Iaea Safety Standards Series
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Utilization of MOSFET Dosimeters for Clinical Measurements in Radiology
The Utilization of MOSFET Dosimeters for Clinical Measurements in Radiology David Hintenlang, Ph.D., DABR, FACMP Medical Physics Program Director J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering Medical Physics Program Conflict of interest statement: The presenter holds no financial interest in, and has no affiliation or research support from any manufacturer or distributor of MOSFET Dosimetry systems. J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering Medical Physics Program The MOSFET Dosimeter • Metal oxide silicon field effect transistor • Uniquely packaged to serve as a radiation detector – developed as early as 1974 • Applications – Radiation Therapy Dose Verification – Cosmic dose monitoring on satellites – Radiology • ~ 1998 - present J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering Medical Physics Program Attractive features • Purely electronic dosimeter • Provides immediate dose feedback • Integrates over short periods of time • Small size and portability • Simultaneous measurements (up to 20) J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering Medical Physics Program Demonstrated radiology applications – Patient dose monitoring/evaluation • Radiography • Fluoroscopic and interventional procedures • CT • Mammography J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering Medical Physics Program Principles of operation • Ionizing radiation results in the creation of electron-hole pairs • Holes migrate and build up -
Radiation Risk in Perspective
PS010-1 RADIATION RISK IN PERSPECTIVE POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY* PHYSICS SOCIETY Adopted: January 1996 Revised: August 2004 Contact: Richard J. Burk, Jr. Executive Secretary Health Physics Society Telephone: 703-790-1745 Fax: 703-790-2672 Email: [email protected] http://www.hps.org In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem1 in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem above that received from natural sources. Doses from natural background radiation in the United States average about 0.3 rem per year. A dose of 5 rem will be accumulated in the first 17 years of life and about 25 rem in a lifetime of 80 years. Estimation of health risk associated with radiation doses that are of similar magnitude as those received from natural sources should be strictly qualitative and encompass a range of hypothetical health outcomes, including the possibility of no adverse health effects at such low levels. There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high-dose exposures. However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent. In part because of the insurmountable intrinsic and methodological difficulties in determining if the health effects that are demonstrated at high radiation doses are also present at low doses, current radiation protection standards and practices are based on the premise that any radiation dose, no matter how small, may result in detrimental health effects, such as cancer and hereditary genetic damage. -
Nuclear Radiation 1. an Atom Contains Electrons, Protons and Neutrons
Nuclear Radiation 1. An atom contains electrons, protons and neutrons. Which of these particles a) are outside the nucleus b) are uncharged c) have a negative charge d) are nucleons e) are much lighter than the others? 2. Complete the table below. Name Symbol Charge What is it? Alpha particle β -1 Gamma ray An electromagnetic wave 3. How is an ionised material different from a material that is not ionised? National 5 Physics: Waves & Radiation 1 Absorption of Radiation 1. The figure below shows a Geiger tube used to detect radiation from a radioactive source. thick lead plate 0 4 2 5 start counter stop ON OFF reset Geiger tube radioactive source The following measurements were made using the apparatus above. Counts in 300 seconds Readings Average 1 No source present 102 94 110 2 Source present at fixed distance from tube a) No lead plate present 3466 3420 3410 b) Thick lead plate present 105 109 89 c) Aluminium sheet in place of the 1834 1787 1818 thick lead sheet a) Complete the table by calculating the average readings. b) Why are the readings on each line not the same? c) What can you say from the table about the effect on the radiation of: i. The lead plate? ii. The aluminium plate? d) Why is it possible to say from the readings that: i. gamma radiation is emitted by the source? ii. alpha and beta radiation might be emitted by the source? e) What further tests could you make using this arrangement to find out whether or not the source emits alpha radiation? National 5 Physics: Waves & Radiation 2 2. -
Experiment "Gamma Dosimetry and Dose Rate Determination" Instruction for Experiment "Gamma Dosimetry and Dose Rate Determination"
