How much radiation do nuclear physics experiments expose researchers to nowadays? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm 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?
My mentor says to set image to Fine instead of RAW — how is this different from JPG?
What is a more techy Technical Writer job title that isn't cutesy or confusing?
How to name indistinguishable henchmen in a screenplay?
Is it OK to use the testing sample to compare algorithms?
The Nth Gryphon Number
Fit odd number of triplets in a measure?
As a dual citizen, my US passport will expire one day after traveling to the US. Will this work?
Does the Rock Gnome trait Artificer's Lore apply when you aren't proficient in History?
Why are two-digit numbers in Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" (1726) written in "German style"?
Meaning of 境 in その日を境に
An isoperimetric-type inequality inside a cube
Why does BitLocker not use RSA?
Improvising over quartal voicings
Is there a verb for listening stealthily?
Is a copyright notice with a non-existent name be invalid?
What was the last profitable war?
Why can't fire hurt Daenerys but it did to Jon Snow in season 1?
Statistical analysis applied to methods coming out of Machine Learning
Why do C and C++ allow the expression (int) + 4*5;
Sally's older brother
Is the Mordenkainen's Sword spell underpowered?
Why are current probes so expensive?
How do Java 8 default methods hеlp with lambdas?
Russian equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)
How much radiation do nuclear physics experiments expose researchers to nowadays?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm 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 medical-physics laboratory-safety
edited Apr 16 at 4:59
Qmechanic♦
108k122001249
asked Apr 15 at 13:55
ConwLConwL
6615
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.
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more 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 medical-physics laboratory-safety
edited Apr 16 at 4:59
Qmechanic♦
108k122001249
asked Apr 15 at 13:55
ConwLConwL
6615
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.
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:04
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:05
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:13
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
Apr 15 at 15:58
|
show 1 more 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 medical-physics laboratory-safety
edited Apr 16 at 4:59
Qmechanic♦
108k122001249
asked Apr 15 at 13:55
ConwLConwL
6615
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 medical-physics laboratory-safety
experimental-physics nuclear-physics radiation medical-physics laboratory-safety
edited Apr 16 at 4:59
Qmechanic♦
108k122001249
asked Apr 15 at 13:55
ConwLConwL
6615
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 Apr 16 at 4:59
Qmechanic♦
108k122001249
asked Apr 15 at 13:55
ConwLConwL
6615
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 Apr 16 at 4:59
Qmechanic♦
108k122001249
edited Apr 16 at 4:59
Qmechanic♦
108k122001249
edited Apr 16 at 4:59
Qmechanic♦
108k122001249
108k122001249
asked Apr 15 at 13:55
ConwLConwL
6615
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 Apr 15 at 13:55
ConwLConwL
6615
asked Apr 15 at 13:55
ConwLConwL
6615
6615
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.
11
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:04
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:05
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:13
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
Apr 15 at 15:58
|
show 1 more comment
11
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:04
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:05
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:13
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
Apr 15 at 15:58
11
11
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:04
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:04
3
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:05
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:05
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:13
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:13
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
Apr 15 at 15:58
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
Apr 15 at 15:58
|
show 1 more 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 Apr 15 at 14:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.9k6165316
$endgroup$
17
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:35
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:58
5
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 16:25
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 18:00
1
$begingroup$
@wizzwizz4 - indeed. Just shows you the gulf between allowed occupational exposure and necessary medical treatments. And why going through radiation treatments is a really hard thing to do.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
Apr 15 at 20:51
|
show 3 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 Apr 15 at 16:28
LoongLoong
1,3771120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 16 at 0:07
$begingroup$
@craq the maximum (even the high percentile) can be seriously affected by a single high accidental exposure due to the limited number of individuals and small number of events.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 16 at 8:21
$begingroup$
@jwenting aren't most safety analyses based around the statistics of rare events? As an analogy, the average deceleration force of passengers in a landing aeroplane will be dominated by those who land safely. It doesn't really tell us anything about how often planes crash. (I should add that both planes and scientific labs have very good safety records.)
