Dosimetry Radiation Measurement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Publications Digest Featuring LANDAUER Scientists Dosimetry Radiation Measurement Christopher Passmore, CHP Vice President Dosimetry Services 1. C. Passmore and M. Kirr, Occupational Dose Trends in Dental Industry, Health Physics Society, HPS 51st Midyear Meeting, February 2018 2. C. Passmore and M. Kirr, Dosimetric Characteristics of a Novel Lens of the Eye Dosimeter, Health Physics Society, HPS 51st Midyear Meeting, February 2018 3. C. Passmore, Data Show Clinical Health Care Industry Representatives Face Higher Than Expected Radiation Dose and Require Monitoring, Health Physics Society, HPS 62nd Annual Meeting, July 2017 4. C. Passmore, Hp(3) Comes into Focus Views from a Health Physicist, NCRP & GNYCHPS Meeting, Lens of Eye Guidance – Next Steps: A Stakeholder Workshop on Implementation and Research, August 2016 5. C. Passmore, M. Kirr, S. Murthy, L. Harbison, Improvements in Radiation Monitoring Trending, Health Physics Society, 61st Annual Meeting, July 2016 6. C. Passmore and M. Kirr, Neutron Field Characterization Study of Dry Cask Storage ISFSI Campaign, Health Physics Society, HPS 47th Midyear Meeting, February 2014 7. C. Passmore, Neutron Field Characterization at Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant, 2013 International Dosimetry & Records Symposium, June 2013 8. C. Passmore, Nuclear Power Plant Data Analysis for InLight LDR Model 2 Dosimeter, International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA 13), May 2012 9. C. Passmore and M. Kirr, Neutron Response Characterization of An OSL Neutron Dosimeter, Radiation Protection Dosimetry Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2011) 144(1-4): 155-160 10. C. Passmore and M. Kirr, A Method to Characterize Site, Urban and Regional Ambient Background Radiation, Radiation Protection Dosimetry Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2011) 144(1-4): 645-650 11. C. Passmore, M. Million, M. Kirr, J. Bartz, M. S. Akselrod, A. Devita, and J. Berard, Neutron Field Characterization at Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant, Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2011) 150(2): 231-238 These sources are provided as helpful references. Please access articles directly from the publications cited. © 2018 LANDAUER 50689 LANDAUER: Setting the Pace of Radiation Safety™ .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Radiation Risk Assessment
PS008-1 RISK ASSESSMENT POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY* Adopted: July 1993 Revised: April 1995 Contact: Brett Burk Executive Secretary Health Physics Society Telephone: 703-790-1745 Fax: 703-790-2672 Email: [email protected] http://www.hps.org Risk assessment is the process of describing and characterizing the nature and magnitude of a particular risk and includes gathering, assembling, and analyzing information on the risk. Risk assessment is a foundation of risk management and risk communication. In order to effectively manage risks and to communicate risks to the public, a clear understanding of the nature and magnitude of the risk at relevant exposure levels is necessary. The Health Physics Society has become increasingly concerned with the erratic application of risk assessment in the establishment of radiation protection regulations. These regulations are inconsistent, poorly coordinated among federal agencies, and inadequately communicated to the public. Examples of problem areas include (1) 100- to 1,000-fold discrepancies in permissible exposure levels among various regulations, all allegedly based on the same scientific risk-assessment data, and (2) proposed expenditures of billions of federal and private dollars to clean up radioactively contaminated federal and commercial sites without careful consideration of the actual public health benefits to be achieved. The Health Physics Society recognizes that there are many questions and uncertainties associated with the risk-assessment process and that data may be incomplete or missing. Accordingly, limitations in risk assessment must be fully recognized and made explicit in establishing regulations for the protection of the public health. The Health Physics Society supports risk assessments that are consistent, of high technical quality, unbiased, and based on sound, objective science.
[Show full text]
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
[Show full text]
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.
[Show full text]
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.
