How much radiation do nuclear physics experiments expose researchers to nowadays? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionHow much radiation exposure in the US was caused by the 105 nuke tests in the Pacific?Nuclear physics from perturbative QFTDrop a star in a riverIn the Iranian nuclear deal, how can IAEA detect nuclear activity after 24 days?How much damage do high energy experiments impose on the LHC detection equipment?Cesium-137 From Fukushima MeltdownCan We “Tune” The Radiation Output Of a Nuclear Device.?How would a nuclear explosion look in vacuum?In discussions of nuclear radiation, why comparitively scant mention of neutron radiation?Is there a link between nuclear radiation and sound?
"Seemed to had" is it correct?
Disable hyphenation for an entire paragraph
Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?
ListPlot join points by nearest neighbor rather than order
Difference between these two cards?
Do you forfeit tax refunds/credits if you aren't required to and don't file by April 15?
Is there a "higher Segal conjecture"?
Doubts about chords
Java 8 stream max() function argument type Comparator vs Comparable
How can I make names more distinctive without making them longer?
Why aren't air breathing engines used as small first stages
Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg?
Proof involving the spectral radius and Jordan Canonical form
Storing hydrofluoric acid before the invention of plastics
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
Why one of virtual NICs called bond0?
Is it true to say that an hosting provider's DNS server is what links the entire hosting environment to ICANN?
If 'B is more likely given A', then 'A is more likely given B'
What is the correct way to use the pinch test for dehydration?
What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?
Antler Helmet: Can it work?
How to find all the available tools in macOS terminal?
What are the pros and cons of Aerospike nosecones?
Is there a documented rationale why the House Ways and Means chairman can demand tax info?
How much radiation do nuclear physics experiments expose researchers to nowadays?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionHow much radiation exposure in the US was caused by the 105 nuke tests in the Pacific?Nuclear physics from perturbative QFTDrop a star in a riverIn the Iranian nuclear deal, how can IAEA detect nuclear activity after 24 days?How much damage do high energy experiments impose on the LHC detection equipment?Cesium-137 From Fukushima MeltdownCan We “Tune” The Radiation Output Of a Nuclear Device.?How would a nuclear explosion look in vacuum?In discussions of nuclear radiation, why comparitively scant mention of neutron radiation?Is there a link between nuclear radiation and sound?
$begingroup$
I am curious about how much radiation do experimental nuclear physics researchers/students suffer in nowadays research environment. I know this may be a dumb question, but I have can found answer nowhere.
experimental-physics nuclear-physics radiation
edited 7 hours ago
Shufflepants
316115
asked 13 hours ago
ConwLConwL
514
New contributor
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am curious about how much radiation do experimental nuclear physics researchers/students suffer in nowadays research environment. I know this may be a dumb question, but I have can found answer nowhere.
experimental-physics nuclear-physics radiation
edited 7 hours ago
Shufflepants
316115
asked 13 hours ago
ConwLConwL
514
New contributor
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
Well, that'll depend on what you mean by "nuclear physics experiments". The term can describe accelerator experiments, working with research reactors, or doing chemistry research with radioactive elements, among others, and each will have its own particular safety profile. The answer then ranges from "negligible so long as reasonable practices are followed" through to "about the maximum allowed by health-and-safety regulations, with radiation-dosage considerations dictating much of the experimental design".
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As it stands, the question is unanswerable (or, rather, has no single unique answer), which is probably one of the core reasons why you couldn't find concrete numbers.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EmilioPisanty I am completely new to this field. Thanks a lot that you let me know where to start and get to know about these things :)
$endgroup$
– ConwL
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As @EmilioPisanty said, it is difficult to quantify in the current state of your question. But generally speaking, physicists are to exposed to next-to-nothing in nearly all experiments which involve radioactive material. This is mostly due to appropriate protection. If you are not a physicist but a professional sports player and you regularly require CT scans, your exposure to radioactivity is far higher.
