• 핵의학기술
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.9-16
• /
• 2010

본 연구는 방사성동위원소의 의학적 이용도가 증가함에 따라 의료기관 핵의학과 방사선 관계종사자의 직무 별 방사선 이용에 대한 개인 방사선 피폭선량의 실태를 파악하여, 방사선 위험에 대해 경각심을 고취시키고, 방사선 관계종사자들에게 안전관리와 합리적인 피폭선량 관리에 도움을 주고자 분석하였다. 2007년 1월 1일부터 2009년 12월 31일까지 의료기관에서 근무하는 핵의학 방사선 관계종사자로 분류되어 개인 방사선피폭선량 측정을 정기적, 연속적으로 3년 간 조사 관리된 40명의 종사자를 대상으로 직종 별, 영상실 별, 연령 별, 선량구간 별, 직무 별 관련업무를 파악하여 심부선량에 대하여 연간평균피폭선량을 각각 분석하였다. 분석법으로는 빈도분석과 ANOVA를 시행하였다. 3년 간 영상실 별 연간피폭선량은 PET 및 PET/CT 영상실이 11.06~12.62 mSv로 가장 높은 피폭선량을 보였고, 감마카메라 주사실이 11.72 mSv로 높았으며, 직종 별 연간평균피폭선량은 임상병리사가 8.92 mSv로 가장 높았고, 방사선사 7.50 mSv, 간호사 2.61 mSv, 연구원 0.69 mSv, 접수 0.48 mSv, 의사 0.35 mSv 순으로 나타났으며, 세부업무에 따른 직무별 연간평균피폭선량은 PET 및 PET/CT 업무가 12.09 mSv로 가장 높은 피폭선량을 보였으며, 감마카메라 주사실이 11.72 mSv, 싸이크로트론 관련 합성 업무 8.92 mSv, 감마카메라 영상업무 4.92 mSv, 치료 및 안전관리 2.98 mSv, 간호사 업무 2.96 mSv, 관리 업무 1.72 mSv, 영상분석 업무 0.92 mSv, 판독업무 0.54 mSv, 접수업무 0.51 mSv, 연구업무 0.29 mSv 순으로 나타났다. 선량구간 별 연간평균피폭선량은 연구대상자의 15명(37.5%)이 1 mSv이하의 선량분포와 5명(12.5%)이 1.01~5.0 mSv이하의 선량분포를 가지고 있었고, 5.01~10.0mSv에서 14명(35.0%), 10.01~20.0 mSv에서 6명(15.0%)의 분포로 분석되었다. 연령에 따른 연간평균피폭선량은 방사선사 직종에서는 25~34세 종사자가 8.69 mSv로 가장 높은 평균선량을 보였고, 근무기간에 따른 연간평균피폭선량은 방사선사 직종에서 5~9년 종사자가 9.5 mSv로 가장 높은 평균선량을 나타냈다. 고용형태에 따른 연간평균피폭선량은 정규직 임상병리사 8.92 mSv, 방사선사 7.82 mSv, 계약직 방사선사 7.55 mSv, 인턴직 방사선사 5.62 mSv, 계약직 간호사 2.61 mSv, 정규직 연구원 0.69 mSv, 접수 0.55 mSv, 의사 0.35mSv 순으로 피폭을 받는 것으로 나타났다. 이와 같은 결과로 볼 때 의료기관에서 근무하는 핵의학 방사선 관계종사자의 대부분이 현재의 방사선 안전관리가 실효성 있게 이루어지고 있었으며, 직무특성에 따라 많은 차이가 있는 것을 알게 되었다. 그러나 방사선 피폭을 최소화시키는 노력이 필요하며, 이를 위해서 체계적 교육과 합리적 피폭량 관리를 위한 체계가 필요하다고 사료된다.