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY DRESDEN Institute of Power Engineering Training Reactor Reactor Training Course Experiment "Gamma Dosimetry and Dose Rate Determination" Instruction for Experiment "Gamma Dosimetry and Dose Rate Determination" Content: 1 .... Motivation 2..... Theoretical Background 2.1... Properties of Ionising Radiation and Interactions of Gamma Radiation 2.2. Detection of Ionising Radiation 2.3. Quantities and Units of Dosimetry 3..... Procedure of the Experiment 3.1. Commissioning and Calibration of the Dosimeter Thermo FH40G 3.2. Commissioning and Calibration of the Dosimeter Berthold LB 133-1 3.3. Commissioning and Calibration of the Dosimeter STEP RGD 27091 3.4. Setup of the Experiment 3.4.1. Measurement of Dose Rate in Various Distances from the Radiation Source 3.4.2. Measurement of Dose Rate behind Radiation Shielding 3.5. Measurement of Dose Rate at the open Reactor Channel 4..... Evaluation of Measuring Results Figures: Fig. 1: Composition of the attenuation coefficient µ of γ-radiation in lead Fig. 2: Design of an ionisation chamber Fig. 3: Classification and legal limit values of radiation protection areas Fig. 4: Setup of the experiment (issued: January 2019) - 1 - 1. Motivation The experiment aims on familiarising with the methods of calibrating different detectors for determination of the dose and the dose rate. Furthermore, the dose rate and the activity in the vicinity of an enclosed source of ionising radiation (Cs-137) will be determined taking into account the background radiation and the measurement accuracy. Additionally, the experiment focuses on the determination of the dose rate of a shielded source as well as on the calculation of the required thickness of the shielding protection layer for meeting the permissible maximum dose rate. -
Copyright by Arthur Bryan Crawford 2004
Copyright by Arthur Bryan Crawford 2004 The Dissertation Committee for Arthur Bryan Crawford Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Evaluation of the Impact of Non -Uniform Neutron Radiation Fields on the Do se Received by Glove Box Radiation Workers Committee: Steven Biegalski, Supervisor Sheldon Landsberger John Howell Ofodike Ezekoye Sukesh Aghara Evaluation of the Impact of Non -Uniform Neutron Radiation Fields on the Dose Received by Glove Box Radiation Workers by Arthur Bryan Crawford, B.S., M.S. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December, 2004 Dedication I was born to goodly parents Harvey E. Crawford and Johnnie Lee Young Crawford Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Sheldon Landsberger for his vision in starting a distance learning program at the University of Texas at Austin and for his support and encouragement on this quest. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Steven Biegalski, for his support and encouragement even though the topic area was new to him. I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for finding the time to review this dissertation. To the staff of the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory I say thank you for your kindness and support during those brief times that I was on cam pus. A special thanks to my past and present group leaders, David Seidel, Eric McNamara, and Bill Eisele and my Division Leader, Lee McAtee, at Los Alamos National Laboratory, for their support in being allowed to use time and material resources at the Lab oratory and for financial support in the form of tuition reimbursement and travel expenses. -
Occupational Radiation Protection Record-Keeping and Reporting Guide
DOE G 441.1-11 (formerly G-10 CFR 835/H1) 05-20-99 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION RECORD-KEEPING AND REPORTING GUIDE for use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) DOE G 441.1-11 i 05-20-99 CONTENTS CONTENTS PAGE 1. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY ........................................................ 1 2. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................ 2 3. DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 3 4. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE ......................................................... 4 4.1 RECORDS TO BE GENERATED AND MAINTAINED ................................ 4 4.1.1 Individual Monitoring and Dose Records ........................................ 4 4.1.2 Monitoring and Workplace Records ............................................ 8 4.1.3 Administrative Records .................................................... 11 4.2 REPORTS ................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Reports to Individuals ...................................................... 16 4.2.2 Reports of Planned Special Exposures ......................................... 17 4.3 PRIVACY ACT CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 17 4.3.1 Informing Individuals ...................................................... 17 4.3.2 Identifying Individuals ..................................................... 17 -
Development of Chemical Dosimeters Development Of
