Radiation Protection Practice/Evaluation

The radiation protection program at any institution must not be a static entity, but one that is continually being scrutinized and evaluated to introduce continuous quality improvements. The healthiest programs will have a chief Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), perhaps an assistant RSO, and a number of other professional HPs and HP technicians, and, in addition, an oversight board comprised of a number of persons with HP and other scientific expertise. This board should meet periodically (e.g., monthly or quarterly) to receive a report composed by the RSO over the period’s activities, incidents, and program changes.


Radiation Protection Radioactive Material Uranyl Nitrate Dose Conversion Factor Equivalent Dose Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. J. Strom, R. Harty, E. E. Hickey, R. L. Kathren(a), J. B. Martin, and M. S. Peffers, Collective dose as a performance measure for occupational radiation protection programs: Issues and recommendations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Report PNNL-11934/UC-610 (1998).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. B. Chilton, J. K. Shultis, and R. E. Faw, Principles of Radiation Shielding (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. T. Price, C. C. Horton, and K. T. Spinney, Radiation Shielding (Pergamon, Oxford, 1957).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report 147, Structural Shielding Design for Medical X-ray Imaging Facilities (NCRP, Bethesda, MD, 2004).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Turner, Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection (Pergamon Press, New York, 1986).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thermal diffusion length is the characteristic distance between the point at which a neutron becomes thermal and the point of its final capture.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Cember, Introduction to Health Physics, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    All survey diagrams graciously provided by personal communication from David Burkett, Vanderbilt University Radiation Safety Office.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP 37 Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Optimisation of Radiation Protection (1983).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP 55 Optimisation of Decision-making in Radiological Protection (1989).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG 1535, Ingestion of Phosphorus-32 at MIT, Cambridge, MA Identified on August 19 (1995).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dr. Ken Skrable, a well-known expert in internal dose models and calculations, was once heard to quip that if he had a measurement of activity from a personal air sampler, “Well at least I have a good estimate of what activity was not taken up by the worker!”Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. A. Potter, Intake retention fractions developed from models used in the determi-nation of dose coefficients developed for ICRP Publication 68- particulate inhala-tion. Health Physics 83 (5), 593-789 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    So, in the reality of practice, the four factor formula becomes a five factor formula, but who’s counting?Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. P. McLaughlin, S. P. Monahan, L. Norman, N. L. Pruvost, V. V. Frolov, B. G. Ryazano, and V. I. Sviridov, A Review of Criticality Accidents, 2000 revision (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2003

Personalised recommendations