Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on March 15, 2005
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 113(3):275-289; doi:10.1093/rpd/nch470
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Published by Oxford University Press 2005
Bias and uncertainty of penetrating photon dose measured by film dosemeters in an epidemiological study of US nuclear workers
Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies (DSHEFS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 555 Ridge Avenue, R-44, Cincinnati, OH 45213, USA
* Corresponding author: RTD2{at}CDC.gov
Received January 5, 2005, amended February 1, 2005, accepted February 6, 2005
A retrospective exposure assessment of 1269 study subjects was completed for use in a multi-site case–control study of the relationship between protracted workplace external radiation exposure and leukaemia mortality. The majority of exposure data result from film badge monitoring programmes at the four US weapons production facilities and a US Naval shipyard. Bias and uncertainty in reported exposures among study facilities and across time were as result of differences in incident photon energy, exposure geometry, dosemeter type and dosimetry methods. These sources of measurement uncertainty were examined by facility and time to derive bias factors (B) for normalising exposures. In conjunction with facility reported results, the bias factors provide a means to estimate the equivalent dose, penetrating to a depth of 10 mm [Hp(10)] and the equivalent dose to the active bone marrow for use in the epidemiological study. Uncertainty was expressed as the constructed 95% confidence interval (i.e. the 2.5th–97.5th% range) of the estimated parameter. The bias factors indicate that recorded exposures provide a reasonable estimate of Hp(10) (bias factor near unity) and overestimate equivalent dose to active bone marrow (HT) by a factor between 1.2 and 1.7. On average, dosemeter-response uncertainties estimated using Monte Carlo simulation were approximately ±19 and ±33% for Hp(10) and HT, respectively.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. B. Richardson, H. Sugiyama, S. Wing, R. Sakata, E. Grant, Y. Shimizu, N. Nishi, S. Geyer, M. Soda, A. Suyama, et al. Positive Associations Between Ionizing Radiation and Lymphoma Mortality Among Men Am. J. Epidemiol., April 15, 2009; 169(8): 969 - 976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. B. Richardson and S. Wing Leukemia Mortality among Workers at the Savannah River Site Am. J. Epidemiol., November 1, 2007; 166(9): 1015 - 1022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. D. Daniels and J. H. Yiin A comparison of statistical methods for estimation of less than detectable ionising radiation exposures Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2006; 121(3): 240 - 251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|