$endgroup$
– lmr
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am curious about how much radiation do experimental nuclear physics researchers/students suffer in nowadays research environment. I know this may be a dumb question, but I have can found answer nowhere.
experimental-physics nuclear-physics radiation
edited 7 hours ago
Shufflepants
316115
asked 13 hours ago
ConwLConwL
514
New contributor
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I am curious about how much radiation do experimental nuclear physics researchers/students suffer in nowadays research environment. I know this may be a dumb question, but I have can found answer nowhere.
experimental-physics nuclear-physics radiation
experimental-physics nuclear-physics radiation
edited 7 hours ago
Shufflepants
316115
asked 13 hours ago
ConwLConwL
514
New contributor
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 7 hours ago
Shufflepants
316115
asked 13 hours ago
ConwLConwL
514
New contributor
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 7 hours ago
Shufflepants
316115
edited 7 hours ago
Shufflepants
316115
edited 7 hours ago
Shufflepants
316115
316115
asked 13 hours ago
ConwLConwL
514
New contributor
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 13 hours ago
ConwLConwL
514
asked 13 hours ago
ConwLConwL
514
514
New contributor
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
ConwL is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
7
$begingroup$
Well, that'll depend on what you mean by "nuclear physics experiments". The term can describe accelerator experiments, working with research reactors, or doing chemistry research with radioactive elements, among others, and each will have its own particular safety profile. The answer then ranges from "negligible so long as reasonable practices are followed" through to "about the maximum allowed by health-and-safety regulations, with radiation-dosage considerations dictating much of the experimental design".
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As it stands, the question is unanswerable (or, rather, has no single unique answer), which is probably one of the core reasons why you couldn't find concrete numbers.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EmilioPisanty I am completely new to this field. Thanks a lot that you let me know where to start and get to know about these things :)
$endgroup$
– ConwL
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As @EmilioPisanty said, it is difficult to quantify in the current state of your question. But generally speaking, physicists are to exposed to next-to-nothing in nearly all experiments which involve radioactive material. This is mostly due to appropriate protection. If you are not a physicist but a professional sports player and you regularly require CT scans, your exposure to radioactivity is far higher.
$endgroup$
– lmr
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
11 hours ago
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
Well, that'll depend on what you mean by "nuclear physics experiments". The term can describe accelerator experiments, working with research reactors, or doing chemistry research with radioactive elements, among others, and each will have its own particular safety profile. The answer then ranges from "negligible so long as reasonable practices are followed" through to "about the maximum allowed by health-and-safety regulations, with radiation-dosage considerations dictating much of the experimental design".
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As it stands, the question is unanswerable (or, rather, has no single unique answer), which is probably one of the core reasons why you couldn't find concrete numbers.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EmilioPisanty I am completely new to this field. Thanks a lot that you let me know where to start and get to know about these things :)
$endgroup$
– ConwL
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As @EmilioPisanty said, it is difficult to quantify in the current state of your question. But generally speaking, physicists are to exposed to next-to-nothing in nearly all experiments which involve radioactive material. This is mostly due to appropriate protection. If you are not a physicist but a professional sports player and you regularly require CT scans, your exposure to radioactivity is far higher.
$endgroup$
– lmr
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
11 hours ago
7
7
$begingroup$
Well, that'll depend on what you mean by "nuclear physics experiments". The term can describe accelerator experiments, working with research reactors, or doing chemistry research with radioactive elements, among others, and each will have its own particular safety profile. The answer then ranges from "negligible so long as reasonable practices are followed" through to "about the maximum allowed by health-and-safety regulations, with radiation-dosage considerations dictating much of the experimental design".
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, that'll depend on what you mean by "nuclear physics experiments". The term can describe accelerator experiments, working with research reactors, or doing chemistry research with radioactive elements, among others, and each will have its own particular safety profile. The answer then ranges from "negligible so long as reasonable practices are followed" through to "about the maximum allowed by health-and-safety regulations, with radiation-dosage considerations dictating much of the experimental design".
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
As it stands, the question is unanswerable (or, rather, has no single unique answer), which is probably one of the core reasons why you couldn't find concrete numbers.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As it stands, the question is unanswerable (or, rather, has no single unique answer), which is probably one of the core reasons why you couldn't find concrete numbers.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EmilioPisanty I am completely new to this field. Thanks a lot that you let me know where to start and get to know about these things :)
$endgroup$
– ConwL
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EmilioPisanty I am completely new to this field. Thanks a lot that you let me know where to start and get to know about these things :)
$endgroup$
– ConwL
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As @EmilioPisanty said, it is difficult to quantify in the current state of your question. But generally speaking, physicists are to exposed to next-to-nothing in nearly all experiments which involve radioactive material. This is mostly due to appropriate protection. If you are not a physicist but a professional sports player and you regularly require CT scans, your exposure to radioactivity is far higher.
