scholarly journals Comparison of the Background Radiation Level within Kanchanpur District, Nepal

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
G. B. Dhami ◽  
M. R. Bhatt ◽  
J. Khadayat ◽  
B. D. Joshi
Keyword(s):  
Background Radiation ◽  
Radiation Risk ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Radiation Level ◽  
Background Count ◽  
Geiger Muller Counter ◽  
Rural Places ◽  
Study District

We have reported the background radiation of urban and some other rural places of Kanchanpur district, Nepal. A simple portable Geiger Muller counter was used to quantify the level of overall background radiation by collecting data of different forty seven (including six urban and forty one rural places) places within the district. Our study reveals that the background radiation level of the study district is below the risk level. The maximum background count values 33.00±4.47 (Mahakali Zonal Hospital), 33.93 ± 1.16 (Mahakali School, Mahakali -01) and 31.30±3.97 CPM (Gha gaon) have been reported which is below the risk level. The observed values of radiation counts at all the sample places indicate that Kanchanpur district is radiation risk free.

A Study of Exposure of Overall Background Radiation In Syangja District of Nepal

2017 ◽  
pp. 92-95
Author(s):  
T Timilsina ◽  
K. R. Poudel ◽  
P. R. Poudel
Keyword(s):  
High Altitude ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Total Radiation ◽  
Radiation Level ◽  
The People ◽  
Public Exposure

This study presents general exposure of background radiation to the people living or visiting nine places of Syangja district. A portable GM counter was used to quantify the total radiation at those places. The findings of this study show variation of radiation level at different places. Comparatively large values of radiation counts are observed at high altitude places (Gurung Dada: 70.23 cpm and Pokhari Dada: 64.77 cpm). The value of radiation count inside room is comparatively larger than that at outside room for these places. Moreover, small value of radiation count is observed at river side (Bank of Aandhikhola river: 21.63 cpm). Little large values are observed near Saligram stones and ancient statue than at other regions of one historical/religious place. Hence, results show fluctuations of background radiation level for different places. Some places have comparatively large value of radiation count while some places have comparatively small value. But there is no any abnormal value of radiation counts for all sample places. So there is, generally, no significant risk of public exposure to the background radiation for sample places.The Himalayan Physics Vol. 6 & 7, April 2017 (92-95)

scholarly journals Radiophobia: 7 Reasons Why Radiography Used in Spine and Posture Rehabilitation Should Not Be Feared or Avoided

Dose-Response ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 155932581878144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A. Oakley ◽  
Deed E. Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Threshold Model ◽  
Radiation Risk ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Cellular Damage ◽  
Imaging Method ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Low Dose Radiation ◽  
Dose Radiation

Evidence-based contemporary spinal rehabilitation often requires radiography. Use of radiography (X-rays or computed tomography scans) should not be feared, avoided, or have their exposures lessened to decrease patient dose possibly jeopardizing image quality. This is because all fears of radiation exposures from medical diagnostic imaging are based on complete fabrication of health risks based on an outdated, invalid linear model that has simply been propagated for decades. We present 7 main arguments for continued use of radiography for routine use in spinal rehabilitation: (1) the linear no-threshold model for radiation risk estimates is invalid for low-dose exposures; (2) low-dose radiation enhances health via the body’s adaptive response mechanisms (ie, radiation hormesis); (3) an X-ray with low-dose radiation only induces 1 one-millionth the amount of cellular damage as compared to breathing air for a day; (4) radiography is below inescapable natural annual background radiation levels; (5) radiophobia stems from unwarranted fears and false beliefs; (6) radiography use leads to better patient outcomes; (7) the risk to benefit ratio is always beneficial for routine radiography. Radiography is a safe imaging method for routine use in patient assessment, screening, diagnosis, and biomechanical analysis and for monitoring treatment progress in daily clinical practice.

Preliminary investigations on reducing the high radiation risk level of TENORM scale waste from petroleum industry

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (9) ◽  
pp. 793-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed F. Attallah ◽  
Moustafa A. Hilal ◽  
Yasser T. Mohamed
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Risk ◽  
Petroleum Industry ◽  
Physicochemical Characteristics ◽  
Pilot Scale ◽  
Total Radioactivity ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
High Radiation ◽  
Economic Process ◽  
Before And After

Abstract The main objective of this study is directed to remove 226Ra, 228Ra radionuclides from TENORM scale waste without seriously degradation the physicochemical characteristics of soils or generating waste. It was found that 82, 87% removal of total radioactivity using successive washing by commercial and TX-100 solutions, respectively, after seven cycles. Some radiation risk before and after treatment with surfactants were determined. It is a promising and efficient as well as economic process. Our results from this task could provide a useful information for defining the establishing and operating on a pilot-scale plant for efficient and economic TENORM treatment.

