Icru 84

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 36

Jicruj_10_2_cover.

qxd 9/20/10 8:00 PM Page 1

Volume 10 No 2 2010 ISSN 1473-6691 (print)


ISSN 1742-3422 (online)

Journal of the ICRU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


ICRU REPORT 84

Reference Data for the Validation


of Doses from Cosmic-Radiation
Exposure of Aircraft Crew

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON


RADIATION UNITS AND
MEASUREMENTS
Jicruj_10_2_cover.qxd 9/20/10 8:00 PM Page 2

Journal of the ICRU


ISSN 1473-6691
Commission Membership Executive Secretary
H.-G. Menzel (Chairman) P. L. Russell
A. Wambersie (Vice Chairman) Assistant Executive Secretary
D. T. L. Jones (Secretary) L. J. Atwell
P. Dawson
P. M. DeLuca Scientific Editor: Journal of the ICRU
K. Doi S. M. Seltzer
E. Fantuzzi Managing Editors: ICRU Website and ICRU News
R. A. Gahbauer R. A. Gahbauer
B. D. Michael D. T. L. Jones

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


H. G. Paretzke
Honorary Editor ICRU News
S. M. Seltzer
H. G. Ebert
H. Tatsuzaki
G. F. Whitmore Honorary Counsel
A. Allisy (Honorary Chairman) W. R. Ney

SUBSCRIPTIONS Journal of the ICRU is published twice a year by Oxford University Press, Oxford,
A subscription to Journal of the ICRU comprises 2 issues (Reports). All prices include UK. Annual subscription price is £246/$467/€369. Journal of the ICRU is distributed
postage, and for subscribers outside the UK delivery is by Standard Air. by Mercury International, 365 Blair Road, Avenel, NJ 07001, USA. Periodicals
postage paid at Rahway, NJ and at additional entry points.
Annual Subscription Rate (Volume 10, 2 issues, 2010)
Institutional US Postmaster: send address changes to Journal of the ICRU, c/o Mercury
Print edition and site-wide online access: £246/$467/€369 International, 365 Blair Road, Avenel, NJ 07001, USA.
Print edition only: £226/$429/€339
Site-wide online access only: £205/$390/€308 Permissions
Personal For information on how to request permissions to reproduce articles/information from
Print only: £117/$222/€176 this journal, please visit www.oxfordjournals.org/jnls/permissions.
Please note: £ Sterling or € Euro rates apply in Europe, US$ elsewhere Dosage disclaimer
Reports are available for purchase as single issues. Please see the Journal homepage: The mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations, and the inclusion
http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/, and go to ‘Purchase back reports of the ICRU’. of advertisements in the journal does not imply endorsement by the ICRU, the edi-
tors, the editorial board, Oxford University Press or the organization to which the
Full prepayment, in the correct currency, is required for all orders. Orders are regard- authors are affiliated. The editors and publishers have taken all reasonable precautions
ed as firm and payments are not refundable. Subscriptions are accepted and entered to verify dosage, the results of experimental work and clinical findings published in
on a complete volume basis. Claims cannot be considered more than FOUR months the journal. The ultimate responsibility for the use and dosage of drugs mentioned in
after publication or date of order, whichever is later. All subscriptions in Canada are the Journal and in interpretation of published material lies with the medical practition-
subject to GST. Subscriptions in the EU may be subject to European VAT. If regis- er, and the editors and publishers cannot accept liability for damages arising from any
tered, please supply details to avoid unnecessary charges. For subscriptions that errors or omissions in the journal. Please inform the editors of any errors.
include online versions, a proportion of the subscription price may be subject to UK
VAT. Personal rate subscriptions are only available if payment is made by personal Legal Notice
cheque or credit card and delivery is to a private address. This report was prepared by the International Commission on Radiation Units and
Measurements, Inc. (ICRU). The Commission strives to provide accurate, complete and
Visit www.jicru.oxfordjournals.org for complete listing of previous reports available useful information in its reports. However, neither the ICRU, the members of the ICRU,
from Oxford University Press. Oxford University Press, other persons contributing to or assisting in the preparation of
this report, nor any person acting on behalf of any of these parties: (a) makes any war-
For further information, please contact: Journals Customer Service Department, ranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness
Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK. Email: or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any informa-
jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org. Tel (and answerphone outside normal working tion, method or process disclosed in this report may not infringe on privately owned
hours): +44 (0)1865 353907. Fax: +44 (0)1865 353485. In the US, please contact: rights; or (b) assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting
Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, 2001 Evans Road, from the use of any information, method or process disclosed in this report.
Cary, NC 27513, USA. Email: jnlorders@oxfordjournals.org. Tel (and answerphone
outside normal working hours): 800 852 7323 (toll-free in USA/Canada). Fax: 919 © International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010
677 1714. In Japan, please contact: Journals Customer Services, Oxford University
Press, 1-1-17-5F, Mukogaoka, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0023, Japan. Email: All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
okudaoup@po.iijnet.or.jp. Tel: (03) 3813 1461. Fax: (03) 3818 1522. system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-
copying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission of the Publishers,
Methods of payment. Payment should be made: by cheque (to Oxford University or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by the Copyright
Press, Cashiers Office, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK); by bank Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, or in the USA
transfer [to Barclays Bank Plc, Oxford Office, Oxford (bank sort code 20-65-18) by the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. For
(UK); overseas only Swift code BARC GB22 (GB£ Sterling Account no. 70299332, those in the USA or Canada not registered with CCC, articles can be obtained by fax
IBAN GB89BARC20651870299332; US$ Dollars Account no. 66014600, IBAN in 48 hours by calling: WISE for MedicineTM 1-800-667-WISE.
GB27BARC20651866014600; EU€ EURO Account no. 78923655, IBAN
GB16BARC20651878923655]; or by credit card (Mastercard, Visa, Switch or Typeset by Techset Composition (P) Ltd
American Express). Printed by Bell & Bain, Glasgow, UK
ICRU REPORT No. 84

