DOCSLIB.ORG

ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 13Th International Conference On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 13Th International Conference On 13TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RADIATION SHIELDING & 19TH TOPICAL MEETING OF THE RADIATION PROTECTION & SHIELDING DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY PARIS FRANCE BOOK OF ABSTRACTS ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 13th International Conference on Radiation Shielding & 19th Topical Meeting of the Radiation Protection & Shielding Division of the American Nuclear Society -2016 Novotel Paris Centre Eiffel Tower Hotel, Paris, 3-6 October, 2016 Following Nara in Japan in 2012, Paris is honored to host the joint conference 13th International Conference on Radiation Shielding (ICRS-13) & 19th Topical Meeting of the Radiation Protection & Shielding Division of the American Nuclear Society -2016 (RPSD-2016), from 3rd to 6th of October 2016. This conference is organized by the Direction de l’Énergie Nucléaire (DEN) of the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA), with the support of the Société Française d’Énergie Nucléaire, and co-organized by the American Nuclear Society (ANS), the Atomic Energy Agency of Japan (AESJ), the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), with the partnership of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 conference explores the scientific, technological and engineering issues associated with particle and ionizing radiation shielding in its broadest context, including nuclear energy systems, accelerator facilities, lasers, space, medical area and other radiation environments. It is one of the premier international events dedicated to this multidisciplinary radiation shielding field, regularly attracting hundreds of the world's top scientists and engineers. The 50th Anniversary of the First Radiation Shielding Symposium, celebrated in 2008, recalled the towns where ICRS has been successively held. In 1972, Paris hosted the ICRS’4; in 2016 that will make 44 years since. Indeed, the present Honorary Chairs, Jean-Claude Nimal (CEA) and Enrico Sartori (OECD/NEA), were both active participants and the privileged witnesses of these international meetings. The ICRS 50th Anniversary commemoration raised awareness of the thematic richness of the Radiation Shielding studies from its very beginnings. But we can also gauge the progress made by this discipline and the associated conferences so far by the huge international audiences drawn to Radiation Protection & Shielding disciplines. That has been accomplished by opening up progressively and naturally to other fields than nuclear fission applications, namely fusion, nuclear medicine, particles physics, space, homeland security, radiation industrial use. Nevertheless, the original intellectual mark of their founders has been maintained through the continuous renewal of both calculation and measurement methods and strategies as well as by the application to ever more diverse and complex physical configurations. Furthermore, from a purely symbolic point of view, the so-called “Composition VIII” of the “avant-gardiste” painter Vassily Kandinsky (Russia, 1866 – France, 1944) can be perceived as a sublimated vision of the Radiation Protection & Shielding field, thanks to its warm and cold colors, thanks to its mixing of straight and curved drawing lines, thanks to its colored Cartesian, triangular and circular patterns. Back to the organizational aspects, we appreciate the efforts made by the ICRS and RPSD conferences to join each four years. Fully agreeing upon this dynamic we look at ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 as a new opportunity offered to international community to notably: . survey the theoretical, methodological, experimental and applicative innovations . focus on recurrent challenges such as the source term determination