SUDANSUDAN ACADEMYAGADEMY OFOF SCIENCES(SAS)SGIENGES(SAS) ATOMICATOMIC ENERGYEhTERGYRESEARCHESRESEARCHES COORDINATIONCOORDII\rATI ON COUNCILCOUNCIL - Development of Chemical Dosimeters A dissertation Submitted in a partial Fulfillment of the Requirement forfbr Diploma Degree in Nuclear Science (Chemistry) By FareedFadl Alla MersaniMergani SupervisorDr K.S.Adam MurchMarch 2006 J - - - CONTENTS Subject Page -I - DedicationDedication........ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I Acknowledgement ... '" ... ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... ... ... '" ... '" ....... .. 11II Abstract ... ... ... '" ... ... ... '" ... ... ... ... -..... ... ... ... ... ... ..... III -I Ch-lch-1 DosimetryDosimefry - 1-1t-l IntroductionLntroduction . 1I - 1-2t-2 Principle of Dosimetry '" '" . 2 1-3l-3 DosimetryDosimefiySystems . 3J 1-3-1l-3-l primary standard dosimeters '" . 4 - 1-3-2l-3-Z Reference standard dosimeters ... .. " . 4 1-3-3L-3-3 Transfer standard dosimeters ... ... '" . 4 1-3-4t-3-4 Routine dosimeters . 5 1-4I-4 Measurement of absorbed dose . 6 1-5l-5 Calibration of DosimetryDosimetrvsystemsvstem '" . 6 1-6l-6 Transit dose effects . 8 Ch-2ch-2 Requirements of chemical dosimeters 2-12-l Introduction ... ... ... .............................................. 111l 2-2 Developing of chemical dosimeters ... ... .. ....... ... .. ..... 12t2 2-3 Classification of Dosimetry methods.methods .......................... 14l4 2-4 RequirementsRequiremsnts of ideal chemical dosimeters ,. ... 15 2-5 Types of chemical system . -
The International Commission on Radiological Protection: Historical Overview
Topical report The International Commission on Radiological Protection: Historical overview The ICRP is revising its basic recommendations by Dr H. Smith Within a few weeks of Roentgen's discovery of gamma rays; 1.5 roentgen per working week for radia- X-rays, the potential of the technique for diagnosing tion, affecting only superficial tissues; and 0.03 roentgen fractures became apparent, but acute adverse effects per working week for neutrons. (such as hair loss, erythema, and dermatitis) made hospital personnel aware of the need to avoid over- Recommendations in the 1950s exposure. Similar undesirable acute effects were By then, it was accepted that the roentgen was reported shortly after the discovery of radium and its inappropriate as a measure of exposure. In 1953, the medical applications. Notwithstanding these observa- ICRU recommended that limits of exposure should be tions, protection of staff exposed to X-rays and gamma based on consideration of the energy absorbed in tissues rays from radium was poorly co-ordinated. and introduced the rad (radiation absorbed dose) as a The British X-ray and Radium Protection Committee unit of absorbed dose (that is, energy imparted by radia- and the American Roentgen Ray Society proposed tion to a unit mass of tissue). In 1954, the ICRP general radiation protection recommendations in the introduced the rem (roentgen equivalent man) as a unit early 1920s. In 1925, at the First International Congress of absorbed dose weighted for the way different types of of Radiology, the need for quantifying exposure was radiation distribute energy in tissue (called the dose recognized. As a result, in 1928 the roentgen was equivalent in 1966). -
MIRD Pamphlet No. 22 - Radiobiology and Dosimetry of Alpha- Particle Emitters for Targeted Radionuclide Therapy
Alpha-Particle Emitter Dosimetry MIRD Pamphlet No. 22 - Radiobiology and Dosimetry of Alpha- Particle Emitters for Targeted Radionuclide Therapy George Sgouros1, John C. Roeske2, Michael R. McDevitt3, Stig Palm4, Barry J. Allen5, Darrell R. Fisher6, A. Bertrand Brill7, Hong Song1, Roger W. Howell8, Gamal Akabani9 1Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD 2Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood IL 3Medicine and Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York NY 4International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria 5Centre for Experimental Radiation Oncology, St. George Cancer Centre, Kagarah, Australia 6Radioisotopes Program, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland WA 7Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 8Division of Radiation Research, Department of Radiology, New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark NJ 9Food and Drug Administration, Rockville MD In collaboration with the SNM MIRD Committee: Wesley E. Bolch, A Bertrand Brill, Darrell R. Fisher, Roger W. Howell, Ruby F. Meredith, George Sgouros (Chairman), Barry W. Wessels, Pat B. Zanzonico Correspondence and reprint requests to: George Sgouros, Ph.D. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science CRB II 4M61 / 1550 Orleans St Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine Baltimore MD 21231 410 614 0116 (voice); 413 487-3753 (FAX) [email protected] (e-mail) - 1 - Alpha-Particle Emitter Dosimetry INDEX A B S T R A C T......................................................................................................................... -
Rapport Du Groupe De Travail N° 9 Du European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS) – Coordinated Network for Radiation Dosimetry (CONRAD – Contrat CE Fp6-12684)»
