[ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED)
M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl
Fri Jul 18 09:29:02 CDT 2008
What is actually calculated using this method is not the number of atoms
that is removed from the organ (source organ) but the number of atoms
that decayed in this organ. Hence, this is the number that we're
interested in since this is contributing to the dose.
With kind regards,
Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2
RadSafe Moderator & Listowner
National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV)
Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID)
Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft
NL - 2629 JB DELFT
T: +31 (0)15 27 86575
F: +31 (0)15 27 81717
E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM
Sent: vrijdag 18 juli 2008 15:49
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question
I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine
Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The
thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to
The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity
in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the
effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This
cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions,
decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using
the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the
total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not
just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by
decay would contribute to dose.
For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of
decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed.
So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be
multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the
ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the
effective (total) removal rate constant.
Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the
radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological
half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant?
What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've
BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've
skimmed ahead to looks excellent.
The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no
one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve
the right to make mistakes.
Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health
jerry.falo at us.army.mil
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
More information about the RadSafe