by solving the inverse problem, the study of extreme situations, the shield design optimization, the real time dose rate determination in the frame of virtual reality, the finest dosimetry measurement interpretation, the nuclear data improvement, the uncertainty propagation... discuss the future of the calculational and numerical methods : deterministic versus Monte Carlo, semi-empirical methods, the contribution of high performance computing, the contribution of other disciplines… . identify new needs in a globalized world where the environmental dimension is becoming even more crucial, and must consequently inspire new radiation problematics, new experiments, new measurements, new standards new theoretical and computational developments and challenges. Two dark broken lines in the Kandinsky’s painting echo symbolically the selected location devoted to the scheduled communications and exchanges, in the heart of Paris, next to the Seine River, in close proximity to the Eiffel Tower. We hope that this geographical configuration among the finest will favor a successful ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 conference, where PhD students have their legitimate place just as well the confirmed researchers and engineers. We welcome all the ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 attendees in Paris. Lastly, we take the opportunity to thank warmly here the co-organizers of the ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 and all the physical and moral persons who contribute to its realization. Cheikh M. Diop ICRS-13 & RPSD-2016 General Chair CEA/DEN, France Committees General Chairs Cheikh M. DIop, CEA, France Giovanni Bruna, IRSN, France Michele Ferenci, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, USA Takashi Nakamura,Tohoku University, Japan Honorary Chairs Jean-Claude Nimal, retired, formerly CEA Enrico Sartori, retired formerly OECD/NEA International Advisory International Technical Program Local Organizing Board Chairs Relations Chair Chairs Committee Chairs Jean-Paul Deffain Jean-Christophe Trama Fausto Malvagi Daniel Caruge CEA, France CEA, France CEA, France CEA, France Patrick Blanc-Tranchant Fadhel Malouch Patricia Hamel-Bloch CEA, France CEA, France SFEN, France Sylvie Leray Thomas M. Miller CEA, France ORNL, USA Toshiya Sanami KEK, Japan International Advisory Committee Hamid Aït Abderrahim, SCK-CEN - BE ǀ Syuichi Ban, KEK - JP ǀ Patrick Blanc-Tranchant, CEA - FR ǀ Michel Boyard, AREVA TA - FR ǀ Pierre Désesquelles, CSNSM Université Paris-Sud - FR ǀ Alfredo Ferrari, CERN, CH ǀ Ulrich Fischer, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT/INR) - DE ǀ Frédérico Garrido, CSNSM Université Paris-Sud - FR ǀ Matthieu Guillo, EDF - FR ǀ Alireza Haghighat, Virginia Tech - USA ǀ Nolan Hertel, Georgia Tech - USA ǀ Shinya Hohara, AERI - JP ǀ Jeff Johnson, ORNL - USA ǀ Nordine Kerkar, EDF - FR ǀ Kyo-Youn Kim, KAERI - KR ǀ Bernadette Kirk, Kirk Nuclear Information Services - USA ǀ Ray Klann, ANL - USA ǀ Chikara Konno, JAEA - JP ǀ Masahiko Kurosawa, TOSHIBA Corp. - JP ǀ Laurence Lebaron- Jacobs, CEA - FR ǀ Sylvie Leray, CEA - FR ǀ Arnaud Lucotte, CNRS/IN2P3, Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie de Grenoble - FR ǀ Sabine Meyer, PSI - CH ǀ Isao Murata, Osaka University - JP ǀ Hiroshi Nakashima, JAEA - JP ǀ Mikihiro Nakata, Mitsubishi HI - JP ǀ Naoteru Odano, NMRI - JP ǀ Eric Pitcher, ESS - SW ǀ Véronique Rouyer, IRSN - FR ǀ Francesc Salvat, University of Barcelona - SP ǀ Lembit Sihver, TU Wien, Chalmers Univ – AT,SW ǀ Michel Siemann, NEA - France ǀ Robert Singleterry, NASA – USA ǀ Glenn Sjoden, AFTAC - USA ǀ Vladimir Smutný, Škoda - CZ ǀ Hervé Toubon, AREVA - FR ǀ Lawrence W. Townsend, University of Tennessee - USA ǀ Timothy Valentine, RSICC - USA ǀ Yoshitomo Uwamino, RIKEN - JP ǀ Pedro Vaz, Centro de Ciências e Tecnologias Nucleares - PT ǀ John Wagner, ORNL - USA ǀ Laurie Waters, TechSource Inc.