- Rapport CEA-R-6220 - CEA Saclay Direction de la Recherche Technologique Laboratoire d’Intégration des Systèmes et des Technologies Département des Technologies du Capteur et du Signal Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY IN MEDECINE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP N° 9 OF THE EUROPEAN RADIATION DOSIMETRY GROUP (EURADOS) COORDINATED NETWORK FOR RADIATION DOSIMETRY (CONRAD – CONTRACT EC N° FP6-12684) - Juin 2009 - RAPPORT CEA-R-6220 – «Dosimétrie pour la radioprotection en milieu médical – Rapport du groupe de travail n° 9 du European Radiation Dosimetry group (EURADOS) – Coordinated Network for Radiation Dosimetry (CONRAD – contrat CE fp6-12684)» Résumé - Ce rapport présente les résultats obtenus dans le cadre des travaux du WP7 (dosimétrie en radioprotection du personnel médical) de l’action coordonnée CONRAD (Coordinated Network for Radiation Dosimetry) subventionné par la 6ème FP de la communauté européenne. Ce projet a été coordonné par EURADOS (European RadiationPortection group). EURADOS est une organisation fondée en 1981 pour promouvoir la compréhension scientifique et le développement des techniques de la dosimétrie des rayonnements ionisant dans les domaines de la radioprotection, de la radiobiologie, de la thérapie radiologique et du diagnostic médical ; cela en encourageant la collaboration entre les laboratoires européens. Le WP7 de CONRAD coordonne et favorise la recherche européenne pour l'évaluation des expositions professionnelles du personnel sur les lieux de travail de radiologie thérapeutique et diagnostique. La recherche est organisée en sous-groupes couvrant trois domaines spécifiques : 1. Dosimétrie d'extrémité en radiologie interventionnelle et médecine nucléaire : ce sous- groupe coordonne des investigations dans les domaines spécifiques des hôpitaux et des études de répartition des doses dans différentes parties des mains, des bras, des jambes et des pieds ; 2. -
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Radiation Protection* by J.U
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Radiation Protection* by J.U. Ahmed and H.T. Daw Cost-benefit analysis is a tool to find the best way of allocating resources. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), in its publication No. 26, recommends this method in justifying radiation exposure practices and in keeping exposures as low as is reasonably achievable, economic and social considerations being taken into account 1. BASIC PHILOSOPHY A proposed practice involving radiation exposure can be justified by considering its benefits and its costs The aim is to ensure a net benefit. This can be expressed as: B = V-(P + X +Y) where: B is the net benefit; V is the gross benefit; P is the basic production cost, excluding protection; X is the cost of achieving the selected level of protection; and Y is the cost assigned to the detriment involved in the practice. If B is negative, the practice cannot be justified. The practice becomes increasingly justifiable at increasing positive values of B However, some of the benefits and detriments are intangible or subjective and not easily quantified. While P and X costs can be readily expressed in monetary terms, V may contain components difficult to quantify. The quantification of Y is the most problematic and probably the most controversial issue. Thus value judgements have to be introduced into the cost-benefit analysis. Such judgements should reflect the interests of society and therefore require the participation of competent authorities and governmental bodies as well as representative views of various sectors of the public. Once a practice has been justified by a cost-benefit analysis, the radiation exposure of individuals and populations resulting from that practice should be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account (i.e. -
Dosimeter Comparison Chart
DOSIMETER COMPARISON CHART Instadose®+ Instadose® EPD or APD TLD Dosimeter OSL Dosimeter Dosimeter Dosimeter Dosimeter Cost $ $ $ $$$$ Photon Photon Photon Photon Photon Beta Beta Neutron DEEP - Hp(10) DEEP - Hp(10) Neutron Neutron Measurements SHALLOW - Hp(0.07) SHALLOW - Hp(0.07) DEEP - Hp(10) DEEP - Hp(10) DEEP - Hp(10) SHALLOW - Hp(0.07) SHALLOW - Hp(0.07) SHALLOW - Hp(0.07) EYE - Hp(3) EYE - Hp(3) Read Out Accumulated Accumulated Accumulated Accumulated Accumulated (On-Demand) (On-Demand) (Lab Processing) (Lab Processing) & Dose Rate Unlimited On- Demand Dose Reads Re-Calibration Required Wearer Engagement High High Low Low High Online Management Portal (Website) Provider Dependent NVLAP Highly manual Accreditation process Immediate Online Badge Reassignment Provider Dependent Archiving Dose (Wearer) Meets Legal Highly manual Dose of Record process for meeting Requirements accreditation NO Collection/ Must be collected to Redistribution meet legal dose of Required record requirements Read/View Dose Data on Your Smartphone Automatic (Calendar-set) Dose Reads Wireless Radio Transmission of USB plug-in to PC Dose Data Communication Immediate High Dose Alerts Upon Successful Communication Instadose Dosimeters use direct ion storage (DIS) TLD (Thermoluminescent OSL (Optically EPDs (Electronic Descriptions technology to measure ionizing radiation through Dosimeter) measures Stimulated Personal Dosimeter) interactions that take place between the non- ionizing radiation Luminescence or APDs (Active volatile analog memory cell, which is surrounded exposure by assessing Dosimeter) measures Personal Dosimeter) by a gas filled ion chamber with a floating gate the intensity of visible ionizing radiation makes use of a diode that creates an electric charge enabling ionized light emitted by a crystal exposure when radiation (silicon or PIN, etc.) to particles to be measured by the change in the inside the detector when energy deposited in the detect “charges” induced electric charge created.