$endgroup$
– lmr
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As @EmilioPisanty said, it is difficult to quantify in the current state of your question. But generally speaking, physicists are to exposed to next-to-nothing in nearly all experiments which involve radioactive material. This is mostly due to appropriate protection. If you are not a physicist but a professional sports player and you regularly require CT scans, your exposure to radioactivity is far higher.
$endgroup$
– lmr
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
11 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In the US, the NRC limits whole-body occupational exposure to 5 rem/year. Specific labs or employers may impose much lower limits on their workers. For comparison, a CT scan is about 1 rem, and natural background is about 0.2-0.7 rem. There is not really any typical dose for people working on experiments. Depending on what their work is and how the experiment is set up, someone could have a dose that is not measurably higher than background. Or their measured dose could mount to the level where they're warned that they're nearing their limit for the year, in which case they might have to find someone else to whom to hand off the task that's causing all the exposure.
answered 13 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.3k6165313
$endgroup$
13
$begingroup$
For me to be authorized to receive 5 rem/year would require the signature of the Secretary of Energy. My current authorization is not to exceed 100 mrem/yr. Over the 30 odd years I've worked on ion accelerators and pulsed power I think I exceeded background once (and it wasn't quite clear how - likely a TLD read error), so something like 20 mrem above background total over those 30 years.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JonCuster: Thanks for the comment. I've edited to say that specific labs have lower limits than the NRC's regulatory limit. I'm curious about your lab's rules, though. Can they even measure background well enough to know if your exposure is above background by an amount as tiny as 20 mrem? At some point with these very small doses, it gets silly, e.g., you could go over your limit by mistakenly taking your badge home to your house that has radon in it.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As another anecdote, I used to work at a DoE lab where basically any detectable amount above background was too much. At some point, it does get silly - I remember hearing stories about painstakingly remediating an area for an outdoor patio to eat lunch, despite the fact that someone could get a higher radiation dose by eating a banana on the finished patio.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical 'errors' are by mistakenly taking a TLD through airport security (our folks have tables of expected exposures at different airports), or folks having nuclear medicine tests and wearing their badges too soon afterwards. As for 'background', they apply a bit of a fudge factor to account for some variation in background and a bit of margin. Actually reading the TLDs has a lot of data analysis behind it. A consistent 20 mrem above background would be considered significant. Biggest wild card in my departments has been getting the right neutron energy spectrum.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a further data point for those wondering what 5 rem is, my wife received 3000 rem (localized) during cancer treatment. Full body exposure, that would be a quick death. And that was in a dose reduction trial - the normal dose would be 6000 rem (localized).
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), the average occupational radiation exposure (in mSv per year) in the group “research” (19489 persons in 2016) in the last years was as follows.
0.37 (2007)
0.41 (2008)
0.36 (2009)
0.35 (2010)
0.33 (2011)
0.35 (2012)
0.30 (2013)
0.28 (2014)
0.26 (2015)
0.27 (2016)
These values are generally lower than in other groups (medicine, industry, nuclear, flight personnel, or radon workplace).
Note that the dose limit for workers of category A is an effective dose of 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined 5 year periods (100 mSv in 5 years), with the further provision that the effective dose must not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. Nevertheless, the radiation exposure should be as low as reasonably achievable.
answered 11 hours ago
LoongLoong
1,3551120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Do they have figures for the maximum (or a high percentile)? That might be more relevant for safety purposes than the average. Also, a link would be nice.
$endgroup$
– craq
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as recommended the following radiation dose limits to workers and to the general public:
- 100 mSv in 5 years of effective dose for workers (maximum 50 mSv
in any single year, average 20 mSv per year) of any branch, including
medicine, industry, research, etc. - 1 mSv per year to the general members of the public;
These recommendations have been implemented with minor changes into regulations in most countries, including the US and the European countries.
Radiations workers are obliged to use a personal dosimeter to record the amount of radiation they are exposed to. In my particular experience, most of workers don’t get more that 5 mSv in a single year, unless a radiation incident has occur, that’s why values higher than that used to be investigated. In fact I would investigate any reading in a particular workers dosimeter above the natural background.