- USA ǀ Yican Wu, Institute of Nuclear Energy Safety Technology, CAS · FDS Team - CN ǀ X. George Xu, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – USA. Technical Program Committee Stefano Agosteo, Politecnico Milano – Italy ǀ Yoshihiro Asano, RIKEN – Japan ǀ SYuichi Ban, KEK – Japan ǀ Valentin Blideanu, CEA – France ǀ Jean-François Bottollier , IRSN – France ǀ Stéphane Bourganel, CEA – France ǀ Markus Brugger , CERN – Switzerland ǀ Peter Caracappa, RPI– USAǀ Zhi Chen, University of Science & Technology – China ǀ Isabelle Clairand, IRSN – France ǀ Jean-Christophe David, CEA – France ǀ David Dixon, LANL – USAǀ Michael L. Fensin, LANL – USA ǀ Ulrich Fischer , Karlsruhe Institute of Technology – Germany ǀ Brian C. Franke, Sandia National Laboratory – USA ǀ Juan Galan, NEA ǀ Sedat Goluoglu, University of Florida – USA ǀ Takumi Gotoh, Nagoya RDF – Japan ǀ Robert Hayes, NCSU – USA ǀ Lawrence Heilbronn, Univ Tennessee – USA ǀ Ahmad Ibrahim, ORNL – USA ǀ Jean-Charles Jaboulay, CEA – France ǀ Cédric Jouanne, CEA – France ǀ Brian Kiedrowski, Univ Michigan – USA ǀ Yong-Kyun Kim, Hanyang University - KR ǀ Ray Klann, ANL – USA ǀ Ivo Kodeli, IJS – Sloveny ǀ Ted Lazo, NEA – France ǀ Hee-Seock Lee, PAL/POSTECH - KR ǀ Yi- Kang Lee, CEA – France ǀ Young-Ouk Lee, KAERI – KRǀ Davide Mancusi, CEA – France ǀ Vladimir Mares , Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen – Germany ǀ Gregg W. McKinney, LANL – USA ǀ Franco Michel-Sendis, NEA - France ǀ Joachim Miss, IRSN – France ǀ Makoto Morishima, Mitsubishi HI – Japan ǀ Hiroshi Nakashima, JAEA – Japan ǀ Yasushi Nauchi, CRIEPI – Japan ǀ Yannick Pénéliau, CEA – France ǀ Odile Petit, CEA – France ǀ Maria Grazia Pia, CERN – Switzerland ǀ Irina Popova, ORNL – USA ǀ Joel Risner, ORNL – USA ǀ Laurence Roy, IRSN – France ǀ Francesc Salvat, University of Barcelona – Spain ǀ Ron Jiun Sheu, University Tsing Hua, Taiwan ǀ Hyung Jin Shim, Seoul National University – Korea ǀ Chang-ho Shin, Hanyang University– KR ǀ Rachel Slaybaugh, University of California, Berkeley – USA ǀ Jean-Christophe Sublet, Culham – UK ǀ Cheick Thiam , CEA
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Internal and External Exposure Exposure Routes 2.1
    Exposure Routes Internal and External Exposure Exposure Routes 2.1 External exposure Internal exposure Body surface From outer space contamination and the sun Inhalation Suspended matters Food and drink consumption From a radiation Lungs generator Radio‐ pharmaceuticals Wound Buildings Ground Radiation coming from outside the body Radiation emitted within the body Radioactive The body is equally exposed to radiation in both cases. materials "Radiation exposure" refers to the situation where the body is in the presence of radiation. There are two types of radiation exposure, "internal exposure" and "external exposure." External exposure means to receive radiation that comes from radioactive materials existing on the ground, suspended in the air, or attached to clothes or the surface of the body (p.25 of Vol. 1, "External Exposure and Skin"). Conversely, internal exposure is caused (i) when a person has a meal and takes in radioactive materials in the food or drink (ingestion); (ii) when a person breathes in radioactive materials in the air (inhalation); (iii) when radioactive materials are absorbed through the skin (percutaneous absorption); (iv) when radioactive materials enter the body from a wound (wound contamination); and (v) when radiopharmaceuticals containing radioactive materials are administered for the purpose of medical treatment. Once radioactive materials enter the body, the body will continue to be exposed to radiation until the radioactive materials are excreted in the urine or feces (biological half-life) or as the radioactivity weakens over time (p.26 of Vol. 1, "Internal Exposure"). The difference between internal exposure and external exposure lies in whether the source that emits radiation is inside or outside the body.
