition of radioactive aerosols on skin, mucosa, and clothes.
The set of radiation factors and the character of personnel exposure in the accidents on submarines

staying at the ship repair yards were not different from those characteristic of the Chornobyl NPP accident
in 1986 [2, 3]. Several persons were affected by the external γ-n radiation with a minor neutroncomponent. The personnel overexposed as a result of safety violations in the work with spent nuclear fueland other sources of ionizing radiation were mainly affected by external γ radiation.
In the Navy accidents, more than 1000 persons were affected by overexposure (Table 2). 230 ofthem (according to the official medical documents) suffered acute radiation injuries of different severity
degrees. In 12 cases radiation injuries were fatal. Another 10 persons died in 1985 from blast injuries. The
2

doses of γ radiation the most of the deceased had received would have given hope for their recovery fromradiation injury.
The main cause of death of the submariners was not the external γ radiation but β radiation exposureof skin and upper respiratory tract, that is, a radiation factor the effect of which is rather easy to prevent.
Regretfully, the same reason caused death of 2/3 of the deceased Chornobyl catastrophe witnesses andemergency workers in 1986, that is, 25 years after one of the biggest radiation accidents occurred on the
nuclear-powered submarine K-19 [2, 3] in 1961. In the accident of 1961, the exposure doses to thyroid
gland which the K-19 personnel received due to intake of iodine radionuclides reached several dozens ofGrays [4]. In 1986 several persons from the Chornobyl NPP personnel and emergency workers received
the same doses to thyroid [2].
Thus, the prompt radiological effects of the Navy accidents are similar to the effects of the
Chornobyl NPP accident in 1986. Considering the wide range of doses to the exposed personnel and theterm of approximately 50 years after the exposure the results of clinical-epidemiological examination ofthis cohort along with other similar groups (Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors, population
affected by the nuclear test explosion on the Marshall Islands and others) are of particular scientificinterest. However, one of the issues of concern about the organization of such examination of theoverexposed Navy personnel is the uncertainty in their radiation exposure doses.
Radiation dose to Navy personnel
In the Navy accidents there were practically no cases of dose registration with individual dosimeters.
For this reason, the personnel exposure doses were assessed involving calculation, and exposure doses
which resulted in manifestation forms of radiation injuries were improved according to the clinicallaboratory indices.
Doses of internal exposure (in this case, doses to thyroid from iodine radioisotopes) were assessedon basis of the results of thyroid radiometry held in the first days after an accident. However, consideringthat the first Navy radiation accidents happened in the 1970s when methodological approaches to thereconstruction and the verification of exposure doses were imperfect, it is reasonable to apply modern
methods of retrospective radiation dose assessment in order to correct the doses of emergency
overexposure to the submarines personnel.
As far as we know, there were two attempts of trueness verification of the officially registered doses
to this cohort and also of the diagnosed severity degrees of radiation injuries. The first attempt was madein 1991 and later continued in 2001. In 1991 experts from the Central Medical Laboratory of the Navy
together with the Institute of Medical Radiology of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (nowadays
Medical Radiological Research Center of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, MRRC) recovered
the addresses of the majority of persons making up this cohort, recollected materials about the doses, thecharacter of exposure, clinical-laboratory indices in the acuity, and examined in the MRRC hospital 15
persons who had suffered from acute radiation syndrome of different degrees of severity [4]. In 2001, inthe 32nd Central Navy Clinical Hospital (CNCH, situated in the town of Kupavna, Moscow region,
Russian Federation) another 24 persons from the same cohort were examined with the participation of the3

personnel of the MRRC and the French Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety [5].
The second attempt was made in 1995 by the experts from the Ukrainian Military Medical
Academy who examined 12 crewmen, residents of Ukraine, from the submarines which had sufferedaccidents. The examination was held in the Principal Military Clinical Hospital (PMCH) of the Ministry of
Defence of Ukraine with the participation of its medical personnel [6-10]. In total, there are about 50
persons overexposed in the Navy accidents that now reside in Ukraine, so there is a possibility to increase
the number of the people being examined.

Fig. 1. Diagram of external exposure dose distribution (cGy) to the K-19 crewmen who were
overexposed in 1961 (n=119). The dotted line is the fitted probability density function for thenormal distribution.

