Some epidemiological studies have estimated exposure among flight attendants with and without breast cancer. However, it is difficult to find a quantitative evaluation of occupational exposure factors related to cancer development individually in the case of breast cancer in flight attendants. That is, most, if not all, epidemiological studies of breast cancer in flight attendants with quantitative exposure estimates have estimated exposure in the absence of individual flight history data.

A 41-year-old woman visited the hospital due to a left breast mass after a regular check-up. Breast cancer was suspected on ultrasonography. Following core biopsy, she underwent various imaging modalities. She was diagnosed invasive ductal carcinoma of no special type (estrogen receptor positive in 90%, progesterone receptor positive in 3%, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu equivocal) with histologic grade 3 and nuclear grade 3 in the left breast. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to reduce the tumor size before surgery. However, due to serious chemotherapy side effects, the patient opted for alternative and integrative therapies. She joined the airline in January, 1996. Out of all flights, international flights and night flights accounted for 94.9% and 26.2, respectively. Night flights were conducted at least four times per month. Moreover, based on the virtual computer program CARI-6M, the estimated dose of cosmic radiation exposure was 78.81 mSv. There were no other personal triggers or family history of breast cancer.

This case report shows that the potentially causal relationship between occupational harmful factors and the incidence of breast cancer may become more pronounced when night shift workers who work continuously are exposed to cosmic ionizing radiation. Therefore, close attention and efforts are needed to adjust night shift work schedules and regulate cosmic ionizing radiation exposure.

In Korea, there were repeated radiation exposure accidents among non-destructive testing workers. Most of the cases involved local injury, such as radiation burns or hematopoietic cancer. Herein, we report a case of acute radiation syndrome caused by short periods of high exposure to ionizing radiation.

In January 2017, Korea Information System on Occupational Exposure (KISOE) found that a 31-year-old man who had worked in a non-destructive testing company had been overexposed to radiation. The patient complained of symptoms of anorexia, general weakness, prostration, and mild dizziness for several days. He was anemic. The venous injection areas had bruises and bleeding tendency. Blood and bone marrow testing showed pancytopenia and the patient was diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome (white blood cells: 1400/cubic mm, hemoglobin: 7.1 g/dL, platelets: 14000/cubic mm). He was immediately prohibited from working and blood transfusion was commenced. The patient’s radiation exposure dose was over 1.4 Gy (95% confidence limits: 1.1–1.6) in lymphocyte depletion kinetics. It was revealed that the patient had been performing non-destructive tests without radiation shielding when working in high places of the large pipe surface.

Exposure prevention is clearly possible in radiation-exposed workers. Strict legal amendments to safety procedures are essential to prevent repeated radiation exposure accidents.

The Korea Radiation Effect & Epidemiology Cohort - The resident cohort (KREEC-R) study concluded that there is no epidemiological or causal evidence supporting any increase in cancer risks resulting from radiation from Korean nuclear power plants (NPPs). But the risks of thyroid cancer in women were significantly higher in residents living near NPPs than control. Debate about the cause of the pattern of thyroid cancer incidence in women is ongoing and some researchers argue that detection bias influenced the result of KREEC-R study. Therefore there was a need to investigate whether residents living near NPPs who were assessed in the KREEC-R were actually tested more often for thyroid cancer. We evaluated the possibility of detection bias in the finding of the KREEC-R study based on materials available at this time.

Using the KREEC-R raw data, we calculated age standardized rates (ASRs) of female thyroid cancer and re-analyzed the results of survey on the use of medical services. We also marked the administrative districts of residents who received the Radiation Health Research Institute (RHRI) health examinations and those in which thyroid cancer case occurred as per the Chonnam National University Research Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) final report on maps where the locations of NPPs and 5 km-radii around them were also indicated. And we compared the incidence rates of Radiation-induced cancer measured between the first period when RHRI health examinations were not yet implemented, and the second period when the RHRI health examinations were implemented.

