How much radiation do nuclear physics experiments expose researchers to nowadays?












10












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









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.







$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
    $endgroup$
    – Loong
    10 hours ago
















10












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









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.







$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
    $endgroup$
    – Loong
    10 hours ago














10












10








10


1



$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









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






share|cite|improve this question









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.











share|cite|improve this question









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.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









Shufflepants

316115




316115






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 12 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.








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
    $endgroup$
    – Loong
    10 hours ago














  • 6




    $begingroup$
    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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 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
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
    $endgroup$
    – Loong
    10 hours ago








6




6




$begingroup$
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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 hours ago












$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
10 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 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
    11 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
    11 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
    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
    8 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
    7 hours ago



















6












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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
    2 hours ago



















4












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    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.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    7












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 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
      11 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
      11 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
      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
      8 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
      7 hours ago
















    7












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 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
      11 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
      11 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
      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
      8 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
      7 hours ago














    7












    7








    7





    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    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.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 11 hours ago

























    answered 11 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
      11 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
      11 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
      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
      8 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
      7 hours ago














    • 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
      11 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
      11 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
      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
      8 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
      7 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
    11 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
    11 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
    11 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
    11 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
    9 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
    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
    8 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
    8 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
    7 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
    7 hours ago











    6












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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
      2 hours ago
















    6












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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
      2 hours ago














    6












    6








    6





    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    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.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 9 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
      2 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
      2 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
    2 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
    2 hours ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 11 hours ago









        J. ManuelJ. Manuel

        1,010221




        1,010221






















            ConwL is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            GameSpot

            Image
            body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} GameSpot 戰地風雲：惡名昭彰2在Gamespot的評論 网站类型 新聞 持有者 CBS 创始人 Pete Deemer Vince Broady Jon Epstein 网站 http://www.gamespot.com/ 注册 Optional (free and paid) 推出时间 1996年5月1日 [1] GameSpot （中国大陆：游戏基地），於1996年5月由Pete Deemer和Vince Broady創立，是一個提供新聞、評論、預告片、下載及其他的相關資訊的電子遊戲網站。GameSpot被一間後來被CNET收購的企業ZDNet所收購。根據Alexa，GameSpot.com是200個網路擁擠最嚴重的網站之一。 除了由GameSpot員工創作的內容，網站還允許用戶寫評論、網誌、之後在網路論壇分享。一些在CNET旗下的GameFAQs分享。 2004年， GameSpot被Spike TV的觀眾選上「電子遊戲賞節目」贏得「最傑出遊戲網站。 [2] 其他的遊戲網站還有IGN、1UP.com、GameSpy是它最大的競爭對手。2008年，根據Compete.com的統計，「gamespot.com」吸引了最少6000萬人的點擊率。 [3] GameSpot的主頁鏈結了到最近新聞、評論、預告、和一些有關遊戲機的入口：Wii、任天堂DS、電腦遊戲、Xbox 360、PSP、PlayStation 2、PlayStation 3。它還有一列「最受歡迎遊戲名單」，還有給用戶快速獲得遊戲資訊的搜尋器。GameSpot 還包括一些小範圍的遊戲機：任天堂64、GameCube、Game Boy Color、Game Boy Advance、Xbox、PlayStation、SEGA Saturn、Dreamcast、Neo Geo Pocket Color、N-Gage、手機遊戲。 目录 1 歷史 1.1 國際歷史 1.2 著名的員工 2 評論和分
            Read more

            connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 1 1 I created a Ubuntu Vagrant box and ssh'd into it. Now, created a ssh key and trying to ssh to my localhost but I get the following error. vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:~$ ssh -vvvv localhost OpenSSH_6.6.1, OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 19: Applying options for * debug2: ssh_connect: needpriv 0 debug1: Connecting to localhost [127.0.0.1] port 22. debug1: connect to address 127.0.0.1 port 22: Connection refused ssh: connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused When I check the list of ports opened as follows: vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:~$ s
            Read more

            Getting a Wifi WPA2 wifi connection

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 0 I've been trying to get a simple wifi connection ! bu I have to admit I just can't get it done ! here is what I've tried: root@MYONE:/etc# clear root@MYONE:/etc# vi wpa_supplicant.conf ctrl_interface=/var/run/wpa_supplicant ctrl_interface_group=0 update_config=1 network={ ssid="Mi Engine" psk="7407352688e4" } root@MYONE:/etc# iw wlan0 link Not connected. root@MYONE:/etc# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 74:FE:48:3A:55:AB inet addr:192.168.178.88 Bcast:192.168.178.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::76fe:48ff:fe3a:55ab%4804152/64 Scope:Link UP BRO
            Read more