[Show full text]
HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY POLICY on EXPENDITURE of FUNDS for IONIZING RADIATION HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES Approved by the Board of Directors: November 1998
HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY Specialists in Radiation Safety HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY POLICY ON EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR IONIZING RADIATION HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES Approved by the Board of Directors: November 1998 PREMISE: 1. Funding resources for studying the health effects of human exposure to ionizing radiation are limited. 2. The number of research and study activities related to studying and understanding the health effects of ionizing radiation exceeds the funding resources available. 3. The highest priority of funding work on ionizing radiation health effects should be work with a reasonable likelihood of defining, or significantly increasing the understanding of, the carcinogenic response in the range of occupational and public exposures. 4. A second priority of funding work on ionizing radiation health effects should be work assisting in the establishment of reasonable protection criteria which do not result in an inappropriate expenditure of public funds for purported protection. This is necessary for the period in which there is a lack of definitive knowledge or understanding of the dose response. 5. Epidemiological studies alone will not provide definitive evidence of the existence or non-existence of carcinogenic effects due to low dose or low dose-rate radiation. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Do not fund epidemiological studies of exposed populations which have low statistical power and are unable to detect health effects with a reasonable statistical confidence (e.g., 90% or higher) based on the current risk estimates. 2. Do not fund epidemiological studies on populations for which there is insufficient data to properly control for known confounding factors, such as smoking history, exposure to other carcinogens, genetic pre-disposition, etc.
[Show full text]
Uranium Fact Sheet
Fact Sheet Adopted: December 2018 Health Physics Society Specialists in Radiation Safety 1 Uranium What is uranium? Uranium is a naturally occurring metallic element that has been present in the Earth’s crust since formation of the planet. Like many other minerals, uranium was deposited on land by volcanic action, dissolved by rainfall, and in some places, carried into underground formations. In some cases, geochemical conditions resulted in its concentration into “ore bodies.” Uranium is a common element in Earth’s crust (soil, rock) and in seawater and groundwater. Uranium has 92 protons in its nucleus. The isotope2 238U has 146 neutrons, for a total atomic weight of approximately 238, making it the highest atomic weight of any naturally occurring element. It is not the most dense of elements, but its density is almost twice that of lead. Uranium is radioactive and in nature has three primary isotopes with different numbers of neutrons. Natural uranium, 238U, constitutes over 99% of the total mass or weight, with 0.72% 235U, and a very small amount of 234U. An unstable nucleus that emits some form of radiation is defined as radioactive. The emitted radiation is called radioactivity, which in this case is ionizing radiation—meaning it can interact with other atoms to create charged atoms known as ions. Uranium emits alpha particles, which are ejected from the nucleus of the unstable uranium atom. When an atom emits radiation such as alpha or beta particles or photons such as x rays or gamma rays, the material is said to be undergoing radioactive decay (also called radioactive transformation).
[Show full text]
HPS Publications Style Guide
Health Physics Society Publications Style Guide January 2019 Table of Contents I. General Guidelines for HPS Documents and Web Pages ................................................... 2 A. Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 2 B. Capitalization ............................................................................................................. 3 C. Format ........................................................................................................................ 3 D. Internet ....................................................................................................................... 4 E. Numbers, Units, and Symbols ................................................................................... 4 1. Numbers ............................................................................................................... 4 2. Units of measure .................................................................................................. 5 3. Symbols................................................................................................................ 6 F. Punctuation ................................................................................................................ 6 G. Radionuclides and Elements ...................................................................................... 8 H. References, Citations, Resources, Footnotes, and Press Releases ............................. 8 1. References
[Show full text]
Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives SP001-1
Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives SP001-1 Published by Health Physics Society 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd. Suite 402 McLean, VA 22101 Disclaimer Statements and opinions expressed in publications of the Health Physics Society or in presentations given during its regular meetings are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Health Physics Society, the editors, or the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. The editor(s), publisher, and Society disclaim any responsibility or liability for such material and do not guarantee, warrant, or endorse any product or service mentioned. Official positions of the Society are established only by its Board of Directors. Copyright © 2017 by the Health Physics Society All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America SP001-1, revised 2017 Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives Table of Contents Foreword……………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 2 A Primer on Ionizing Radiation……………………………………………………………………………... 6 Growing Importance of Nuclear Technology in Medicine……………………………………….. 16 Distinguishing Risk: Use and Overuse of Radiation in Medicine………………………………. 22 Nuclear Energy: The Environmental Context…………………………………………………………. 27 Nuclear Power in the United States: Safety, Emergency Response Planning, and Continuous Learning…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33 Radiation Risk: Used Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Disposal………………………... 42 Radiation Risk: Communicating to the Public………………………………………………………… 45 After Fukushima: Implications for Public Policy and Communications……………………. 51 Appendix 1: Radiation Units and Measurements……………………………………………………. 57 Appendix 2: Half-Life of Some Radionuclides…………………………………………………………. 58 Bernard L.
[Show full text]
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
[Show full text]
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 .
[Show full text]
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).
[Show full text]
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.........................................................................................................................
[Show full text]