Fig. 2. Diagram of internal exposure dose distribution (cGy to thyroid) of the K-19 crewmen who
were overexposed in 1961 (n=119). The dotted line is the fitted probability density function for thenormal distribution.
4

Crew members from the submarines which suffered accidents were examined at the MRRC (1991),
CNCH (2001), and PMCH (1995). The examination included, apart from the conventional methods, the socalled biological dosimetry: electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy of tooth enamel as well
as almost all existing cytogenetic methods. It was made by means of the routine method of analysis ofstable and unstable chromosome aberrations using a common light microscope, and also methods ofanalysis of stable chromosome breakages by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and by completekaryotyping of differentially G-stained chromosomes (G-banding).
Besides, the doses and the severity degrees of radiation injuries of the examined people wererevised retrospectively by comparing their neutrophil and platelet dynamics graphs in the acuity of theacute radiation syndrome (ARS) with the corresponding dose calibration curves of these blood parameters[11].
As we see on the diagrams, dose distribution of external (Fig.1) and internal (Fig.2) exposure of theK-19 crewmen (suffered accident in 1961) is near-normal, which can be indicative of their stochastic
nature and of the precision of doses reconstruction. In the Figures 1 and 2 we can also see the doses
distribution parameters for external and internal (to thyroid) exposure.
The dependence of the internal and the external doses of the K-19 personnel is shown on theFig. 3. From the figure we can see that the higher the external and the internal exposure doses are, thestronger is their correlation. Within the range of external exposure doses lower than 140 cGy and internal
exposure doses lower than 410 cGy there is a weak linear dependence of these values (average value ofcorrelation factor is 0.13). At the same time we can observe a strong correlation of internal exposure andFig. 3. Dependence between the internal and the external doses to the K-19 crewmen
overexposed in 1961 (n=119):  – actual personnel exposure doses; 1 – fitted curve; 2 – fit
confidence interval (confidence probability of 0.95); 3 – predicted distribution range of actual
points (confidence probability of 0.95)

5external exposure doses in the range higher than 140 cGy for the external exposure and higher than 410
cGy for the internal exposure. The plot points in this range of doses are closer to the fitted curve than in
the range of the lower doses. This can also evidence the trustiness of doses reconstruction for submarine
personnel, as the radiation conditions in the submarine compartments during the accident were determinedalso by the radioactive aerosols air concentration, and respiratory protective devices were not always usedeven while in the compartment of the damaged nuclear power plant. The individual cases of discrepancy
between the internal and the external doses could be a result of violations of radiation safety requirements
during food intake. Food contaminated with iodine radionuclides could have provided a substantial
supplement to the doses received through the inhalation pathway.
When analyzing exposure doses in this contingent we can see a certain discrepancy between the
exposure doses to the personnel and the extent of severity of the acute radiation syndrome (ARS). ARS
was diagnosed to all the 138 members of the K-19 submarine crew. It is known that ARS of 1st degree
develops in a person after receiving a dose of 0.75 Gy or more, thus even considering the effect of a
combined exposure the diagnosis of ARS can be made to only 32 members of the crew. It is consideredthat the diagnosis of radiation injury was made even to the persons who received low doses in order toprovide them a higher level of social protection. The same approach to the diagnosing of ARS to theoverexposed personnel was used in other cases of Navy accidents. It should be noted that the cases of
ARS diagnosis for social reasons also took place in 1986 among the overexposed Chornobyl NPP
personnel and clean-up workers [3].
In that way, social reasons in diagnosing radiation injury resulted in 4 times overstatement of thenumber of radiation illness cases for this crew, mainly on the account of the overdiagnosis of the 1st degreeof ARS. This brings up the question whether the severity degrees in more serious cases of ARS
correspond to the exposure doses.
Analysis of individual cases
Figure 4 represents the actual neutrophil dynamics in the acuity of ARS for three members from thesubmarine K-19 personnel who had the diagnosis of the 2nd degree of ARS, compared to calibration curvesof neutrophil dynamics for the doses of 1 and 2 Gy. It can be seen that the actual curves of neutrophil
dynamics in the first two cases (the examined persons-P. and -E.) are closer to the calibration curve for 1
Gy, and with certain conservatism it can be said that they lay between the two calibration curves and theactual received dose was close to 1.5 Gy which corresponds to the 1st degree of ARS.
According to the calculations (officially) the external doses to the examined persons were 0.36 and 0.8 Gy,
and internal doses (to thyroid) 5.6 and 36.0 Gy respectively. For person-C., the actual curve of neutrophils
dynamics has a good agreement with the calibration curve for 2 Gy. The actual dose to person-C. may also
be higher because the concomitant radiation skin injury which is present in this case can attenuate thedegree of neutropenia manifestation and the depth of the second depletion [11]. Thus in this case thediagnosis of ARS of 2nd degree is appropriate, though the officially registered external dose for person-C
is 0.65 Gy and the internal dose is 2.0 Gy – that is, the external dose in this case is understated.
During hospitalization of the overexposed submarine personnel which took place 30-35 years after6