REFERENCE DATA FOR THE VALIDATION

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


OF DOSES FROM COSMIC-RADIATION
EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

Joint report of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
RADIATION UNITS AND
MEASUREMENTS
and
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION

DECEMBER 2010

Journal of the ICRU Volume 10 No 2 2010


REFERENCE DATA FOR THE VALIDATION OF DOSES FROM
COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

Report Committee
D. T. Bartlett (Co-Chair), Abingdon, UK
H.-G. Menzel (Co-Chair), European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
P. Beck, Austrian Institute of Technology, Seibersdorf, Austria
P. Goldhagen, U. S. Department of Homeland Security, New York, New York, USA
B. Lewis, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
L. Lindborg, Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
K. O’Brien, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


H. Schraube (to 2008), Neufahrn, Germany
F. Wissmann (from 2009), Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig, Germany

Consultants to the Report Committee


J.-F. Bottollier-Depois, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire,
Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
K. Fujitaka, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba, Japan
M. Latocha, Austrian Institute of Technology, Seibersdorf, Austria
M. Pelliccioni, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Frascati, Italy
M. Reginatto, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig, Germany
B. R. L Siebert, Braunschweig, Germany
F. Spurný, Nuclear Physics Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

ICRU Sponsors
D. T. L. Jones, Cape Scientific Concepts, Cape Town, South Africa
B. D. Michael, University of Oxford, Gray Cancer Institute, Northwood, United Kingdom
H. G. Paretzke, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Munich, Germany
S. M. Seltzer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA

The Commission wishes to express its appreciation to the individuals involved in the preparation of this
Report, for the time and efforts which they devoted to this task and to express its appreciation to the
organizations with which they are affiliated.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems or transmitted in
any form by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, mechanical photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A Catalogue record of this book is available at the British
Library.
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq025
Oxford University Press

The International Commission on Radiation Units and


Measurements

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


Introduction that action based on expediency is inadvisable
from a long-term viewpoint; it endeavors to base
The International Commission on Radiation Units
its decisions on the long-range advantages to be
and Measurements (ICRU), since its inception in
expected.
1925, has had as its principal objective the develop-
The ICRU invites and welcomes constructive
ment of internationally acceptable recommendations
comments and suggestions regarding its rec-
regarding:
ommendations and reports. These may be trans-
(1) quantities and units of radiation and radioactivity, mitted to the Chairman.
(2) procedures suitable for the measurement
and application of these quantities in clinical
radiology and radiobiology, and Current Program
(3) physical data needed in the application of these The Commission recognizes its obligation to
procedures, the use of which tends to assure provide guidance and recommendations in the areas
uniformity in reporting. of radiation therapy, radiation protection, and the
The Commission also considers and makes similar compilation of data important to these fields, and to
types of recommendations for the radiation protec- scientific research and industrial applications of
tion field. In this connection, its work is carried radiation. Increasingly, the Commission is focusing
out in close cooperation with the International on the problems of protection of the patient and
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). evaluation of image quality in diagnostic radiology.
These activities do not diminish the ICRU’s commit-
ment to the provision of a rigorously defined set of
Policy quantities and units useful in a very broad range of
scientific endeavors.
The ICRU endeavors to collect and evaluate The Commission is currently engaged in the
the latest data and information pertinent to the formulation of ICRU Reports treating the following
problems of radiation measurement and dosimetry subjects:
and to recommend the most acceptable values and
techniques for current use. Approaches to the Dosimetry of Low-Dose Exposures
The Commission’s recommendations are kept to Ionizing Radiation
under continual review in order to keep abreast of Design of a Voxel Phantom for Radiation Protection
the rapidly expanding uses of radiation. Dose and Volume Specifications for Reporting
The ICRU feels that it is the responsibility of Intra-Cavity Therapy in Gynecology
national organizations to introduce their own Fundamental Quantities and Units
detailed technical procedures for the development Harmonization of Reporting Patient Diagnostic Doses
and maintenance of standards. However, it urges Image Quality and Patient Dose in Computed
that all countries adhere as closely as possible to Tomography
the internationally recommended basic concepts of Key Data for Measurement Standards in the
radiation quantities and units. Dosimetry of Ionizing Radiation
The Commission feels that its responsibility lies Operational Radiation Protection Quantities for
in developing a system of quantities and units having External Radiation
the widest possible range of applicability. Situations Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Ion-Beam
can arise from time to time for which an expedient Therapy
solution of a current problem might seem advisable. Small-Field Photon Dosimetry and Applications in
Generally speaking, however, the Commission feels Radiotherapy