The 1990 recommendations of ICRP have been recently updated, with almost no change to these values.
answered 12 hours ago
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,010221
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
ConwL is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472900%2fhow-much-radiation-do-nuclear-physics-experiments-expose-researchers-to-nowadays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In the US, the NRC limits whole-body occupational exposure to 5 rem/year. Specific labs or employers may impose much lower limits on their workers. For comparison, a CT scan is about 1 rem, and natural background is about 0.2-0.7 rem. There is not really any typical dose for people working on experiments. Depending on what their work is and how the experiment is set up, someone could have a dose that is not measurably higher than background. Or their measured dose could mount to the level where they're warned that they're nearing their limit for the year, in which case they might have to find someone else to whom to hand off the task that's causing all the exposure.
answered 13 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.3k6165313
$endgroup$
13
$begingroup$
For me to be authorized to receive 5 rem/year would require the signature of the Secretary of Energy. My current authorization is not to exceed 100 mrem/yr. Over the 30 odd years I've worked on ion accelerators and pulsed power I think I exceeded background once (and it wasn't quite clear how - likely a TLD read error), so something like 20 mrem above background total over those 30 years.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JonCuster: Thanks for the comment. I've edited to say that specific labs have lower limits than the NRC's regulatory limit. I'm curious about your lab's rules, though. Can they even measure background well enough to know if your exposure is above background by an amount as tiny as 20 mrem? At some point with these very small doses, it gets silly, e.g., you could go over your limit by mistakenly taking your badge home to your house that has radon in it.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As another anecdote, I used to work at a DoE lab where basically any detectable amount above background was too much. At some point, it does get silly - I remember hearing stories about painstakingly remediating an area for an outdoor patio to eat lunch, despite the fact that someone could get a higher radiation dose by eating a banana on the finished patio.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical 'errors' are by mistakenly taking a TLD through airport security (our folks have tables of expected exposures at different airports), or folks having nuclear medicine tests and wearing their badges too soon afterwards. As for 'background', they apply a bit of a fudge factor to account for some variation in background and a bit of margin. Actually reading the TLDs has a lot of data analysis behind it. A consistent 20 mrem above background would be considered significant. Biggest wild card in my departments has been getting the right neutron energy spectrum.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a further data point for those wondering what 5 rem is, my wife received 3000 rem (localized) during cancer treatment. Full body exposure, that would be a quick death. And that was in a dose reduction trial - the normal dose would be 6000 rem (localized).
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
In the US, the NRC limits whole-body occupational exposure to 5 rem/year. Specific labs or employers may impose much lower limits on their workers. For comparison, a CT scan is about 1 rem, and natural background is about 0.2-0.7 rem. There is not really any typical dose for people working on experiments. Depending on what their work is and how the experiment is set up, someone could have a dose that is not measurably higher than background. Or their measured dose could mount to the level where they're warned that they're nearing their limit for the year, in which case they might have to find someone else to whom to hand off the task that's causing all the exposure.
answered 13 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.3k6165313
$endgroup$
13
$begingroup$
For me to be authorized to receive 5 rem/year would require the signature of the Secretary of Energy. My current authorization is not to exceed 100 mrem/yr. Over the 30 odd years I've worked on ion accelerators and pulsed power I think I exceeded background once (and it wasn't quite clear how - likely a TLD read error), so something like 20 mrem above background total over those 30 years.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JonCuster: Thanks for the comment. I've edited to say that specific labs have lower limits than the NRC's regulatory limit. I'm curious about your lab's rules, though. Can they even measure background well enough to know if your exposure is above background by an amount as tiny as 20 mrem? At some point with these very small doses, it gets silly, e.g., you could go over your limit by mistakenly taking your badge home to your house that has radon in it.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As another anecdote, I used to work at a DoE lab where basically any detectable amount above background was too much. At some point, it does get silly - I remember hearing stories about painstakingly remediating an area for an outdoor patio to eat lunch, despite the fact that someone could get a higher radiation dose by eating a banana on the finished patio.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical 'errors' are by mistakenly taking a TLD through airport security (our folks have tables of expected exposures at different airports), or folks having nuclear medicine tests and wearing their badges too soon afterwards. As for 'background', they apply a bit of a fudge factor to account for some variation in background and a bit of margin. Actually reading the TLDs has a lot of data analysis behind it. A consistent 20 mrem above background would be considered significant. Biggest wild card in my departments has been getting the right neutron energy spectrum.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a further data point for those wondering what 5 rem is, my wife received 3000 rem (localized) during cancer treatment. Full body exposure, that would be a quick death. And that was in a dose reduction trial - the normal dose would be 6000 rem (localized).