    [Show full text]
  • Mean Glandular Dose from Routine Mammography
    Naresuan University Journal 2006; 14(3): 19-26 19 Mean Glandular Dose from Routine Mammography Supawitoo Sookpenga,* and Potjana Kettedb a Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Allied Health Science, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok 65000, Thailand. b Department of Radiology, Buddhachinaraj Hospital, Phitsanulok 65000, Thailand. *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Sookpeng) Received 21 July 2006; accepted 6 December 2006 Abstract A mammography examination facilitates the early detection of breast cancer. However, the potential risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis is also increased with such a procedure. The objective of this research was to measure the mean glandular dose (MGD) from craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views in each breast and the total dose per woman (for both breasts and two views) from the exposure factor in patients undergoing mammography on six mammography x-ray generators in the lower region of northern Thailand. The values of compressed breast thickness (CBT), as well as the MGD calculated from the exposure and tube voltage both mAs and target/filter combination, were collected from 2,060 films from 515 women ranging in age from 28 to 91 years. Significant differences were found between MGD from CC and MLO projections. The MGD per film was 1.42+0.80 mGy for the CC projection and 1.56+0.86 mGy for the MLO projection, (p<0.001). The MGD per CC and MLO film was significantly related to CBT (r = 0.610, p<0.01 and r = 0.596, p<0.01 respectively). The result indicated that 96.1 % of CC films and 94.2 % of MLO films had doses less than 3.0 mGy as recommended by the American College of Radiology recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnostic Imaging; Nuclear Medicine; Radiation Risk Vs. Benefit
    Diagnostic Imaging, Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Risks vs. Benefit & Radiation Protection (Chapter 15, 16, & 17) 1 Outline Background perspective Diagnostic radiology Interventional radiology Nuclear medicine Fetal & childhood dose 2 1 Internal Radiation People are exposed to radiation from radioactive material inside their bodies. Besides radon, the most important internal radioactive element is naturally occurring K-40, but uranium and thorium are also present as well as H-3 and C-14. The amount of radiation from potassium-40 does not vary much from one person to another. However, exposure from radon varies significantly from place to place depending on the amount of uranium in the soil. On average, in the United States radon contributes 55% of all radiation exposure from natural and man- made sources. Another 11% comes from the other radioactive materials inside the body. 2 Average Annual Effective Dose in US population (1982) mSv Natural Background Radon 2.0 other 1.0 Occupational 0.009 Medical diagnostic X-rays 0.39 nuclear medicine 0.14 __________________________________ Total (rounded) 3.6 mSv (360 mrem)/year From: Mettler et al., Ionizing Radiation From NCRP 1987 6 3 FIGURE 16.3 Color plot of the annual cosmic radiation doses (in microsievert) in North America. The variation with altitude is very clear, with the highest doses in the Rocky Mountains. Looking at Medical Exposures Patients Professionals Classes of Exposure in Medicine Diagnostic Interventional Radiology Nuclear Medicine Irradiation of Children and Pregnant Women 8 4 Diagnostic Radiology Surveys of dose from diagnostic exposures conducted with: NCRP 100 (1989) which contains a compilation of limited surveys, UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) 2000 Various other surveys and sources of dose info Diagnostic dose is certainly a potential for stochastic effects, deterministic effects very unlikely.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Protection of the Public S15 Oral Presentations
    Contents Session 15: Radiation protection of the public S15 Oral presentations S15-01 The main directions of the Russian efforts in radiation safety and health protection . 2180 Kiselev, Mikhail; Shandala, Nataliya S15-02 Spanish national campaign for the search and recovery of orphan radioactive sources . 2189 Carboneras, Pedro; Ortiz, Maria Teresa; Rueda, Carmen S15-03 Mitigation of exposure to radon by household water treatment . 2200 Turtiainen, Tuukka S15-04 Dose assessment for tritium releases during normal operation of NPP (ABSTRACT) . 2207 Duran, Juraj; Malátová, Irena S15-05 The legacy of uranium mines – Pluralist Expertise Group experiment on uranium mines in Limousin (France) (ABSTRACT) . 2208 Ringeard, Caroline; Catelinois, Olivier; Sene, Monique; Barbey, Pierre; Andres, Christian; Devin, Patrick; Vandenhove, Hildegarde; Servant-Perrier, Anne-Christine; Leuraud, Klervi; Zerbib, Jean-Claude Third European IRPA Congress 2010, Helsinki, Finland Contents Topic 15: Radiation protection of the public P15 Poster presentations P15-01 Radiation situation in Moscow and public doses due to man-made radiation exposure . 2210 Metlyaev, Evgeny; Filonova, Anna P15-02 Ionizing radiation exposure of the Belgian population in 2006 . 2216 Vanmarcke, Hans; Bosmans, Hilde; Eggermont, Gilbert P15-03 Sharing an environmental monitoring network: The AREVA Tricastin experience . 2226 Mercat, Catherine; Devin, Patrick; Garnier, François P15-04 137Cs activity concentrations in Polish meats – Current status and dose assessment for consumers . 2236 Rachubik, Jarosław P15-05 Public doses due to tritium emissions from Cernavoda NPP (ABSTRACT) . 2244 Bobric, Elena; Popescu, Ion; Simionov, Vasile P15-06 New Swedish regulations for clearance of materials, rooms, buildings and land . 2245 Efraimsson, Henrik P15-07 The approach to assessing doses to humans in the Posiva safety case .