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

The Commission continually reviews radiation International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
science with the aim of identifying areas in which United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
the development of guidance and recommendations Organization
can make an important contribution.
The Commission has found its relationship with
The ICRU’s Relationship with Other all of these organizations fruitful and of substantial
benefit to the ICRU program.
Organizations
In addition to its close relationship with the ICRP,
the ICRU has developed relationships with other Operating Funds
organizations interested in the problems of radiation In recent years, principal financial support has
quantities, units, and measurements. Since 1955, been provided by the European Commission, the
the ICRU has had an official relationship with the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


National Cancer Institute of the US Department of
World Health Organization (WHO), whereby the Health and Human Services, and the International
ICRU is looked to for primary guidance in matters Atomic Energy Agency. In addition, during the last
of radiation units and measurements and, in turn, 10 years, financial support has been received from
the WHO assists in the worldwide dissemination of the following organizations:
the Commission’s recommendations. In 1960, the
ICRU entered into consultative status with the American Association of Physicists in Medicine
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Belgian Nuclear Research Centre
The Commission has a formal relationship with the Electricité de France
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects Helmholtz Zentrum München
of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), whereby ICRU Hitachi, Ltd.
observers are invited to attend annual UNSCEAR International Radiation Protection Association
meetings. The Commission and the International International Society of Radiology
Organization for Standardization (ISO) informally Ion Beam Applications, S.A.
exchange notifications of meetings, and the ICRU is Japanese Society of Radiological Technology
formally designated for liaison with two of the ISO MDS Nordion
technical committees. The ICRU also enjoys a National Institute of Standards and Technology
strong relationship with its sister organization, the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiologie
National Council on Radiation Protection and Philips Medical Systems, Incorporated
Measurements (NCRP). In essence, these organiz- Radiological Society of North America
ations were founded concurrently by the same indi- Siemens Medical Solutions
viduals. Presently, this long-standing relationship is Varian Medical Systems
formally acknowledged by a special liaison agree-
ment. The ICRU also corresponds and exchanges In addition to the direct monetary support pro-
final reports with the following organizations: vided by these organizations, many organizations
provide indirect support for the Commission’s
Bureau International de Métrologie Légale program. This support is provided in many forms,
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures including, among others, subsidies for (1) the time
European Commission of individuals participating in ICRU activities,
Council for International Organizations of Medical (2) travel costs involved in ICRU meetings, and
Sciences (3) meeting facilities and services.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United In recognition of the fact that its work is made
Nations possible by the generous support provided by all
International Committee of Photobiology of the organizations supporting its program, the
International Council for Science Commission expresses its deep appreciation.
International Electrotechnical Commission
International Labor Organization Hans-Georg Menzel
International Organization for Medical Physics Chairman, ICRU
International Radiation Protection Association Geneva, Switzerland
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq017
Oxford University Press

Reference Data for the Validation of Doses from Cosmic-Radiation


Exposure of Aircraft Crew

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Definitions of Quantities and Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 9
2.1.1 Fluence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 9
2.1.2 Fluence Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 9
2.1.3 Linear Energy Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 9
2.1.4 Absorbed Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 9
2.1.5 Dose Equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 9
2.1.6 Ambient Dose Equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 10
2.1.7 Ambient-Dose-Equivalent Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 10
2.1.8 Effective Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 10
2.1.9 Standard Barometric Altitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 10
2.1.10 Magnetic Rigidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 10
2.1.11 Geomagnetic Cut-Off Rigidity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 10
2.2 Terms Pertinent to the Earth’s Radiation Environment . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 10
2.2.1 Cosmic Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 10
2.2.2 Primary Cosmic Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.3 Secondary Cosmic Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.4 Galactic Cosmic Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.5 Solar Cosmic Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.6 Solar-Particle Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.7 Ground-Level Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.8 Solar Modulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.9 Solar Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.10 Solar Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.11 Solar Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11
2.2.12 Ground-Level Neutron Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 11

3. Radiation Protection Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Dose and Dose-Rate Assessment Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

4. Cosmic-Radiation Fields at Aircraft Flight Altitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.1 General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


4.2 Effects of Changes in the Earth’s Magnetic Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3 Ground-Level Enhancements and Forbush Decreases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5. Dosimetry of Radiation Fields in Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.1 Measurement Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 23


5.2 Calculation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 24
5.3 Effect of Aircraft Structure and Contents . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 24
5.4 Variability of Route Doses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 24

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


6. Reference Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6.1 General Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 27


6.2 Measurement Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 27
6.3 Accuracy of Measurement Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 27
6.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 27
6.3.2 Measurement Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 28
6.3.3 Summary of Assessment of Accuracy of Measurement Results .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 29
6.4 Reference Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 30
6.5 Data Analysis and Parameter Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 30
6.6 Reference Values of Ambient-Dose-Equivalent Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 31
6.7 Relationships Between Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 31
6.8 Use of Reference Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 32

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq014
Oxford University Press