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
In the US, the NRC limits whole-body occupational exposure to 5 rem/year. Specific labs or employers may impose much lower limits on their workers. For comparison, a CT scan is about 1 rem, and natural background is about 0.2-0.7 rem. There is not really any typical dose for people working on experiments. Depending on what their work is and how the experiment is set up, someone could have a dose that is not measurably higher than background. Or their measured dose could mount to the level where they're warned that they're nearing their limit for the year, in which case they might have to find someone else to whom to hand off the task that's causing all the exposure.
answered 13 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.3k6165313
$endgroup$
In the US, the NRC limits whole-body occupational exposure to 5 rem/year. Specific labs or employers may impose much lower limits on their workers. For comparison, a CT scan is about 1 rem, and natural background is about 0.2-0.7 rem. There is not really any typical dose for people working on experiments. Depending on what their work is and how the experiment is set up, someone could have a dose that is not measurably higher than background. Or their measured dose could mount to the level where they're warned that they're nearing their limit for the year, in which case they might have to find someone else to whom to hand off the task that's causing all the exposure.
answered 13 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.3k6165313
edited 12 hours ago
answered 13 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.3k6165313
answered 13 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.3k6165313
answered 13 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.3k6165313
54.3k6165313
13
$begingroup$
For me to be authorized to receive 5 rem/year would require the signature of the Secretary of Energy. My current authorization is not to exceed 100 mrem/yr. Over the 30 odd years I've worked on ion accelerators and pulsed power I think I exceeded background once (and it wasn't quite clear how - likely a TLD read error), so something like 20 mrem above background total over those 30 years.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JonCuster: Thanks for the comment. I've edited to say that specific labs have lower limits than the NRC's regulatory limit. I'm curious about your lab's rules, though. Can they even measure background well enough to know if your exposure is above background by an amount as tiny as 20 mrem? At some point with these very small doses, it gets silly, e.g., you could go over your limit by mistakenly taking your badge home to your house that has radon in it.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As another anecdote, I used to work at a DoE lab where basically any detectable amount above background was too much. At some point, it does get silly - I remember hearing stories about painstakingly remediating an area for an outdoor patio to eat lunch, despite the fact that someone could get a higher radiation dose by eating a banana on the finished patio.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical 'errors' are by mistakenly taking a TLD through airport security (our folks have tables of expected exposures at different airports), or folks having nuclear medicine tests and wearing their badges too soon afterwards. As for 'background', they apply a bit of a fudge factor to account for some variation in background and a bit of margin. Actually reading the TLDs has a lot of data analysis behind it. A consistent 20 mrem above background would be considered significant. Biggest wild card in my departments has been getting the right neutron energy spectrum.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a further data point for those wondering what 5 rem is, my wife received 3000 rem (localized) during cancer treatment. Full body exposure, that would be a quick death. And that was in a dose reduction trial - the normal dose would be 6000 rem (localized).