$endgroup$
– craq
Apr 17 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
@craq Depends on what you're looking to measure. What you in cases like this really want is to ensure that no more than a (tbd) very low percentage of exposures will cause permanent damage to human beings. The actual magnitude of the exposures beyond that cutoff point are then largely irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 17 at 5:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 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 Apr 15 at 15:02
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,020221
$endgroup$
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 Apr 15 at 14:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.9k6165316
$endgroup$
17
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:35
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:58
5
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 16:25
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 18:00
1
$begingroup$
@wizzwizz4 - indeed. Just shows you the gulf between allowed occupational exposure and necessary medical treatments. And why going through radiation treatments is a really hard thing to do.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
Apr 15 at 20:51
|
show 3 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 Apr 15 at 14:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.9k6165316
$endgroup$
17
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:35
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:58
5
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 16:25
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 18:00
1
$begingroup$
@wizzwizz4 - indeed. Just shows you the gulf between allowed occupational exposure and necessary medical treatments. And why going through radiation treatments is a really hard thing to do.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
Apr 15 at 20:51
|
show 3 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 Apr 15 at 14:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.9k6165316
$endgroup$
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 Apr 15 at 14:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.9k6165316
edited Apr 15 at 14:54
answered Apr 15 at 14:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.9k6165316
answered Apr 15 at 14:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.9k6165316
answered Apr 15 at 14:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
54.9k6165316
54.9k6165316
17
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:35
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:58
5
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 16:25
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 18:00
1
$begingroup$
@wizzwizz4 - indeed. Just shows you the gulf between allowed occupational exposure and necessary medical treatments. And why going through radiation treatments is a really hard thing to do.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
Apr 15 at 20:51
|
show 3 more comments
17
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:35
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:58
5
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 16:25
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 18:00
1
$begingroup$
@wizzwizz4 - indeed. Just shows you the gulf between allowed occupational exposure and necessary medical treatments. And why going through radiation treatments is a really hard thing to do.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
Apr 15 at 20:51
17
17
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:35
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:35
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:58
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:58
5
5
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 16:25
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 16:25
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 18:00
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 18:00
1
1
$begingroup$
@wizzwizz4 - indeed. Just shows you the gulf between allowed occupational exposure and necessary medical treatments. And why going through radiation treatments is a really hard thing to do.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
Apr 15 at 20:51
$begingroup$
@wizzwizz4 - indeed. Just shows you the gulf between allowed occupational exposure and necessary medical treatments. And why going through radiation treatments is a really hard thing to do.
$endgroup$
– Jon Custer
Apr 15 at 20:51
|
show 3 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 Apr 15 at 16:28
LoongLoong
1,3771120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 16 at 0:07
$begingroup$
@craq the maximum (even the high percentile) can be seriously affected by a single high accidental exposure due to the limited number of individuals and small number of events.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 16 at 8:21
$begingroup$
@jwenting aren't most safety analyses based around the statistics of rare events? As an analogy, the average deceleration force of passengers in a landing aeroplane will be dominated by those who land safely. It doesn't really tell us anything about how often planes crash. (I should add that both planes and scientific labs have very good safety records.)
$endgroup$
– craq
Apr 17 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
@craq Depends on what you're looking to measure. What you in cases like this really want is to ensure that no more than a (tbd) very low percentage of exposures will cause permanent damage to human beings. The actual magnitude of the exposures beyond that cutoff point are then largely irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 17 at 5:04
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 Apr 15 at 16:28
LoongLoong
1,3771120
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 16 at 0:07
$begingroup$
@craq the maximum (even the high percentile) can be seriously affected by a single high accidental exposure due to the limited number of individuals and small number of events.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 16 at 8:21
$begingroup$
@jwenting aren't most safety analyses based around the statistics of rare events? As an analogy, the average deceleration force of passengers in a landing aeroplane will be dominated by those who land safely. It doesn't really tell us anything about how often planes crash. (I should add that both planes and scientific labs have very good safety records.)