Preface

One of the objectives of the ICRU is to provide verified by measurement. Among the many
recommendations and reference data for radiation measurements by researchers, there were a par-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


dosimetry. The purpose of this joint ICRU and ticular series of European Commission projects on
ICRP Report is to provide reference data of this topic, including a well-characterized set of
ambient-dose-equivalent rates of cosmic-radiation measurements of ambient dose equivalent. There
exposure at aircraft altitudes derived from was very good statistical agreement of two com-
measurements, against which the results of routine bined standard uncertainties of 25 % for these
methods of assessing annual doses of effective dose measurement results, which used a variety of tech-
for aircraft crew, made using calculations, can be niques and a range of methods of calibration. The
compared for validation purposes. detector assembly responses were traceable to
The establishment of the increasing rate of National Metrology Institutes. The measurand
absorbed dose with increasing altitude, other than was ambient-dose-equivalent rate using the conver-
the immediate decrease in rates from terrestrial sion coefficients from neutron, photon, electron,
radiation sources, was first observed by Hess in proton, muon, and pion fluence rates established
1912. In 1925, Millikan attributed the term “cosmic by Pelliccioni. These results published by the
rays” and “cosmic radiation” to the radiation field. European Commission are the basis for a set of
In the 1960s, there was concern about the conse- reference values of ambient-dose-equivalent rates
quence of high absorbed-dose rates, especially published in this Report for three different time
those from solar-particle events, for high-altitude periods of solar cycle 23, for altitudes of 31 000,
supersonic passenger aircraft. From that time, 35 000, and 39 000 ft (FL310, FL350, and FL390),
increasing knowledge of the absorbed-dose rates at and for latitudes from the equator to the poles.
jet-aircraft cruising altitudes from experimental In a joint report, ICRP and ICRU have defined
data and results of calculations on the galactic computational adult reference phantoms (ICRP,
cosmic-radiation fields in the atmosphere has accu- 2009) for the calculation of conversion coefficients
mulated. It became clear that some categories of from particle fluence to effective dose. Values of
aircraft crew should be considered as being occupa- conversion coefficients from fluence to effective
tionally exposed to cosmic radiation. ICRP dose for radiation incident from the superior hemi-
Publications 60 and 75, and recently Publication sphere, considered appropriate for the exposure of
103, classified the exposure of aircraft crew as aircraft crew, are calculated for the radiation fields
occupational. at the reference conditions considered in this
The radiation field inside an aircraft is to a large Report. The ratios of ambient dose equivalent and
extent uniform, and the exposure of aircraft crew is effective dose are tabulated, allowing the calcu-
generally predictable; events comparable to lation of effective dose from values of ambient dose
unplanned exposure in other radiation workplaces equivalent. These data may be used to test confor-
are unusual. The routine assessment of annual mity of assessments of effective doses for aircraft
doses of aircraft crew is based on calculated values crew. These reference values of effective dose
of effective-dose rate and staff-roster information. should facilitate international harmonization of
In routine radiation protection, traceable measure- dose assessments for aircraft crew by airlines and
ments are the basis of the overall system of individ- their regulators.
ual dose assessment, and it is generally accepted
that methods of annual dose assessment for Hans-Georg Menzel
aircraft crew based on radiation-transport calcu- David T. Bartlett
lations of effective-dose rates should be periodically

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq015
Oxford University Press

Abstract

Aircraft crews are exposed to elevated levels of assessment for aircraft crew based on radiation-
cosmic radiation of galactic and solar origins and transport calculations of effective-dose rates should

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


secondary radiations produced in the atmosphere, be periodically verified by measurement.
the aircraft, and its contents. The ICRP has rec- The purpose of this Report is to provide reference
ommended that exposures of aircraft crew to cosmic data derived from measurements against which the
radiation in the operation of commercial jet aircraft results of routine methods of assessing annual doses
be included as occupational exposure. using calculations can be compared (benchmarked)
The radiation field inside an aircraft is to a large for validation purposes. The reference values of
extent uniform, and doses are generally predict- ambient-dose-equivalent rate for exposure to cosmic
able, with the exception of rare, intense, high- radiation of galactic origins in aircraft at aviation
energy solar-particle events. Events comparable to altitudes cover the range of geomagnetic latitudes of
unplanned exposure in other radiation workplaces relevance, for three different time periods within
cannot normally occur. The routine assessment of the most recently completed solar cycle 23. The
annual doses of aircraft crew is based on calculated relationships between ambient dose equivalent and
values of effective-dose rate in conjunction with effective dose are given, allowing the calculation of
staff-roster information. In routine radiation pro- effective dose from values of ambient dose equival-
tection, traceable measurements are the basis of ent. These reference values should facilitate inter-
the overall system of dose assessment, and it is national harmonization of dose assessments for
generally accepted that methods of annual dose aircraft crew in terms of effective dose.