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
13
$begingroup$
For me to be authorized to receive 5 rem/year would require the signature of the Secretary of Energy. My current authorization is not to exceed 100 mrem/yr. Over the 30 odd years I've worked on ion accelerators and pulsed power I think I exceeded background once (and it wasn't quite clear how - likely a TLD read error), so something like 20 mrem above background total over those 30 years.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JonCuster: Thanks for the comment. I've edited to say that specific labs have lower limits than the NRC's regulatory limit. I'm curious about your lab's rules, though. Can they even measure background well enough to know if your exposure is above background by an amount as tiny as 20 mrem? At some point with these very small doses, it gets silly, e.g., you could go over your limit by mistakenly taking your badge home to your house that has radon in it.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As another anecdote, I used to work at a DoE lab where basically any detectable amount above background was too much. At some point, it does get silly - I remember hearing stories about painstakingly remediating an area for an outdoor patio to eat lunch, despite the fact that someone could get a higher radiation dose by eating a banana on the finished patio.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical 'errors' are by mistakenly taking a TLD through airport security (our folks have tables of expected exposures at different airports), or folks having nuclear medicine tests and wearing their badges too soon afterwards. As for 'background', they apply a bit of a fudge factor to account for some variation in background and a bit of margin. Actually reading the TLDs has a lot of data analysis behind it. A consistent 20 mrem above background would be considered significant. Biggest wild card in my departments has been getting the right neutron energy spectrum.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a further data point for those wondering what 5 rem is, my wife received 3000 rem (localized) during cancer treatment. Full body exposure, that would be a quick death. And that was in a dose reduction trial - the normal dose would be 6000 rem (localized).
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
13
13
$begingroup$
For me to be authorized to receive 5 rem/year would require the signature of the Secretary of Energy. My current authorization is not to exceed 100 mrem/yr. Over the 30 odd years I've worked on ion accelerators and pulsed power I think I exceeded background once (and it wasn't quite clear how - likely a TLD read error), so something like 20 mrem above background total over those 30 years.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
For me to be authorized to receive 5 rem/year would require the signature of the Secretary of Energy. My current authorization is not to exceed 100 mrem/yr. Over the 30 odd years I've worked on ion accelerators and pulsed power I think I exceeded background once (and it wasn't quite clear how - likely a TLD read error), so something like 20 mrem above background total over those 30 years.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JonCuster: Thanks for the comment. I've edited to say that specific labs have lower limits than the NRC's regulatory limit. I'm curious about your lab's rules, though. Can they even measure background well enough to know if your exposure is above background by an amount as tiny as 20 mrem? At some point with these very small doses, it gets silly, e.g., you could go over your limit by mistakenly taking your badge home to your house that has radon in it.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JonCuster: Thanks for the comment. I've edited to say that specific labs have lower limits than the NRC's regulatory limit. I'm curious about your lab's rules, though. Can they even measure background well enough to know if your exposure is above background by an amount as tiny as 20 mrem? At some point with these very small doses, it gets silly, e.g., you could go over your limit by mistakenly taking your badge home to your house that has radon in it.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
12 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
As another anecdote, I used to work at a DoE lab where basically any detectable amount above background was too much. At some point, it does get silly - I remember hearing stories about painstakingly remediating an area for an outdoor patio to eat lunch, despite the fact that someone could get a higher radiation dose by eating a banana on the finished patio.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
As another anecdote, I used to work at a DoE lab where basically any detectable amount above background was too much. At some point, it does get silly - I remember hearing stories about painstakingly remediating an area for an outdoor patio to eat lunch, despite the fact that someone could get a higher radiation dose by eating a banana on the finished patio.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical 'errors' are by mistakenly taking a TLD through airport security (our folks have tables of expected exposures at different airports), or folks having nuclear medicine tests and wearing their badges too soon afterwards. As for 'background', they apply a bit of a fudge factor to account for some variation in background and a bit of margin. Actually reading the TLDs has a lot of data analysis behind it. A consistent 20 mrem above background would be considered significant. Biggest wild card in my departments has been getting the right neutron energy spectrum.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
The typical 'errors' are by mistakenly taking a TLD through airport security (our folks have tables of expected exposures at different airports), or folks having nuclear medicine tests and wearing their badges too soon afterwards. As for 'background', they apply a bit of a fudge factor to account for some variation in background and a bit of margin. Actually reading the TLDs has a lot of data analysis behind it. A consistent 20 mrem above background would be considered significant. Biggest wild card in my departments has been getting the right neutron energy spectrum.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a further data point for those wondering what 5 rem is, my wife received 3000 rem (localized) during cancer treatment. Full body exposure, that would be a quick death. And that was in a dose reduction trial - the normal dose would be 6000 rem (localized).
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a further data point for those wondering what 5 rem is, my wife received 3000 rem (localized) during cancer treatment. Full body exposure, that would be a quick death. And that was in a dose reduction trial - the normal dose would be 6000 rem (localized).
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
9 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), the average occupational radiation exposure (in mSv per year) in the group “research” (19489 persons in 2016) in the last years was as follows.