The ASR for the far-distance group, which comprised residents living in areas outside the 30 km radius of the NPPs, increased rapidly after 2000; however, that of the exposed group, which comprised residents living within a 5 km radius of the NPPs, started to increase rapidly even before 1995. The frequencies of the use of medical services were significantly higher in the intermediate proximate group, which comprised residents living within a 5–30 km radius of the NPPs, than in the exposed group in women. In case of female thyroid cancer, the second period ASR was higher than the first period ASR, but in case of female liver cancer and female stomach cancer no significant difference were observed between the periods. On map, many administrative districts of residents who received RHRI health examinations and most administrative districts in which thyroid cancer case occurred on RIMS final report were outside 5 km-radii around NPPs.

We could not find any evidence supporting the assertion that detection bias influenced the increased risks of female thyroid cancer observed in the exposed group of the KREEC-R study, as opposed to the control group.

Probability of causation (PC) is a reasonable way to estimate causal relationships in radiation-related cancer. This study reviewed the international trend, usage, and critiques of the PC method. Because it has been used in Korea, it is important to check the present status and estimation of PC in radiation-related cancers in Korea.

Research articles and official reports regarding PC of radiation-related cancer and published from the 1980s onwards were reviewed, including studies used for the revision of the Korean PC program. PC has been calculated for compensation-related cases in Korea since 2005.

The United States National Institutes of Health first estimated the PC in 1985. Among the 106 occupational diseases listed in the International Labor Organization Recommendation 194 (International Labor Office (ILO), ILO List of Occupational Diseases, 2010), PC is available only for occupational cancer after ionizing radiation exposure. The United States and United Kingdom use PC as specific criteria for decisions on the compensability of workers’ radiation-related health effects. In Korea, PC was developed firstly as Korean Radiation Risk and Assigned Share (KORRAS) in 1999. In 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute and Radiation Health Research Institute jointly developed a more revised PC program, Occupational Safety and Health-PC (OSH-PC). Between 2005 and 2015, PC was applied in 16 claims of workers’ compensation for radiation-related cancers. In most of the cases, compensation was given when the PC was more than 50%. However, in one case, lower than 50% PC was accepted considering the possibility of underestimation of the cumulative exposure dose.

PC is one of the most advanced tools for estimating the causation of occupational cancer. PC has been adjusted for baseline cancer incidence in Korean workers, and for uncertainties using a statistical method. Because the fundamental reason for under- or over-estimation is probably inaccurate dose reconstruction, a proper guideline is necessary.

Interest in radiation-related health problems has been growing with the increase in the number of workers in radiation-related jobs. Although an occupational level of radiation exposure would not likely cause azoospermia, several studies have reported the relation between radiation exposure and azoospermia after accidental or therapeutic radiation exposure. We describe a case of azoospermia in a non-destructive testing (NDT) worker exposed to radiation and discuss the problems of the related monitoring system.

A 39-year-old man who was childless after 8 years of marriage was diagnosed with azoospermia through medical evaluations, including testicular biopsy. He did not have any abnormal findings on biochemical evaluations, other risk factors, or evidence of congenital azoospermia. He had been working in an NDT facility from 2005 to 2013, attaching and arranging gamma-ray films on the structures and inner spaces of ships. The patient’s thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) badge recorded an exposure level of 0.01781 Gy for 80 months, whereas results of his florescence in situ hybridization (FISH) translocation assay showed an exposure level of up to 1.926 Gy of cumulative radiation, which was sufficient to cause azoospermia. Thus, we concluded that his azoospermia was caused by occupational radiation exposure.

The difference between the exposure dose records measured through TLD badge and the actual exposure dose implies that the monitor used by the NDT worker did not work properly, and such a difference could threaten the health and safety of workers. Thus, to protect the safety and health of NDT workers, education of workers and strengthening of law enforcement are required to ensure that regulations are strictly followed, and if necessary, random sampling of NDT workers using a cytogenetic dosimeter, such as FISH, should be considered.