Evaluation of Radiological Hazards of Particulates Emissions From a Coal Fired Power Plant

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Suhana ◽  
M. Rashid
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Dispersion Model ◽  
Natural Radionuclides ◽  
Ground Level ◽  
Ambient Air ◽  
Radiation Level ◽  
Natural Minerals ◽  
Radiological Hazards ◽  
Air Dispersion

Abstract Natural minerals may contain radionuclides of natural origin of Uranium-238 (238U) and Thorium-232 (232Th) decay series. Similarly, coal like any other minerals found in nature contains trace amount of such naturally occurring radionuclides including Potassium-40 (40K). The generation of electricity by coal fired power plant (CFPP) releases particulates emission to the atmosphere and deposited on the surrounding area that may increase the natural background radiation level within the facility. This paper presents an evaluation of the natural radioactivity concentration found in the particulates emission from a typical CFPP in Malaysia. Standard Gaussian dispersion model approach was used to predict the potential radiological hazards arising from the particulates released from the stack. The predicted maximum ground level particulate (Cmax) concentration and downwind distance (X) was 52 µg m–3 and 1,600 m of away from the CFPP, respectively. The air dispersion modelling results recorded that the calculated Cmax released from the CFPP was found lower than the national and international ambient air quality limits, which means that radiological hazards due to inhalation of natural radionuclides in particulate released to the environment is insignificant. The findings revealed that, this activity does not impose any significant radiological risk to the human population at large and the operation is in compliance with the national legislation and international practice.

scholarly journals Patient understanding of radiation risk from medical computed tomography - A comparison of Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic Emergency Department populations

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afton McNierney-Moore ◽  
Cynthia Smith ◽  
Jose H. Guardiola ◽  
K Tom Xu ◽  
Peter Richman
Keyword(s):  
Background Radiation ◽  
Radiation Risk ◽  
Good Knowledge ◽  
Independent Effect ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression ◽  
Lifetime Cancer Risk ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Medical Testing ◽  
Hispanic Patients

Background: Cultural differences and language barriers may adversely impact patients with respect to understanding the risks/benefits of medical testing. Objective: We hypothesized that there would be no difference in Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic patients’ knowledge of radiation risk that results from CT of the abdomen/pelvis (CTAP). Methods: We enrolled a convenience sample of adults at an inner-city ED. Patients provided written answers to rate agreement on a 10-point scale for two correct statements comparing radiation exposure equality between: CTAP and 5 years of background radiation (question 1); CTAP and 200 chest x-rays (question 3). Patients also rated their agreement that multiple CT scans increase the lifetime cancer risk (question 2). Scores of > 8 were considered good knowledge. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the independent effect of the Hispanic variable. Results: 600 patients in the study group; 63% Hispanic, mean age 39.2 +/- 13.9 years. Hispanics and non-Hispanics whites were similar with respect to good knowledge-level answers to question 1 (17.3 vs 15.1%; OR=1.2; 95 % CI=0.74- 2.0), question 2 (31.2 vs. 39.3%; OR=0.76; 95% CI=0.54 - 1.1), and question 3 (15.2 vs. 16.5%; OR =1.1; 95% CI= 0.66 - 1.8). Compared to patients who earned < $20,000, patients with income > $40,000 were more likely to answer question 2 with good knowledge (OR =1.96; 95% CI=1.2 – 3.1). Conclusion: The study group’s overall knowledge of radiation risk was poor, but we did not find significant differences between Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic patients.

Background Radiation: Detection, Measurement and Hazards

2017 ◽  
pp. 119-122
Author(s):  
Rajan Paudel Chhetri
Keyword(s):  
Background Radiation ◽  
Radiation Detection ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Alpha Particles ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Radiation Level ◽  
Beta Particles ◽  
Agriculture Industry ◽  
Ionizing Radiations

Radiation is a form of energy. It is of two types: non-ionizing and ionizing. Among them, ionizing radiations have hazardous health effects upon human beings. Different types of cancers may arise from the overexposure to ionizing radiations like alpha- particles, beta-particles, gamma- rays, x-rays etc. Further, ionizing radiations have very important utilities in case of paper handling and use. Radiations can be used for various beneficial purposes like medical imaging, radiation therapy, improvement of quality of agriculture, industry etc. The overall radiation from various sources on a specific location on earth's surface refers to the background radiation level of that zone. Exposure to background radiation is an inescapable feature of the environment. A portable GM counter was used to quantify the total radiation level at different places. The finding of this shows a variation of radiation level. Comparatively large values of radiation counts at high altitude and low values at river side. There is no any abnormal value of radiation counts for all sample places. So, there is, generally, no significant risk of public exposure to the background radiation for sample places.The Himalayan Physics Vol. 6 & 7, 2017 (119-122)

Investigation of background radiation level in Krusadai Island Mangrove, Gulf of Mannar, India

2014 ◽  
Vol 304 (2) ◽  
pp. 735-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Inigo Valan ◽  
R. Mathiyarasu ◽  
S. G. D. Sridhar ◽  
V. Narayanan ◽  
A. Stephen
Keyword(s):  
Background Radiation ◽  
Gulf Of Mannar ◽  
Radiation Level

scholarly journals The need to review low-dose decision-making in radiation protection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Coates
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Risk Estimation ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Radiation Risk ◽  
Background Level ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Low Doses ◽  
Natural Background ◽  
Exposure Levels

Abstract The current approach in the system of protection, and the way in which it is implemented in regulation and practical application, has resulted in the allocation of significant and disproportionate societal resources to reduce relatively low-level exposures to even lower levels. The resulting exposure levels are often a fraction of the basic natural background level, and in particular are comparable to, or often significantly less than, the variability of natural background exposures due to individual decision-making, which the system of protection deems acceptable. There are arguments for a wider approach to decision-making at such low doses, recognising the uncertainties in radiation risk estimation and acknowledging the context that all human life takes place in a variable natural background radiation which generally dominates these lower dose exposures. Recommendations are presented for improvements in how decisions are made in controlling low doses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document