0.37 (2007)
0.41 (2008)
0.36 (2009)
0.35 (2010)
0.33 (2011)
0.35 (2012)
0.30 (2013)
0.28 (2014)
0.26 (2015)
0.27 (2016)
These values are generally lower than in other groups (medicine, industry, nuclear, flight personnel, or radon workplace).
Note that the dose limit for workers of category A is an effective dose of 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined 5 year periods (100 mSv in 5 years), with the further provision that the effective dose must not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. Nevertheless, the radiation exposure should be as low as reasonably achievable.
answered 11 hours ago
LoongLoong
1,3551120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Do they have figures for the maximum (or a high percentile)? That might be more relevant for safety purposes than the average. Also, a link would be nice.
$endgroup$
– craq
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), the average occupational radiation exposure (in mSv per year) in the group “research” (19489 persons in 2016) in the last years was as follows.
0.37 (2007)
0.41 (2008)
0.36 (2009)
0.35 (2010)
0.33 (2011)
0.35 (2012)
0.30 (2013)
0.28 (2014)
0.26 (2015)
0.27 (2016)
These values are generally lower than in other groups (medicine, industry, nuclear, flight personnel, or radon workplace).
Note that the dose limit for workers of category A is an effective dose of 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined 5 year periods (100 mSv in 5 years), with the further provision that the effective dose must not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. Nevertheless, the radiation exposure should be as low as reasonably achievable.
answered 11 hours ago
LoongLoong
1,3551120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Do they have figures for the maximum (or a high percentile)? That might be more relevant for safety purposes than the average. Also, a link would be nice.
$endgroup$
– craq
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), the average occupational radiation exposure (in mSv per year) in the group “research” (19489 persons in 2016) in the last years was as follows.
0.37 (2007)
0.41 (2008)
0.36 (2009)
0.35 (2010)
0.33 (2011)
0.35 (2012)
0.30 (2013)
0.28 (2014)
0.26 (2015)
0.27 (2016)
These values are generally lower than in other groups (medicine, industry, nuclear, flight personnel, or radon workplace).
Note that the dose limit for workers of category A is an effective dose of 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined 5 year periods (100 mSv in 5 years), with the further provision that the effective dose must not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. Nevertheless, the radiation exposure should be as low as reasonably achievable.
answered 11 hours ago
LoongLoong
1,3551120
$endgroup$
According to the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), the average occupational radiation exposure (in mSv per year) in the group “research” (19489 persons in 2016) in the last years was as follows.
0.37 (2007)
0.41 (2008)
0.36 (2009)
0.35 (2010)
0.33 (2011)
0.35 (2012)
0.30 (2013)
0.28 (2014)
0.26 (2015)
0.27 (2016)
These values are generally lower than in other groups (medicine, industry, nuclear, flight personnel, or radon workplace).
Note that the dose limit for workers of category A is an effective dose of 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined 5 year periods (100 mSv in 5 years), with the further provision that the effective dose must not exceed 50 mSv in any single year. Nevertheless, the radiation exposure should be as low as reasonably achievable.
answered 11 hours ago
LoongLoong
1,3551120
answered 11 hours ago
LoongLoong
1,3551120
answered 11 hours ago
LoongLoong
1,3551120
answered 11 hours ago
LoongLoong
1,3551120
1,3551120
$begingroup$
Do they have figures for the maximum (or a high percentile)? That might be more relevant for safety purposes than the average. Also, a link would be nice.
$endgroup$
– craq
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do they have figures for the maximum (or a high percentile)? That might be more relevant for safety purposes than the average. Also, a link would be nice.
$endgroup$
– craq
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Do they have figures for the maximum (or a high percentile)? That might be more relevant for safety purposes than the average. Also, a link would be nice.
$endgroup$
– craq
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Do they have figures for the maximum (or a high percentile)? That might be more relevant for safety purposes than the average. Also, a link would be nice.
$endgroup$
– craq
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as recommended the following radiation dose limits to workers and to the general public:
- 100 mSv in 5 years of effective dose for workers (maximum 50 mSv
in any single year, average 20 mSv per year) of any branch, including
medicine, industry, research, etc. - 1 mSv per year to the general members of the public;
These recommendations have been implemented with minor changes into regulations in most countries, including the US and the European countries.