(a) person-P(b) person-E(c) person-C

Fig. 4. Dynamics of neutrophil counts for the submarine personnel members -P (a), -E (b)and -C (c), diagnosed ARS of 2nd degree. Solid lines are the calibration curves of neutrophils
dynamics (figures near the curves are doses in Gy); dotted lines are actual dynamics ofneutrophil counts for the examined persons in the acuity of ARS.
The axis of ordinates shows the neutrophil counts ×109 l-1 on a logarithmic scale.
The axis of abscissas shows the number of days after the overexposure.
the accident, their complaints and levels of hematological, biochemical, and immunologic indicescorresponded to the diseases diagnosed during the examination and had a bad correlation with theestimated exposure doses [6-9].
We would like to mention a high social adaptation of the great majority of military personnel
affected by the nuclear submarine accidents. The majority of them have lived a productive life succeedingin professional activity and making a good career without having particular social benefits and privileges.
General frequency of chromosome aberrations in routine stained preparations in a long term after
the overexposure (30-35 years) made up in the examined persons 5.10±0.46 per 100 metaphases andsignificantly exceeded the background level, but had no correlation with the dose [8, 10].
The differentially G-stained metaphase chromosomes analysis [10] showed the level ofchromosome aberrations per 100 metaphases of 26.28±1.93, which statistically exceeds the indices of7

respective control and 5 times exceeds the results of routine examination. Chromosome-type aberrations
were the prevailing type of chromosome damage with the frequency of 25.68±1.91%. Stable markers ofradiation action were represented by translocations, inversions, and insertions registered with an averagefrequency of 10.07±1.32%, being their relation to the frequency of unstable markers of radiation action as
34 to 1. This may give a possibility of use of chromosome damage analysis in differentially stained
preparations for retrospective exposure doses assessment but presently strong relationship between theseeffects and exposure doses is unknown. In the above mentioned work [5], method of fluorescence in situ
hybridization (FISH method) was used to detect stable chromosome breakages. The results also confirmed
to some extent the trueness of officially registered exposure doses to the submarines personnel who
suffered accidents.
Dose assessment using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy of tooth enamel,
though having its disadvantages, is considered to be a better method for retrospective evaluation of low
exposure doses. Dose assessment using EPR spectroscopy in the examined persons 30-35 years after theaccidents showed a high grade of correlation with the officially registered doses, which can evidence arather exact calculation of exposure doses which did not induce manifest forms of ARS (Table 3) [4].
Method of biological dosimetry by estimating the frequency of chromosome aberrations inTable 3. Exposure doses to the submarines personnel who suffered accidents assessed by
EPR spectroscopy of tooth enamel compared to the officially registered data (based on
calculations) [4]No.

Examined persons’initials

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
М±м

V.N.A.
P.Yu.V.
R.Ye.N.
S.V.S.
K.L.L.
P.V.P.
B.V.M.
R.A.S.

Officially registered (calculated) Doses based on the results ofdoses, Gy
EPR spectroscopy, Gy
0.12
0.15
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.2
0.49
4.0
0.73±0.48

0.062
0.075
0.08
0.12
0.21
0.29
0.57
3.6
0.63±0.43

Table 4. Military personnel exposure doses resulting from the safety violations during
preparation of a submarine nuclear power plant to refueling
Dose, Gy
Exposedpersons

According to According to the According to the According to thethe calculations
cytogenetic
hematologic indices final diagnosis ofindices
dynamics
ARS
3.08*; 3.20**;1.
A.
2.60±0.20<4.0
4.0-6.0
3.70***
2.
Z.
2.25±0.15
1.50>1.0
2.0-4.03.
K.
2.40±0.15
1.00
1.0
2.0-4.04.
Ch.
1.90±0.15
<0.25
<0.5
1.0-2.0* according to the part of aberrant cells** according to the general frequency of chromosome aberrations*** according to the frequency of dicentrics and ringsNo.

