Antti Pekkarinen1, Teemu Siiskonen2, Maaret Lehtinen2, Sauli Savolainen1,3, Mika Kortesniemi1. 1. 1 HUS Medical Imaging Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 2. 2 STUK - Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, Helsinki, Finland. 3. 3 Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiation worker categorization and exposure monitoring practices must be proportional to the current working environment. PURPOSE: To analyze exposure data of Finnish radiological workers and to estimate the magnitude and frequency of their potential occupational radiation exposure, and to propose appropriate radiation worker categorization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Estimates of the probabilities of annual effective doses exceeding certain levels were obtained by calculating the survival function of a lognormal probability density function (PDF) fitted in the measured occupational exposure data. RESULTS: The estimated probabilities of exceeding annual effective dose limits of 1 mSv, 6 mSv, and 20 mSv were in the order of 1:200, 1:10,000, and 1:500,000 per person, respectively. CONCLUSION: It is very unlikely that the Category B annual effective dose limit of 6 mSv could even potentially be exceeded using modern equipment and appropriate working methods. Therefore, in terms of estimated effective dose, workers in diagnostic and interventional radiology could be placed into Category B in Finland. Current national personal monitoring practice could be replaced or supplemented using active personal dosimeters, which offer more effective means for optimizing working methods.
BACKGROUND: Radiation worker categorization and exposure monitoring practices must be proportional to the current working environment. PURPOSE: To analyze exposure data of Finnish radiological workers and to estimate the magnitude and frequency of their potential occupational radiation exposure, and to propose appropriate radiation worker categorization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Estimates of the probabilities of annual effective doses exceeding certain levels were obtained by calculating the survival function of a lognormal probability density function (PDF) fitted in the measured occupational exposure data. RESULTS: The estimated probabilities of exceeding annual effective dose limits of 1 mSv, 6 mSv, and 20 mSv were in the order of 1:200, 1:10,000, and 1:500,000 per person, respectively. CONCLUSION: It is very unlikely that the Category B annual effective dose limit of 6 mSv could even potentially be exceeded using modern equipment and appropriate working methods. Therefore, in terms of estimated effective dose, workers in diagnostic and interventional radiology could be placed into Category B in Finland. Current national personal monitoring practice could be replaced or supplemented using active personal dosimeters, which offer more effective means for optimizing working methods.