Radiations workers are obliged to use a personal dosimeter to record the amount of radiation they are exposed to. In my particular experience, most of workers don’t get more that 5 mSv in a single year, unless a radiation incident has occur, that’s why values higher than that used to be investigated. In fact I would investigate any reading in a particular workers dosimeter above the natural background.
The 1990 recommendations of ICRP have been recently updated, with almost no change to these values.
answered 12 hours ago
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,010221
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as recommended the following radiation dose limits to workers and to the general public:
- 100 mSv in 5 years of effective dose for workers (maximum 50 mSv
in any single year, average 20 mSv per year) of any branch, including
medicine, industry, research, etc. - 1 mSv per year to the general members of the public;
These recommendations have been implemented with minor changes into regulations in most countries, including the US and the European countries.
Radiations workers are obliged to use a personal dosimeter to record the amount of radiation they are exposed to. In my particular experience, most of workers don’t get more that 5 mSv in a single year, unless a radiation incident has occur, that’s why values higher than that used to be investigated. In fact I would investigate any reading in a particular workers dosimeter above the natural background.
The 1990 recommendations of ICRP have been recently updated, with almost no change to these values.
answered 12 hours ago
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,010221
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as recommended the following radiation dose limits to workers and to the general public:
- 100 mSv in 5 years of effective dose for workers (maximum 50 mSv
in any single year, average 20 mSv per year) of any branch, including
medicine, industry, research, etc. - 1 mSv per year to the general members of the public;
These recommendations have been implemented with minor changes into regulations in most countries, including the US and the European countries.
Radiations workers are obliged to use a personal dosimeter to record the amount of radiation they are exposed to. In my particular experience, most of workers don’t get more that 5 mSv in a single year, unless a radiation incident has occur, that’s why values higher than that used to be investigated. In fact I would investigate any reading in a particular workers dosimeter above the natural background.
The 1990 recommendations of ICRP have been recently updated, with almost no change to these values.
answered 12 hours ago
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,010221
$endgroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as recommended the following radiation dose limits to workers and to the general public:
- 100 mSv in 5 years of effective dose for workers (maximum 50 mSv
in any single year, average 20 mSv per year) of any branch, including
medicine, industry, research, etc. - 1 mSv per year to the general members of the public;
These recommendations have been implemented with minor changes into regulations in most countries, including the US and the European countries.
Radiations workers are obliged to use a personal dosimeter to record the amount of radiation they are exposed to. In my particular experience, most of workers don’t get more that 5 mSv in a single year, unless a radiation incident has occur, that’s why values higher than that used to be investigated. In fact I would investigate any reading in a particular workers dosimeter above the natural background.
The 1990 recommendations of ICRP have been recently updated, with almost no change to these values.
answered 12 hours ago
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,010221
answered 12 hours ago
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,010221
answered 12 hours ago
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,010221
answered 12 hours ago
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,010221
1,010221
add a comment |
add a comment |
ConwL is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ConwL is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ConwL is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
ConwL is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472900%2fhow-much-radiation-do-nuclear-physics-experiments-expose-researchers-to-nowadays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
-experimental-physics, nuclear-physics, radiation
7
$begingroup$
Well, that'll depend on what you mean by "nuclear physics experiments". The term can describe accelerator experiments, working with research reactors, or doing chemistry research with radioactive elements, among others, and each will have its own particular safety profile. The answer then ranges from "negligible so long as reasonable practices are followed" through to "about the maximum allowed by health-and-safety regulations, with radiation-dosage considerations dictating much of the experimental design".
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
As it stands, the question is unanswerable (or, rather, has no single unique answer), which is probably one of the core reasons why you couldn't find concrete numbers.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EmilioPisanty I am completely new to this field. Thanks a lot that you let me know where to start and get to know about these things :)
$endgroup$
– ConwL
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
As @EmilioPisanty said, it is difficult to quantify in the current state of your question. But generally speaking, physicists are to exposed to next-to-nothing in nearly all experiments which involve radioactive material. This is mostly due to appropriate protection. If you are not a physicist but a professional sports player and you regularly require CT scans, your exposure to radioactivity is far higher.
$endgroup$
– lmr
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
11 hours ago