Skip Navigation



Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access published online on March 15, 2005
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, doi:10.1093/rpd/nch470
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
113/3/275    most recent
nch470v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Daniels, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by Schubauer-Berigan, M. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Daniels, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by Schubauer-Berigan, M. K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press [2005]
Received January 5, 2005
Revised February 1, 2005
Accepted February 6, 2005

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PAPER

BIAS AND UNCERTAINTY OF PENETRATING PHOTON DOSE MEASURED BY FILM DOSEMETERS IN AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY OF US NUCLEAR WORKERS

R. D. Daniels 1* and M. K. Schubauer-Berigan 1

1 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

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
R. D. Daniels, E-mail: RTD2{at}CDC.gov


  Abstract

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
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]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
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]

Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
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]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.