• 한국과학교육학회지
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.376-388
• /
• 1996

The first and the second "Discussion Contest of Scientific Investigation" was evaluated in this study. This contest was a part of 'Korean Youth Science Festival' held in 1993 and 1994. The evaluation was based on the data collected from the middle school students of final teams, their teachers, a large number of middle school students and college students who were audience of the final competition. Questionnaires, interviews, reports of final teams, and video tape of final competition were used to collect data. The study focussed on three research questions. The first was about the preparation and the research process of students of final teams. The second was about the format and the proceeding of the Contest. The third was whether participating the Contest was useful experience for the students and the teachers of the final teams. The first area, the preparation and the research process of students, were investigated in three aspects. One was the level of cooperation, participation, support and the role of teachers. The second was the information search and experiment, and the third was the report writing. The students of the final teams from both years, had positive opinion about the cooperation, students' active involvement, and support from family and school. Students considered their teachers to be a guide or a counsellor, showing their level of active participation. On the other hand, the interview of 1993 participants showed that there were times that teachers took strong leading role. Therefore one can conclude that students took active roles most of the time while the room for improvement still exists. To search the information they need during the period of the preparation, student visited various places such as libraries, bookstores, universities, and research institutes. Their search was not limited to reading the books, although the books were primary source of information. Students also learned how to organize the information they found and considered leaning of organizing skill useful and fun. Variety of experiments was an important part of preparation and students had positive opinion about it. Understanding related theory was considered most difficult and important, while designing and building proper equipments was considered difficult but not important. This reflects the students' school experience where the equipments were all set in advance and students were asked to confirm the theories presented in the previous class hours. About the reports recording the research process, students recognize the importance and the necessity of the report but had difficulty in writing it. Their reports showed tendency to list everything they did without clear connection to the problem to be solved. Most of the reports did not record the references and some of them confused report writing with story telling. Therefore most of them need training in writing the reports. It is also desirable to describe the process of student learning when theory or mathematics that are beyond the level of middle school curriculum were used because it is part of their investigation. The second area of evaluation was about the format and the proceeding of the Contest, the problems given to students, and the process of student discussion. The format of the Contests, which consisted of four parts, presentation, refutation, debate and review, received good evaluation from students because it made students think more and gave more difficult time but was meaningful and helped to remember longer time according to students. On the other hand, students said the time given to each part of the contest was too short. The problems given to students were short and open ended to stimulate students' imagination and to offer various possible routes to the solution. This type of problem was very unfamiliar and gave a lot of difficulty to students. Student had positive opinion about the research process they experienced but did not recognize the fact that such a process was possible because of the oneness of the task. The level of the problems was rated as too difficult by teachers and college students but as appropriate by the middle school students in audience and participating students. This suggests that it is possible for student to convert the problems to be challengeable and intellectually satisfactory appropriate for their level of understanding even when the problems were difficult for middle school students. During the process of student discussion, a few problems were observed. Some problems were related to the technics of the discussion, such as inappropriate behavior for the role he/she was taking, mismatching answers to the questions. Some problems were related to thinking. For example, students thinking was off balanced toward deductive reasoning, and reasoning based on experimental data was weak. The last area of evaluation was the effect of the Contest. It was measured through the change of the attitude toward science and science classes, and willingness to attend the next Contest. According to the result of the questionnaire, no meaningful change in attitude was observed. However, through the interview several students were observed to have significant positive change in attitude while no student with negative change was observed. Most of the students participated in Contest said they would participate again or recommend their friend to participate. Most of the teachers agreed that the Contest should continue and they would recommend their colleagues or students to participate. As described above, the "Discussion Contest of Scientific Investigation", which was developed and tried as a new science contest, had positive response from participating students and teachers, and the audience. Two among the list of results especially demonstrated that the goal of the Contest, "active and cooperative science learning experience", was reached. One is the fact that students recognized the experience of cooperation, discussion, information search, variety of experiments to be fun and valuable. The other is the fact that the students recognized the format of the contest consisting of presentation, refutation, discussion and review, required more thinking and was challenging, but was more meaningful. Despite a few problems such as, unfamiliarity with the technics of discussion, weakness in inductive and/or experiment based reasoning, and difficulty in report writing, The Contest demonstrated the possibility of new science learning environment and science contest by offering the chance to challenge open tasks by utilizing student science knowledge and ability to inquire and to discuss rationally and critically with other students.