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq016
Oxford University Press

Executive Summary

This Report considers in Section 1 general cosmic-radiation field, using radiation-transport cal-
aspects of the control of the exposure of aircraft culations, or derived from determinations of the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


crews to elevated levels of cosmic radiation of galac- ambient-dose-equivalent rate and the application of
tic and solar origins and secondary radiations pro- appropriate conversion coefficients for the radiation
duced in the atmosphere. The ICRP in Publication field.
60 (ICRP, 1991) recommended that exposures of Detailed aspects of the cosmic-radiation field at
crews to cosmic radiation in the operation of com- flight altitudes are discussed in Section 4, with
mercial jet aircraft and spacecraft be part of occu- consideration of the main effects on the particle
pational exposure, and maintains this view (ICRP, fluence rates: altitude, geomagnetic cut-off (similar
2007). The purpose of this Report is to give refer- in effect to latitude), and stage of the Sun’s activity.
ence levels of ambient-dose-equivalent rates for the Summary figures of particle fluence energy distri-
most recently completed solar cycle 23 that will butions are included. The influence of solar-
allow conformity of routine methods of the assess- particle events is assessed. The basic data from
ment of effective doses to aircraft crew. which the reference levels of ambient-dose-
Section 2 gives definitions of quantities for the equivalent rates have been derived are given in
dosimetry of ionizing radiation and terms pertinent Section 5; these are results from a European
to the Earth’s radiation environment for the deter- Commission project. In routine radiation protec-
mination of the cosmic-radiation fields. tion, measurements traceable to national standards
Further considerations of radiation protection are the basis of the overall system of dose assess-
aspects are given in Section 3 together with indi- ment. The characterizations of detector assembly
cations of ambient-dose-equivalent rates for various results are discussed; these have led to good stat-
conditions. The radiation field comprises mainly neu- istical combined relative expanded uncertainties
trons, protons, electrons, photons, muons, and pions. (about 25 % for 2 standard deviations).
Galactic cosmic-radiation doses in an aircraft are In Section 6, these measurement data are fitted
generally predictable. Events comparable to using a Bayesian approach to derive the reference
unplanned exposure in other radiation workplaces levels of ambient-dose-equivalent rates for solar
cannot normally occur (with the exception of rare, cycle 23 for altitudes of FL310, FL350, and FL390,
intense, high-energy solar-particle events). Personal and for geomagnetic cut-offs from the equator to
dosimeters are not normally required, and, in most the poles. Calculations are necessary to derive con-
instances, routine assessments of annual doses of version coefficients from ambient dose equivalent
aircraft crew to provide records for regulatory and to effective dose, and these ratios are tabulated.
legislative purposes are based on staff-roster infor- The purpose of this Report is to provide reference
mation, flight profiles, and data on effective-dose rate data against which the results of routine methods
as a function of altitude, geomagnetic latitude, and of assessing annual doses using calculations can be
solar modulation. Effective-dose rate can be compared for validation purposes. A suggested
calculated directly from data on the incoming comparison for conformity is given.

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq018
Oxford University Press

1. Introduction

Aircraft crews are exposed to elevated levels of to provide records for regulatory and legislative
cosmic radiation of galactic and solar origins and purposes is based on calculated values of effective-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


secondary radiations produced in the atmosphere dose rate, whereas in routine radiation protection,
and in the aircraft and its contents. The generally, traceable measurements are the basis of
International Commission on Radiological the overall system of dose assessment. The calcu-
Protection (ICRP) in Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991) lations of effective-dose rate can be validated by
recommended that exposures of aircraft crew to traceable measurements using instruments cali-
cosmic radiation in commercial jet aircraft be part brated in terms of ambient dose equivalent and the
of occupational exposure. This recommendation application of appropriate ratios of effective dose to
also applies to spacecraft crew. The Commission ambient dose equivalent for the radiation fields.
noted that the only practical remedial measures Definitions of quantities and terms used in this
were controlling flying time and route selection. Report are described in Section 2, and the general
The ICRP maintains this view (ICRP, 2007). characteristics of cosmic-radiation fields and dose
Some international regulations, in particular in assessments are discussed in Section 3. Sections
the European Union (see EU, 1996), and various 4–6 describe the specifics of the cosmic-radiation
national regulations, require that: (i) Aircraft crew field in an aircraft, methods of dosimetry, and the
are informed of the health risk that their work basis for deriving the reference data. The reference
involves. (ii) In the case of a pregnant crew values of ambient-dose-equivalent rate for exposure
member, once the pregnancy is declared, the pro- to cosmic radiation of galactic origin in the aircraft
tection of the fetus should be comparable to that at aviation altitudes cover the range of geomagnetic
provided for members of the public. The employer latitudes of relevance, and for three different time
must plan future occupational exposures such that periods within solar cycle 23. The ratios between
the equivalent dose to the fetus will be as low as ambient dose equivalent and effective dose are
reasonably achievable and that it will be unlikely given, thus allowing the calculation of effective
that this dose will exceed 1 mSv during at least the dose from values of ambient dose equivalent. The
remainder of the pregnancy. (iii) Crew exposures measurement results used are traceable to national
are assessed if these are liable to be greater than standards, as far as possible, and otherwise vali-
1 mSv per year. (iv) Work schedules are organized dated by calculation and simulation. Section 6.8
to reduce individual doses. In some countries, there explains the use of the reference values.
is a requirement to record any annual assessed The reference data should facilitate international
doses above 1 mSv, in other countries only above harmonization of dose assessments for aircraft
6 mSv. In some countries, these recorded doses crew in terms of effective dose. The reference data
must be submitted to the national dose-record will provide a basis for assessing or validating
index authority. In practice, annual doses rarely procedures for determining individual doses and
exceed 5 or 6 mSv. will be of fundamental importance for regulatory
The purpose of this Report is to provide reference applications and in legal contexts. The large
data derived from measurement results against database of experimental and calculated data
which the results of routine methods of assessing (obtained over the last 20 years) shows remarkable
of annual doses using calculations can be compared consistency (see EC, 2004) and lends credence to
for validation purposes. In most instances, the the use of experimental reference data for verifying
routine assessment of annual doses of aircraft crew calculations.

