MORPHOGENESIS CHAISE by Timothy Schreiber ... Timothy Schreiber chaise modern furniture karim rashid...
In this University of Wisconsin-Madison, experts from various institutes around the nation come toge...
Quality of Life Technology Takeo Kanade, Ph.D. September 18, 2009
Search Engines: Technology, Society, and Business. The World Wide Web brings much of the world's kno...
Learn how researchers are helping to improve food nutritional content by creating better crops throu...
NASA |
(13.33%) (3 Votes)
|
Views: (1516) Date: (2002) Pages: () |
Abstract: Radiation exposures are typically characterized by two quantities. The first is the absorbed dose, or the energy deposited per unit mass for specific types of radiation passing through specified materials. The same amount of energy deposited in material by two different types of radiation, however, can result in two different levels of risk. Because of this, for the purpose of radiation protection operations, absorbed dose is modified by a second factor intended to normalize the risk associated with a given exposure. We present here an inter-comparison of methods for this modification. First is the radiation quality factor (Q), as defined by ICRP publication 60. This quantity is related functionally to the unrestricted linear energy transfer (LET) of a given radiation, and is multiplied by the absorbed dose to derive the dose equivalent (H). The second method for modifying absorbed dose is the radiation weighting factor, also given in ICRP-60, or as modified in NCRP report 115. To implement the weighting factor, the absorbed dose resulting from incidence of a particular radiation is multiplied by a factor assigned to that type of radiation, giving the equivalent dose. We compare calculations done based on identical fields of radiation representative of that encountered by the MIR space station, applying each of these two methods. c2002 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.