How much radiation do nuclear physics experiments expose researchers to nowadays? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionHow much radiation exposure in the US was caused by the 105 nuke tests in the Pacific?Nuclear physics from perturbative QFTDrop a star in a riverIn the Iranian nuclear deal, how can IAEA detect nuclear activity after 24 days?How much damage do high energy experiments impose on the LHC detection equipment?Cesium-137 From Fukushima MeltdownCan We “Tune” The Radiation Output Of a Nuclear Device.?How would a nuclear explosion look in vacuum?In discussions of nuclear radiation, why comparitively scant mention of neutron radiation?Is there a link between nuclear radiation and sound?

When -s is used with third person singular. What's its use in this context?

IndentationError when pasting code in Python 3 interpreter mode

What does '1 unit of lemon juice' mean in a grandma's drink recipe?

The logistics of corpse disposal

Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?

Is a manifold-with-boundary with given interior and non-empty boundary essentially unique?

What is the longest distance a 13th-level monk can jump while attacking on the same turn?

How to assign captions for two tables in LaTeX?

Does surprise arrest existing movement?

What causes the vertical darker bands in my photo?

How to recreate this effect in Photoshop?

Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?

Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?

What is this single-engine low-wing propeller plane?

Why there are no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?

What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?

How was the dust limit of 546 satoshis was chosen? Why not 550 satoshis?

Java 8 stream max() function argument type Comparator vs Comparable

Should I use Javascript Classes or Apex Classes in Lightning Web Components?

macOS-like app switching in Plasma 5

Is it possible to boil a liquid by just mixing many immiscible liquids together?

What do you call a plan that's an alternative plan in case your initial plan fails?

How can whole tone melodies sound more interesting?

How widely used is the term Treppenwitz? Is it something that most Germans know?



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



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionHow much radiation exposure in the US was caused by the 105 nuke tests in the Pacific?Nuclear physics from perturbative QFTDrop a star in a riverIn the Iranian nuclear deal, how can IAEA detect nuclear activity after 24 days?How much damage do high energy experiments impose on the LHC detection equipment?Cesium-137 From Fukushima MeltdownCan We “Tune” The Radiation Output Of a Nuclear Device.?How would a nuclear explosion look in vacuum?In discussions of nuclear radiation, why comparitively scant mention of neutron radiation?Is there a link between nuclear radiation and sound?










9












$begingroup$


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.










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
    8 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
    8 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
    8 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
    8 hours ago










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















9












$begingroup$


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.










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
    8 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
    8 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
    8 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
    8 hours ago










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













9












9








9


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.










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






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 2 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 8 hours ago









ConwLConwL

463




463




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
    8 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
    8 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
    8 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
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
    $endgroup$
    – Loong
    6 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
    8 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
    8 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
    8 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
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
    $endgroup$
    – Loong
    6 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 hours ago












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




$begingroup$
By way of comparison, during my whole PhD, I have got only 0.1 mSv from work-related sources.
$endgroup$
– Loong
6 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











$endgroup$








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    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
    7 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
    7 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
    5 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
    4 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
    3 hours ago


















5












$begingroup$

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









$endgroup$




















    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











      $endgroup$








      • 9




        $begingroup$
        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
        7 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
        7 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
        5 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
        4 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
        3 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











      $endgroup$








      • 9




        $begingroup$
        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
        7 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
        7 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
        5 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
        4 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
        3 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 7 hours ago

























      answered 7 hours ago









      Ben CrowellBen Crowell

      54.3k6165313




      54.3k6165313







      • 9




        $begingroup$
        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
        7 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
        7 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
        5 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
        4 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
        3 hours ago












      • 9




        $begingroup$
        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
        7 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
        7 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
        5 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
        4 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
        3 hours ago







      9




      9




      $begingroup$
      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
      7 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
      7 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
      7 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
      7 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
      5 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
      5 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
      4 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
      4 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
      3 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
      3 hours ago











      5












      $begingroup$

      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









      $endgroup$

















        5












        $begingroup$

        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









        $endgroup$















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          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 5 hours ago









          LoongLoong

          1,3451120




          1,3451120





















              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 7 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

                      Best approach to update all entries in a list that is paginated?Best way to add items to a paginated listChoose Your Country: Best Usability approachUpdate list when a user is viewing the list without annoying themWhen would the best day to update your webpage be?What should happen when I add a Row to a paginated, sorted listShould I adopt infinite scrolling or classical pagination?How to show user that page objects automatically updateWhat is the best location to locate the comments section in a list pageBest way to combine filtering and selecting items in a listWhen one of two inputs must be updated to satisfy a consistency criteria, which should you update (if at all)?

                      Тонконіг бульбистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Екологія | Господарське значення | Примітки | Див. також | Література | Джерела | Посилання | Навігаційне меню1114601320038-241116202404kew-435458Poa bulbosaЭлектронный каталог сосудистых растений Азиатской России [Електронний каталог судинних рослин Азіатської Росії]Малышев Л. Л. Дикие родичи культурных растений. Poa bulbosa L. - Мятлик луковичный. [Малишев Л. Л. Дикі родичи культурних рослин. Poa bulbosa L. - Тонконіг бульбистий.]Мятлик (POA) Сем. Злаки (Мятликовые) [Тонконіг (POA) Род. Злаки (Тонконогові)]Poa bulbosa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 70. 1753. 鳞茎早熟禾 lin jing zao shu he (Description from Flora of China) [Poa bulbosa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 70. 1753. 鳞茎早熟禾 lin jing zao shu he (Опис від Флора Китаю)]Poa bulbosa L. – lipnice cibulkatá / lipnica cibulkatáPoa bulbosa в базі даних Poa bulbosa на сайті Poa bulbosa в базі даних «Global Biodiversity Information Facility» (GBIF)Poa bulbosa в базі даних «Euro + Med PlantBase» — інформаційному ресурсі для Євро-середземноморського розмаїття рослинPoa bulbosa L. на сайті «Плантариум»

                      Вунгтау (аеропорт) Загальні відомості | Див. також | Посилання | Навігаційне меню10°22′00″ пн. ш. 107°05′00″ сх. д. / 10.36667° пн. ш. 107.08333° сх. д. / 10.36667; 107.0833310°22′00″ пн. ш. 107°05′00″ сх. д. / 10.36667° пн. ш. 107.08333° сх. д. / 10.36667; 107.083337731608Vinh AirportVinh airport facelift improves serviceвиправивши або дописавши їївиправивши або дописавши їїр