8peripheral blood lymphocytes immediately after exposure was for the first time used in the Navy in 1984
for the evaluation of the doses to 4 seamen who were overexposed during the preparation of a submarine
nuclear power plant for refueling. The integrated data on exposure doses for these overexposed persons
received by different methods of retrospective dosimetry including the cytogenetic are shown in Table 4.
From this table we can see that the dose calculation by spatial-temporal characteristics of exposureand source radiological parameters even in the nearest time after the exposure not always shows results
close to the true ones. The dose values determined on the basis of cytogenetic indices and dynamics ofhematological indices are nearly equal, but they were not adequately taken into account when making a
final diagnosis. For this reason the degree of severity of ARS is overstated. The official diagnosis toperson-A is 2-3rd degree of ARS, with 2nd degree to person-Z and person-K and 1st degree to person-Ch.
Objectively, according to the data in the table the severity of ARS is one degree lower than otherexamined persons, while in the case of person-Ch we can speak only of overexposure.
For illustration purposes, Figure 5 presents calibration curves (D=1 Gy) and actual neutrophil andplatelet dynamics curves for person-Z (a), and platelet dynamic curve for person-Ch (b). For person-Z thedynamics of the both indices in the second depletion phase descend more than the respective calibration
curves for 1 Gy dose in the second depletion phase. For person-Ch, the platelet counts correspond to thephysiological standards. Therefore, the dose values assessed on the basis of cytogenetic indices and those
assessed on the basis of hematologic indices are almost congruent.
Summing up it should be noted that in general the officially registered doses to the overexposed
submarine personnel assessed on the basis of calculation method are close to the true ones, and thecorrelation between the primary and the final assessment of ARS cases in the Navy and in the case of the
Chornobyl catastrophe (Table 2) are similar. This gives evidence of a high professional qualification of the(a) person-Z(b) person-Ch

Fig. 5. Dynamics of hematological indices for person-Z (a) and person-Ch (b). 1 – neutrophil
dynamics calibration curve for 1 Gy dose; 2 – actual neutrophil dynamics for the examined
persons; 3 – platelet dynamics calibration curve for 1 Gy dose; 4 – actual platelet dynamics
for the examined persons. The axis of ordinates shows the neutrophil counts 109 l-1 andplatelet counts 1011 l-1. The axis of abscissas shows the number of days after exposure

9Navy radiologists (specialists of clinical and preventive medicine) 25 years before the accident at theChornobyl NPP. At the same time, organization of radiation epidemiological investigations of thiscategory of persons needs more accurate dose estimations with the use of more informative modern
methods of retrospective dosimetry. This, in its turn, will lead to a reconsideration of radiation injuries
severity.
All these studies are indicating good sense with relation to scientific truth. But regarding the social
aspect, the situation should not be changed or the level of social protection of these military personnel
should even be improved. The authorities had been hushing up these tragedies for too long, and themilitary personnel overexposed in the submarine radiation accidents had been receiving no attention orcare from the state.
Conclusions
1. Radiological consequences of the Soviet Navy accidents are significant and the number of ARS cases iscomparable to the number of ARS cases to Chornobyl catastrophe witnesses and clean-up workers in
1986.
2. Results of a careful clinical-epidemiological examination of the personnel overexposed in the Navy
accidents not only have value for radiobiology and radiation medicine specialists but can also become abasis for the evaluation of the effectiveness of social protection strategy for the Chornobyl catastropheclean-up workers.
3. The officially registered exposure doses to persons affected by the Navy radiation accidents in somecases differ from the actual ones due to the imperfections of radiation monitoring facilities at the time of
the accidents.
4. There was a tendency of clinical overstatement of the exposure doses resulting in diagnosis of 1st degreeof ARS to persons who received external doses lower than 0.75. In some cases even 0.2 Gy was
overstated as ARS severity for 2nd, 3rd and 4th degrees.
5. In general, exposure doses to the affected by the Navy accidents and their ARS severity degrees were
evaluated with rather good accuracy.
6. The use of modern methods and approaches to the retrospective dose assessment allows more accurate
evaluation of the submarine personnel exposure doses as well as verification of every ARS case, thus
creating a necessary dosimetric basis for the organization of a correct radiation epidemiologicalinvestigation for persons of this contingent.
7. Regretfully, tragic experience of nuclear power plants operation at the Navy vessels was not subject toanalysis of specialists in order to improve nuclear safety, radiation protection, and emergency responseorganization in other fields of nuclear energy use in the USSR.
References
1. Sharayevskiy, G., Belikov, A., Petrov, O., Lisovskiy, I. “Radiological and radioecologicalconsequences of accidents at atomic power plants for ship propulsion”. // Morskoy Sbornik. 1999, No.
7.- P. 52-57. (Rus).