    [Show full text]
  • Validation of Mean Glandular Dose Values Provided by a Digital Breast Tomosynthesis System in Brazil
    ISSSD 2014 April 13 to 16th, 2014. Cusco, Peru VALIDATION OF MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE VALUES PROVIDED BY A DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS SYSTEM IN BRAZIL Bruno Beraldo Oliveira1, Lucas Paixão1, Sabrina Donato da Silva1 Maria Helena Araújo Teixeira2, Maria do Socorro Nogueira1/3 1 Post-graduation in Sciences and Technology of Radiations Minerals and Materials - CDTN/CNEN Presidente Antônio Carlos, 6627 31270-901, Belo Horizonte, Brazil [email protected] 2 Dr Maria Helena Araújo Teixeira Clinic Guajajaras, 40 30180-100, Belo Horizonte, Brazil [email protected] 3 Development Center of Nuclear Technology - CDTN/CNEN Presidente Antônio Carlos, 6627 31270-901, Belo Horizonte, Brazil [email protected] 213 ISSSD 2014 April 13 to 16th, 2014. Cusco, Peru Abstract Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is an emerging imaging modality that provides quasi-three-dimensional structural information of the breast and has strong promise to improve the differentiation of normal tissue and suspicious masses reducing the tissue overlaps. DBT images are reconstructed from a sequence of low-dose X-ray projections of the breast acquired at a small number of angles over a limited angular range. The Hologic Selenia Dimensions system is equipped with an amorphous Selenium (a-Se) detector layer of 250 μm thickness and a 70 μm pixel pitch. Studies are needed to determine the radiation dose of patients that are undergoing this emerging procedure to compare with the results obtained in DBT images. The mean glandular dose (DG) is the dosimetric quantity used in quality control of the mammographic systems. The aim of this work is to validate DG values for different breast thicknesses provided by a Hologic Selenia Dimensions system using a DBT mode in comparison with the same results obtained by a calibrated 90X5-6M-model Radcal ionization chamber.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Patient Breast Dose from a Mammographic Biopsy Unit
    Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine (2019) 42:193–199 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00729-6 SCIENTIFIC PAPER Analysis of patient breast dose from a mammographic biopsy unit Donald McLean1 · Lewis Ryan1 · Lisa Robertson2 Received: 12 August 2018 / Accepted: 21 January 2019 / Published online: 1 February 2019 © Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2019 Abstract Further assessment of suspicious lesions found during asymptomatic breast cancer screening is critical and involves mammo- graphic follow up with biopsy. The X-ray procedure is complex and variable in nature and until now there is little information on the radiation dose to the breast or associated risks. A survey of radiation doses from a Siemens MammoTest prone biopsy with the support of a Sectra L30 AIR mammographic unit for workup and post clip images has been completed. Procedure details and outcomes, including radiographic and patient related variables have been collected and analysed using standard dosimetric formulation. The partial irradiation of the breast in biopsy and magnification views was considered. The aver- age mean glandular breast dose was 5.13 mGy, comprising of 3.52 mGy from the biopsy procedure and 1.61 mGy from the workup and post clip images, with an average of 8.4 biopsy images and 5.8 workup and post clip images. The risk from these dose levels are dependent on the age of the woman, however are not considered high for a symptomatic X-ray procedure. Keywords Mammographic dose · Biopsy · Mean glandular dose Introduction a stereo pair of images are taken to plan the biopsy proce- dure and to locate the region of interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposure Dose from Natural and Artificial Radiation
    Radiation around Us Exposure Dose from Natural and Artificial Radiation From outer Natural radiation space Artificial (in Japan) 0.3mSv radiation From radon in the air 0.48mSv From foods 0.99mSv From the ground Chest CT scan 2.4〜 0.33mSv (single scan) 12.9mSv Annual dose from natural radiation (Japanese average): 2.1 mSv Annual dose from natural radiation (global average): 2.4 mSv Tokyo to New York 0.11〜 Chest X‐ray scan (single scan) 0.06mSv Air travel (round trip) 0.16mSv mSv: millisieverts Sources: Prepared based on the 2008 UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) Report; and "Environmental Radiation in Daily Life (2011)," new edition, Nuclear Safety Research Association; ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 103, etc. Radiation around Us Comparison of Exposure Doses per Hour Comparison of ambient dose rates μSv/h 100 20.8〜41.6 In the International Space Station 10 7.40 Aircraft (Tokyo ⇔ New York) １ 1.05 Kerala (India) 0.1 0.10 Top of Mt. Fuji 0.11 Misasa Hot Spring 0.057〜0.110 Gifu Prefecture 0.01 0.028〜0.079 Tokyo Sources: Prepared based on "Radiation Exposure Management," the website of the JAXA Space Station Kibo PR Center, 2013; "Japanese Internet System for Calculation of Aviation Route Doses (JISCARD)," the website of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences; "Research on Ambient Gamma‐ray Doses in the Environment," the website of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences; Furuno, p.25‐33 of the 51st report of the Balneological Laboratory, Okayama University,
    [Show full text]
  • Dental X-Ray and Mammography Safety Washington State Department of Health Updated: 05/20/2013 and National Standards
    Definition: Radiation safety inspections of dental X-ray offices determine the type of imaging system, provide estimates of patient Dental X-ray radiation dose, measure the quality of image processing and evaluate X-ray machine performance. An indicator of unnecessarily high radiation exposure is determined by comparing average estimated and patient radiation exposure (entrance skin exposure) from dental intra- oral X-ray procedures to national averages. Mammography facility inspections provide estimates of radiation dose to the breast (glandular dose) and data on image quality score (the ability of the image to show Mammography fine detail). Indicators of mammography quality are mean glandular dose and the percent of mammography facilities issued violations for not meeting Food and Drug Administration radiation standards. Image Safety quality score is used as an indicator of the ability of the mammography X-ray system to allow accurate diagnoses to be made. Summary which is closer to the national average of 30%. The Washington State Department of Health During 1998–2006, the increase in image quality inspects X-ray facilities and equipment to in Washington paralleled a rise in the mean improve safety for patients, the general radiation dose. During 2007–2011, the mean public and healthcare workers. The goal is to dose went down due to the increasing use of achieve the best diagnostic quality image digital imaging systems. The average with the least amount of radiation exposure. mammographic image quality score continued to Dental intra-oral X-rays and mammography rise during the same period. are two common healthcare procedures using X-rays. Introduction Radiation exposure from dental intra-oral X- More than 6,150 X-ray facilities operate in rays depends primarily on the type of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Glandular Dose of Full Field Digital Mammography in Korean Women Based on Specific Factors
    BREAST IMAGING Iran J Radiol. 2018 October; 15(4):e62958. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.62958. Published online 2018 August 1. Research Article Glandular Dose of Full Field Digital Mammography in Korean Women Based on Specific Factors Seung Hee Han 1, Bong Joo Kang 1, *, Ji Eun Baek 1, Hyun Sil Lee 1 and Sung Hun Kim 1 1Department of Radiology, Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea *Corresponding author: Bong Joo Kang, Department of Radiology, Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, South Korea. Tel: +82-222586253, Fax: +82-25996771, Email: [email protected] Received 2017 October 17; Revised 2018 June 27; Accepted 2018 July 10. Abstract Background: Mammographic screening for breast cancer has been proved to reduce mortality. However, because of the potential harm of ionizing radiation, radiation dose management has been issued. Objectives: We investigated the influence of several factors on the radiation dose change in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) using a radiation dose management system in Korean women. Patients and Methods: Using an existing radiation dose management system (RadimetricsTM), radiation dose tracking, monitor- ing, and statistical analyses were conducted. Information including parameters, utilization data, and a dose report were sent to the conventional picture archiving, communication system, and radiation dose management system. We reviewed the data and com- pared the parameters (exposure, glandular dose, compression thickness, and compression force) between two different devices, among classifications (plain, spot and magnification view, and implant), and between control modes (auto and manual).