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq019
Oxford University Press

2. Definitions of Quantities and Terms

2.1 Quantities excess of D of all the electrons released by the


charged particles.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


2.1.1 Fluence
The fluence, F, is the quotient of dN by da, where dED
LD ¼ : ð2:3Þ
dN is the number of particles incident on a sphere of dl
cross-sectional area da, thus
The unit of LET is J m21; a frequently used unit is
dN keV mm21.
F¼ : ð2:1Þ
da In order to simplify notation, D may be expressed
in eV. Then L100 is understood to be the LET for an
The unit of fluence is m22. energy cut-off of 100 eV. If no energy cut-off is
The energy distribution of the fluence, FE, is the imposed, the unrestricted linear energy transfer,
quotient dF by dE, where dF is the increment of L1, is equal to the linear electronic stopping power,
fluence in the energy1 interval between E and E þ Sel, and may be denoted simply as L.
dE. There is an analogous definition for the direc-
tion distribution, FV, of the fluence. The complete
representation of the double differential of fluence
can be written (with arguments) FE,V(E,V), where 2.1.4 Absorbed Dose
the subscripts characterize the variables (quan-
tities) for differentiation and where the symbols in The absorbed dose, D, is the quotient of d1 by
the parentheses describe the values of the dm, where d1 is the mean energy imparted by
variables. ionizing radiation to matter of mass dm, thus

2.1.2 Fluence Rate d1


D¼ : ð2:4Þ
dm
The fluence rate, F_ , is the quotient of dF by dt,
where dF is the increment of the fluence in the The unit of absorbed dose is J kg2l. The special
time interval dt, thus name for the unit of absorbed dose is gray (Gy);
1 Gy ¼ 1 J kg21.
dF
F_ ¼ : ð2:2Þ
dt

The unit of fluence rate is m22s21.


2.1.5 Dose Equivalent
2.1.3 Linear Energy Transfer The dose equivalent, H, is the product of Q and D
at a point in tissue, where D is the absorbed dose
The linear energy transfer (LET) or restricted
and Q the quality factor at that point. With DL
linear electronic stopping power, LD, of a material,
being the distribution of the dose D in LET L, and
for charged particles of a given type and energy, is
Q(L) being the quality factor as a function of L in
the quotient of dED by dl, where dED is the mean
water,
energy lost by the charged particles due to elec-
tronic interactions in traversing a distance dl, ð
minus the mean sum of the kinetic energies in H ¼ Q  D ¼ QðLÞDL dL: ð2:5Þ

1
The symbol E is used to denote both particle energy and the
effective dose in this Report; its meaning should be clear from The unit of dose equivalent is J kg2l with the
context, but the reader should be careful to not confuse the two special name sievert (Sv); 1 Sv ¼ 1 J kg21. Values
quantities. for the quality factor Q(L) are given in ICRP

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007) as ICRP/ICRU Report, ICRP Publication 110, Adult
Reference Computational Phantoms (ICRP, 2009).
QðLÞ
8 2.1.9 Standard Barometric Altitude
<1
> L=ðkeV=mmÞ,10
¼ 0:32L=ðkeV=mmÞ2:2 10L=ðkeV=mmÞ100: The standard barometric altitude is the altitude
>
: pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi determined by a barometric altimeter calibrated
300= L=ðkeV=mmÞ L=ðkeV=mmÞ.100
with reference to the International Standard
ð2:6Þ Atmosphere (ISA) (ISO, 1975) when the altimeter’s
datum is set to 1013.25 hPa. It is sometimes known
as pressure altitude. The flight level is sometimes
given as FL350, where the number represents mul-
2.1.6 Ambient Dose Equivalent tiples of 100 ft of pressure altitude, based on the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