Clinicians who perform radiation therapy (RT) are exposed to radiation, which may negatively affect their health. The present study reports a case of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in a healthcare provider who was exposed to radiation at work; we also present a literature review of this topic.

A 45-year-old patient, who had been a radiation oncologist and had been exposed to radiation while performing brachytherapy 10 years ago, complained of chest pain and was suspected of having leukemia based on the results of a blood test in an outpatient clinic. He was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and subsequently underwent chemotherapy. However, the case died during treatment. Through epidemiological investigation, it was found that the case’s cumulative exposure dose based on personal exposure and spatial dose measured during the work period was in the range of 6.08–12.15 mSv.

Based on the following considerations, acute lymphoblastic leukemia was highly correlated with the level of radiation to which the case was exposed while performing brachytherapy on patients with cancer. Firstly, the latent period of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the case closely matched the latency time reported in previous published studies (5–10 years). In addition, numerous studies have reported significantly higher relative risks of cancer among clinicians who perform RT compared with the general population. The case was also atypically exposed to radiation through his hands, despite wearing protective equipment. Lastly, the case’s coworkers were also found to have been exposed to high levels of radiation. Investigation into the influence of radiation exposure through atypical routes during RT on the health of clinicians is recommended.

With increasing use of medical radiologic procedures, wearing proper protector should be emphasized to reduce occupational radiation exposures. This research describes the rates of lead apron wearing for radiation protection and assessed occupational factors related to wearing rates for various types of healthcare professionals.

We conducted a self-administered questionnaire survey through a website, on-site visits, fax, and mail. Of the 13,489 participants, 8858 workers who could not completely separate themselves from radiological procedure areas. Their general characteristics (sex and age), work history (job title, duration of employment, and hospital type), and practices (frequency of radiation procedures, ability to completely separate from radiation, and frequency of wearing protective lead aprons) were examined.

The mean rate of lead apron wearing during radiologic procedures was 48.0 %. The rate was different according to sex (male: 52.9 %, female: 39.6 %), hospital type (general hospital: 63.0 %, hospital: 51.3 %, clinic: 35.6 %, dental hospital/clinic: 13.3 %, public health center: 22.8 %), and job title (radiologic technologist: 50.3 %, doctor: 70.3 %, dentist/dental hygienist: 15.0 %, nurse/nursing assistant: 64.5 %) (p < 0.001). By logistic regression analysis stratified by job title, use of lead aprons by radiologic technologists and nurses/nursing assistants was associated with hospital type and exposure frequency score. For doctors, apron wearing was associated with employment duration. For dentists/dental hygienists, apron wearing was associated with the exposure frequency score.

To improve working environments for healthcare professionals exposed to radiation, it is necessary to consider related factors, such as job title, duration of employment, and hospital type, when utilizing a planning and management system to prevent radiation-related health problems.

Occupational radiation exposure causes certain types of cancer, specifically hematopoietic diseases like leukemia. In Korea, radiation exposure is monitored and recorded by law, and guidelines for compensation of radiation-related diseases were implemented in 2001. However, thus far, no occupation-related disease was approved for compensation under these guidelines. Here, we report the first case of radiation-related disease approved by the compensation committee of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, based on the probability of causation.

A 45-year-old man complained of chronic fatigue and myalgia for several days. He was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia. The patient was a diagnostic radiographer at a diagnostic radiation department and was exposed to ionizing radiation for 21 years before chronic myeloid leukemia was diagnosed. His job involved taking simple radiographs, computed tomography scans, and measuring bone marrow density.

To our knowledge, this is the first approved case report using quantitative assessment of radiation. More approved cases are expected based on objective radiation exposure data and the probability of causation. We need to find a resolution to the ongoing demands for appropriate compensation and improvements to the environment at radiation workplaces.