10

2. Guskova, A. K., Baranov, A.E., Barabanova, A.V., Gruzdev, G.P., Pyatkin, Ye.K. et al.. “Acuteradiation effects in victims of the accident of the ChernobylNPP”. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya. 1987.
Vol. 32, No 12.- P. 3-18. (Rus).
3. Guskova, A.K. “Ten years after the Chernobyl accident (retrospective review of clinical events andmeasures aiming at the aftermaths overcoming)”. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya
Bezopasnost. 01/1997. P. 5-12. (Rus).
4. Kaplan, M.A., Sevankayev, A.V., Surinov, B.P., Skaletskiy, Yu.N., Skvortsov, V.G., Malevanniy,
S.V., Pokidyuk, N.V. “30 years after the acute radiation syndrome” // Fizicheskaya Meditsina. 1993.
Vol. 3, No 1-2.- P. 19-23. (Rus).
5. Sevankayev, A.V., Golub, Ye.V., Khvostunov, I.K., Potetnya, O.I., Shkavrova, T.G., Skvortsov, V.G.,
Ivannikov, A.I., Tikunov, D.D., Sidorov, O.S., Amiyev, G.N., Yemelyanenko, V.M., Vosen, F., Duran,V., Roy, L. “Retrospective dose assessment in a long-term postradiation period by different bioassay
methods”. Radiatsionnaya Biologiya. Radioekologiya. 2004. Vol. 44, No. 6.- P. 637-652. (Rus).
6. Skaletskiy, Yu.N.. “Long-term effects of emergency exposure (research relevance and guidelines).” //Contemporary Aspects of Military Medicine (Issue 4). Collected scientific works of the Principal
Military Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. Kiev: 1999. P. 39-41. (Rus).
7. Skaletskiy, Yu.N., Rozhkov, A.V., Struk, V.F.. “Remote pathology forms in persons who had sufferedfrom acute radiation syndrome”. // Contemporary Aspects of Military Medicine (Issue 4). Collectedscientific works of the Principal Military Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
Kiev: 1999.- P. 41-42. (Rus).
8. Skaletskiy, Yu.M., Rozhkov, A.V., Shemetun, O.V., Struk, V.F. “Retrospective cytogenetic analysis in
military personnel who had suffered from acute radiation syndrome”. Topical Issues of Military
Medicine (Materials of the First Research and Practice Conference). Principal Military Medical
Department of the General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine. Kyiv: 1995.- P. 183-184. (Ukr).
9. Vovkodav, N.N., Skaletskiy, Yu.M., Boychak, M.P., Lugovskiy, G.S., Gutsal, O.V., Turchin, V.D.,
Bobok, P.V., Kiseliov, O.P. “Hematological parameters in long-term period in persons who had
suffered from acute radiation syndrome”. Topical Issues of Military Medicine (Materials of the First
Research and Practice Conference). Principal Military Medical Department of the General Staff ofArmed Forces of Ukraine. Kiev: 1995.- P. 70-71. (Ukr).
10. Shemetun, O.V., Skaletskiy, Yu.M. “Retrospective cytogenetic analysis of radiation-induced
chromosome damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes of persons who had suffered from acuteradiation syndrome”. Collected scientific works. Issues of Ecological and Medical Genetics andClinical Immunology. Kyiv-Lugansk: 1997, Issue 3.- P. 201-206. (Ukr).
11. Collected normative and methodical materials on radiation medicine: 2 volumes. Vol. 2. Edited by
Guskova, A.K., corresponding member of USSR Academy of Medical Sciences. Moscow: 1990. 385p.

11