4.4 Article

The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: Study of errors in dosimetry

期刊

RADIATION RESEARCH
卷 167, 期 4, 页码 380-395

出版社

RADIATION RESEARCH SOC
DOI: 10.1667/RR0552.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. PHS HHS [U50/CCU011778] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To provide direct estimates of cancer risk after low-dose protracted exposure to ionizing radiation, a large-scale epidemiological study of nuclear industry workers was conducted in 15 countries. As part of this study, identification and quantification of errors in historical recorded doses was conducted based on a review of dosimetric practices and technologies in participating facilities. The main sources of errors on doses from high-energy photons (100-3000 keV) were identified as the response of dosimeters in workplace exposure conditions and historical calibration practices. Errors related to dosimetry technology and radiation fields were quantified to derive period- and facility-specific estimates of bias and uncertainties in recorded doses. This was based on (1) an evaluation of predominant workplace radiation from measurement studies and dosimetry expert assessment and (2) an estimation of the energy and geometry response of dosimeters used historically in study facilities. Coefficients were derived to convert recorded doses to HP(10) and organ dose, taking into account different aspects of the calibration procedures. A parametric, lognormal error structure model was developed to describe errors in doses as a function of facility and time period. Doses from other radiation types, particularly neutrons and radionuclide intake, could not be adequately reconstructed in the framework of the 15-Country Study. Workers with substantial doses from these radiation types were therefore identified and excluded from analyses. Doses from lower-energy photons (< 100 keV) and from higher-energy photons (> 3 MeV) were estimated to be small. (c) 2007 by Radiation Research Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据