The ambient dose equivalent, H*(d), at a point in ISA and a datum setting of 1013.25 hPa. However,
a radiation field, is the dose equivalent that would in some countries, flight levels are expressed in
be produced by the corresponding expanded and meters, in which case appropriate conversions
aligned field in the ICRU sphere (30 cm diameter must be made before applying the data given in
soft-tissue-equivalent sphere with a density of this Report.
1 g cm23 (ICRU, 1980)) at a depth, d, on the radius
vector opposing the direction of the aligned field. 2.1.10 Magnetic Rigidity
The unit of ambient dose equivalent is J kg21 with Magnetic rigidity is useful in characterizing the
the special name sievert (Sv). For strongly pene- trajectories of charged particles in magnetic fields.
trating radiation, a depth of 10 mm is rec- The magnetic rigidity, r, is the momentum per
ommended. The ambient dose equivalent for this charge.
depth is then denoted by H*(10).
p
r¼ : ð2:9Þ
2.1.7 Ambient-Dose-Equivalent Rate q
_
The ambient-dose-equivalent rate, H*(10), is the The unit of magnetic rigidity is kg m s22A21 ¼ T.m
quotient of dH*(10) by dt, where dH*(10) is ¼V m21s. A frequently used unit is V (or GV) in a
the mean increase of ambient dose equivalent in system of units in which the magnetic rigidity is cp/q.
the time interval dt, thus All particles having the same magnetic rigidity
will have identical trajectories in a magnetic field
_ dH*ð10Þ in vacuum, independent of particle mass, velocity,
H*ð10Þ ¼ : ð2:7Þ
dt and charge.
The unit of ambient-dose equivalent rate is J kg2ls21
2.1.11 Geomagnetic Cut-Off Rigidity
with the special name sievert per second (Sv s21).
The geomagnetic cut-off rigidity, rc, is the
2.1.8 Effective Dose minimum magnetic rigidity an incident particle
can have and still penetrate the geomagnetic field
The effective dose, E, is defined as given in ICRP
to reach a given location above the Earth.
Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007) by
Geomagnetic cut-off rigidity depends on angle of
X X
E¼ wT wR DT;R ; ð2:8Þ incidence. Often, vertical incidence to the Earth’s
T R surface is assumed, in which case the vertical geo-
magnetic cut-off rigidity is the minimum magnetic
where wT is the tissue weighting factor with SwT ¼ rigidity a vertically incident particle can have and
1, wR the radiation weighting factor defined for the still reach a given location above the Earth.
particle type and energy incident on the body (ICRP,
2007), and DT,R the mean absorbed dose in an organ
or tissue T due to radiation of type R. The sum is per- 2.2 Terms Pertinent to the Earth’s Radiation
formed over all the organs and tissues of the human Environment
body listed in ICRP Publication 103 (ICRP, 2007) and
2.2.1 Cosmic Radiation
for all particle types R. The unit of effective dose is
J kg21, with the special name sievert (Sv). Cosmic radiation is the ionizing radiation con-
Calculations of effective dose for this Report were sisting of high-energy particles, primarily nuclei, of
performed for the phantoms specified in the joint extra-terrestrial origin, and the particles they

10
Definitions of Quantities and Terms

generate by interaction with the atmosphere and 2.2.8 Solar Modulation


other matter.
Galactic-cosmic-radiation particles lose energy in
the solar wind, the highly ionized gas ( plasma)
2.2.2 Primary Cosmic Radiation
that boils off the solar corona and propagates
Primary cosmic radiation is cosmic radiation radially from the Sun. Solar modulation is the
incident from space at the Earth’s orbit. change of the GCR field (outside the Earth’s mag-
netosphere) caused by changes of solar activity and
2.2.3 Secondary Cosmic Radiation consequent changes of the solar wind.
Secondary cosmic radiation comprises particles
that are created directly or in a cascade of reactions 2.2.9 Solar Cycle
by primary cosmic rays interacting with the atmos-
Most indicators of solar activity vary in a quasi-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


phere or other matter. Important particles with
respect to radiation protection and radiation periodic manner, with successive maxima separ-
measurements in aircraft are: neutrons, protons, ated by an average interval of about 11 years, the
photons, electrons, positrons, muons, and, to a so-called solar cycle. If the reversal of the Sun’s
lesser extent, pions and nuclear ions heavier than magnetic field polarity in successive 11-year
protons. periods is taken into account, the complete cycle of
solar activity may be considered to average some 22
2.2.4 Galactic Cosmic Radiation years, the Hale cycle. The relative sunspot number
is a measure of sunspot activity. The relative
Galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) is cosmic radi- sunspot number is also known as the Wolf number.
ation originating outside the solar system.

2.2.5 Solar Cosmic Radiation 2.2.10 Solar Maximum

Solar cosmic radiation is cosmic radiation from The solar maximum is the time period of
the Sun. maximum solar activity during a solar cycle,
usually defined in terms of maximum relative
sunspot number or minimum cosmic-radiation
2.2.6 Solar-Particle Event fluence rate.

A solar-particle event (SPE) is an unusually


large fluence rate of energetic solar particles 2.2.11 Solar Minimum
ejected into space by a solar eruption. The solar minimum is the time period of
Solar-particle events are directional. minimum solar activity during a solar cycle,
usually defined in terms of minimum relative
2.2.7 Ground-Level Enhancement sunspot number or maximum cosmic-radiation
A ground-level enhancement (GLE) is a sudden fluence rate.
increase of cosmic radiation observed on the
ground by at least two neutron-monitor stations
2.2.12 Ground-Level Neutron Monitor
recording simultaneously a greater than 1 %
increase in the 5-min-averaged count rate associ- A ground-level neutron monitor is a particle
ated with solar energetic particles. A GLE is associ- detector used to measure the time-dependent rela-
ated with an SPE having a high-fluence rate of tive fluence rate of mainly cosmic-radiation second-
particles with high kinetic energy (greater than ary neutrons, but also protons and other hadrons.
about 500 MeV). Ground-level enhancements are Installed worldwide at different locations and alti-
relatively rare, occurring on average about once per tudes on the ground (and occasionally placed on
year. Ground-level enhancements are numbered; ships or airplanes), cosmic-radiation neutron moni-
the first number being given to that occurring in tors are used for various cosmic radiation studies
February 1942. and to determine solar modulation.

