[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Conversion of Exposure to Dose



This is true. However, in many (most? all?) case the 1 R ~ 1 rad ~ 1 rem ~

10 mSv approximation is adequate for radiation protection purposes. For more

accurate effective dose or effective dose equivalent estimates, a more

sophisticated approach is needed. I've used the organ dose tables from FGR

13, "External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil,"

(EPA402R93081) to estimate roentgen to rem (effective dose equivalent) when

necessary.



Jerry Falo



How beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterwards. - Spanish

proverb



The statements herein are entirely the fault of the author and in no way

should be interpreted as official statements of any person or organization

unless otherwise noted.



Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP

Henry M Jackson Foundation Professional Associate

United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine

Health Physics Program

gerald.falo@apg.amedd.army.mil





-----Original Message-----

From: Leo M. Lowe - SENES Consultants Limited [mailto:llowe@senes.on.ca]

Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 6:24 PM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Conversion of Exposure to Dose





In recent messages, some people in converting from the "old" units to SI 

units assume a one-to-one relationship between exposure in R and rem (or 

0.01 Sv).  For example, an instrument reading an exposure rate of 100 mR/h 

is stated as being the same as 100 mrem/h or  1 mSv/h - this is incorrect.



The conversion depends on the gamma energy and irradiation geometry because 

of self-shielding by the body.  For example, for gamma radiation from 

uranium-series radionuclides in the ground, the relationship is 

approximately 100 mR/h = 60 mrem/h = 0.6 mSv/h, where the mrem and 

mSv  units are effective whole body doses i.e. the doses that are usually 

cited in regulated radiation limits.



Survey meters that read in units of mrem/h or mSv/h often don't make this 

distinction.   In fact, they can't for all circumstances.  At best, they 

can give tissue equivalent dose rate (e.g. plastic detectors), but not  the 

effective whole body dose.





Leo M. Lowe, Ph.D.

Principal, Senior Health and

Environmental Physicist



SENES Consultants Limited

121 Granton Drive, Unit 12

Richmond Hill, Ontario

Canada L4B 3N4

Tel:    (905) 764-9380

Fax:    (905) 764-9386

e-mail: llowe@senes.on.ca

WWW:    www.senes.on.ca



This transmission is intended only for the addressee and may contain 

PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL information.  Any unauthorized disclosure, use 

or retention is strictly prohibited.  SENES does not accept liability for 

any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in contents or 

attachments.  Information is provided for use "as is" by the 

addressee.  Revised documents must not be represented as SENES work 

product, without express, written permission of a SENES Director.



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/