    [Show full text]
  • NCRP Composite Glossary
    NCRP Composite Glossary [updated July 2011] A absolute risk: Expression of excess risk due to exposure as the arithmetic difference between the risk among those exposed and that obtained in the absence of exposure. The resultant risk coefficient is normalized to a population base of 10,000 people and is expressed as the number of excess cases per 10,000 persons per gray per year at risk [i.e., (104 PY Gy)–1]. Absolute risk coefficients project can be modeled as a function of time since exposure (or attained age). [159] absorbed dose (D): The energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation per unit mass of irradiated material at the point of interest. The SI unit is J kg–1 with the special name gray (Gy). The special unit previously used was rad. 1 Gy = 100 rad (see mean absorbed dose). [163] absorbed dose ( D): The energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation per unit of irradiated material at the point of interest. Absorbed dose is the quotient of d∈ by dm, where d∈ is the mean energy imparted by ionizing radiation to matter in a volume element and dm is the mass of matter in that volume element: D = d∈/dm. The SI unit of absorbed dose is joule per kilogram (J kg –1), and its special name is gray (Gy). The special unit previously used was rad. 1 Gy = 100 rad (see mean absorbed dose). [158] absorbed dose (D): Quotient of d∈ by dm, where d∈ is the mean energy imparted by ionizing radiation to matter in a volume element and dm is the mass of matter in that volume element: D = d∈/dm.
    [Show full text]
  • Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) and the X-Ray Beam Half Value Layer (HVL) for a Typical Mamnograph
    4S^ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AND HEALTH Australian Radiation Laboratory Radiation Doses from Mammography in Australia by Julian E. M. Thomson, Beverley F. Young, Joseph G. Young and David R. C. Tingey ARL/TR101 • MAY 1991 AUSTRALIAN RADIATION LABORATORY RADIATION DOSES FROM MAMMOGRAPHY IN AUSTRALIA by Julian E M Thomson, Beverley F Young, Joseph G Young and David R C Tingey ARL/TR 101 LOWER PLENTY ROAD ISSN 0157-1400 YALLAMBIE VIC. 3085 MAY 1991 TEL: (03) 433 2211 ABSIKAGI During 1989-90 the Australian Radiation Laboratory conducted a postal survey of at least 90% of the mammographic facilities in Australia. The primary aim of the survey was to measure the mean glandular dose (MGD) and the X-ray beam half value layer (HVL) for a typical mamnograph. The MGD and HVL were measured with a specially designed tissue equivalent monitor which was inexpensive and robust enough to withstand the rigour of the postal service. In all, 258 mammographic centres were surveyed. It was found that for centres using film-screen imaging, the average mean glandular dose was 1.83 mGy for centres using grids and 0.84 mGy for centres not using grids. In addition to the MGD and HVL, comprehensive statistical information was collected and data is presented on the types of equipment and techniques used, the number and age of patients and demographic distribution of centres. The use of dedicated equipment using film-screen techniques was almost universal (98%). Most mammography was performed using X-ray tubes with molybdenum anodes (97%) and the use of grids was popular (80%).
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Protection in Mammography
    Health Santé Canada Canada Radiation Protection in Mammography Safety Code 33 Radiation Protection in Mammography Recommended Safety Procedures for the Use of Mammographic X-Ray Equipment Safety Code 33 Environmental Health Directorate Health Protection Branch Published by authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare Également disponible en français sous le titre : Radioprotection dans l‘exercice de la mammographie Code de sécurité 33 94-EHD-188 Our mission is to help the people of Canada Table of Contents maintain and improve their health. Health Canada Explanatory notes . 5 Acknowledgements . 7 1. Introduction . 9 © Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1995 Available in Canada through your local bookseller 2. Principal aims and scope of the Safety Code . 12 or by mail from: Canada Communications Group–Publishing 3. Responsibility and personnel. 13 Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9 3.1 Owner . 13 3.2 Radiologist . 14 Cat. H46-2/94-188E 3.3 Medical Physicist. 15 ISBN 0-660-15611-3 3.4 Quality Control Technologist . 15 3.5 X-ray Technologist . 16 4. Facility, equipment and installation requirements . 17 4.1 Facility design criteria . 17 4.1.1 General recommendations . 18 4.1.2 Shielding recommendations . 19 4.2 Equipment purchase . 20 4.2.1 Performance specification writing . 20 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data 4.2.2 Acceptance testing . 21 4.3 Radiation protection inspection . 22 Main entry under title: 5. Equipment specifications . 23 Radiation Protection in Mammography 5.1 Newly purchased medical X-ray equipment . 23 (Safety Code 33) 5.2 Existing medical X-ray equipment . 23 5.3 General requirements for Publ.
    [Show full text]