$endgroup$
– craq
Apr 17 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
@craq Depends on what you're looking to measure. What you in cases like this really want is to ensure that no more than a (tbd) very low percentage of exposures will cause permanent damage to human beings. The actual magnitude of the exposures beyond that cutoff point are then largely irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 17 at 5:04
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 Apr 15 at 16:28
LoongLoong
1,3771120
$endgroup$
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 Apr 15 at 16:28
LoongLoong
1,3771120
answered Apr 15 at 16:28
LoongLoong
1,3771120
answered Apr 15 at 16:28
LoongLoong
1,3771120
answered Apr 15 at 16:28
LoongLoong
1,3771120
1,3771120
$begingroup$
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
Apr 16 at 0:07
$begingroup$
@craq the maximum (even the high percentile) can be seriously affected by a single high accidental exposure due to the limited number of individuals and small number of events.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 16 at 8:21
$begingroup$
@jwenting aren't most safety analyses based around the statistics of rare events? As an analogy, the average deceleration force of passengers in a landing aeroplane will be dominated by those who land safely. It doesn't really tell us anything about how often planes crash. (I should add that both planes and scientific labs have very good safety records.)
$endgroup$
– craq
Apr 17 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
@craq Depends on what you're looking to measure. What you in cases like this really want is to ensure that no more than a (tbd) very low percentage of exposures will cause permanent damage to human beings. The actual magnitude of the exposures beyond that cutoff point are then largely irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 17 at 5:04
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
Apr 16 at 0:07
$begingroup$
@craq the maximum (even the high percentile) can be seriously affected by a single high accidental exposure due to the limited number of individuals and small number of events.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 16 at 8:21
$begingroup$
@jwenting aren't most safety analyses based around the statistics of rare events? As an analogy, the average deceleration force of passengers in a landing aeroplane will be dominated by those who land safely. It doesn't really tell us anything about how often planes crash. (I should add that both planes and scientific labs have very good safety records.)
$endgroup$
– craq
Apr 17 at 4:59
1
$begingroup$
@craq Depends on what you're looking to measure. What you in cases like this really want is to ensure that no more than a (tbd) very low percentage of exposures will cause permanent damage to human beings. The actual magnitude of the exposures beyond that cutoff point are then largely irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 17 at 5:04
$begingroup$
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
Apr 16 at 0:07
$begingroup$
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
Apr 16 at 0:07
$begingroup$
@craq the maximum (even the high percentile) can be seriously affected by a single high accidental exposure due to the limited number of individuals and small number of events.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 16 at 8:21
$begingroup$
@craq the maximum (even the high percentile) can be seriously affected by a single high accidental exposure due to the limited number of individuals and small number of events.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 16 at 8:21
$begingroup$
@jwenting aren't most safety analyses based around the statistics of rare events? As an analogy, the average deceleration force of passengers in a landing aeroplane will be dominated by those who land safely. It doesn't really tell us anything about how often planes crash. (I should add that both planes and scientific labs have very good safety records.)
$endgroup$
– craq
Apr 17 at 4:59
$begingroup$
@jwenting aren't most safety analyses based around the statistics of rare events? As an analogy, the average deceleration force of passengers in a landing aeroplane will be dominated by those who land safely. It doesn't really tell us anything about how often planes crash. (I should add that both planes and scientific labs have very good safety records.)
$endgroup$
– craq
Apr 17 at 4:59
1
1
$begingroup$
@craq Depends on what you're looking to measure. What you in cases like this really want is to ensure that no more than a (tbd) very low percentage of exposures will cause permanent damage to human beings. The actual magnitude of the exposures beyond that cutoff point are then largely irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 17 at 5:04
$begingroup$
@craq Depends on what you're looking to measure. What you in cases like this really want is to ensure that no more than a (tbd) very low percentage of exposures will cause permanent damage to human beings. The actual magnitude of the exposures beyond that cutoff point are then largely irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Apr 17 at 5:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 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 Apr 15 at 15:02
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,020221
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 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 Apr 15 at 15:02
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,020221
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 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 Apr 15 at 15:02
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,020221
$endgroup$
In 1990 de International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 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 Apr 15 at 15:02
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,020221
edited 8 hours ago
answered Apr 15 at 15:02
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,020221
answered Apr 15 at 15:02
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,020221
answered Apr 15 at 15:02
J. ManuelJ. Manuel
1,020221
1,020221
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
11
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:04
3
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:05
$begingroup$
@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
Apr 15 at 14:09
$begingroup$
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
Apr 15 at 14:13
$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
Apr 15 at 15:58