11
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq020
Oxford University Press

3. Radiation Protection Considerations

3.1 General their paths are bent as they cross a magnetic field.
In particular, the magnetic field of the Earth will

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


The radiation field in an aircraft at normal flight
act as a partial shield against charged particles.
altitudes is complex, with many types of ionizing
The lower-rigidity particles will be more affected
radiation present, with energies ranging up to
than those of higher rigidities. Near the equator,
1020 eV. This field is caused primarily by high-
where the geomagnetic field is nearly parallel to
energy particles that come from outside the solar
the ground, the magnetic-shielding effects will be
system, called galactic cosmic radiation (GCR). The
greatest, while at the poles, the effects are at a
GCR is fairly constant in time. It is modulated by
minimum. The extent to which a particle is bent
interactions with the magnetic field carried by the
depends inversely on the particle’s magnetic rigid-
solar wind and thus the Sun’s activity, varying
ity. Particles with magnetic rigidities below a
with the 11-year solar cycle such that the intensity
certain value, the geomagnetic cut-off rigidity, will
of the GCR at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is
not penetrate the Earth’s magnetic field. The geo-
least when the Sun’s activity is greatest. This
graphic distribution of this shielding effect can be
results in about a two-fold modulation of
inferred from Figure 3.2, which shows geomagnetic
ambient-dose-equivalent rate at higher latitudes,
vertical cut-off rigidities at an altitude of 20 km for
but there is little effect near the equator (see
the year 1990.
Figure 3.1). This is because lower-energy GCR par-
ticles contribute less to the cosmic-radiation fields
in the atmosphere near the equator owing to the
shielding effect of the Earth’s magnetic field (see 3.2 Dose and Dose-Rate Assessment
below), and lower-energy GCR particles are more Procedures
affected by solar modulation than are higher- For the purposes of dose limitation and control,
energy particles (see also Section 4.1). The Earth is the radiation protection quantity of interest is the
also exposed to sporadic bursts of energetic par- effective dose to the aircraft crew and to the fetus
ticles from the Sun, called solar-particle events of any pregnant crew members. For the radiation
(SPEs). This component is of less importance for field in an aircraft at flight altitudes, the
the assessment of annual doses, but can increase cosmic-radiation exposure of the human body is
the dose rate significantly for short time periods. essentially uniform, and the effective dose assessed
Associated with SPEs are disturbances of the mag- for the pregnant crew member is a conservative
netic field in the heliosphere (the region of influ- (safe) estimate of the effective dose to the fetus.
ence of the solar wind) and also of the Earth’s Doses on board aircraft are generally predictable,
magnetic field, leading to decreases in the GCR with the exceptions of rare, extremely intense high-
intensity and associated dose rates. Other disturb- energy SPEs. Events comparable to unplanned
ances of the Earth’s magnetic field arising from exposures in radiation workplaces cannot occur.
magnetic storms on the Sun can lead to increases Therefore, personal dosimeters are not required for
in dose rates. routine use (EC, 1996; ICRP, 1997; 2007). Doses to
The primary GCR interacts with the constituents aircraft crew can instead be calculated from
of the atmosphere, producing a cascade of second- staff-roster information, flight profiles, and
ary reaction products that are major components of effective-dose rate as a function of altitude, geo-
cosmic-radiation exposures. The dose rate increases magnetic latitude, and solar modulation.
initially and then decreases with depth in the Radiation-transport calculations are necessary to
atmosphere from about 20 km down to sea level obtain energy and direction distributions of particle
(see Figure 3.1). fluence to understand the composition of the radi-
Because many of the cosmic-radiation particles ation field in the aircraft in order to select suitable
considered in this Report are electrically charged, instruments and to interpret their readings, as

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

well as to derive the ratios of effective dose to has little dependence on the solar modulation (see
ambient dose equivalent. When measurements are Table 6.4).
made, these must be performed using accurate and Normally, one of the following alternative
reliable methods, with traceability to national stan- approaches may be adopted for the assessment of
dards, to ensure the quality of assessments pro- effective dose for individuals for a specific flight or
vided to workers and regulatory authorities. route:
For the radiation fields in the aircraft, ambient
dose equivalent is a conservative estimate of effec- (i) Calculate effective dose directly from data on
tive dose. The degree of over-estimation depends on the radiation field. That is, use calculated
altitude and geomagnetic cut-off. For the reference values of effective-dose rate for the assumed
altitudes and rigidity cut-offs considered here, the field direction distribution as a function of geo-
ratio of effective dose to ambient dose equivalent graphic location, altitude, and solar-cycle

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


phase, and combine these with information on
the flight profile. For routine assessments of
doses to aircrew, a correction to take account of
interactions in the aircraft structure and its
contents, which might be of a few percent,
should not normally be necessary.
(ii) Assess effective dose by the determination of
ambient-dose-equivalent rates by area moni-
toring and the calculation of effective-dose
rates using appropriate conversion coefficients,
and then combine with information on the
flight profile.

The flight profile used to assess doses may be a


generic “standard” flight profile between two air-
ports, the planned path for a particular flight on a
given day, or the actual flight path taken. For a
Figure 3.1. Calculated ambient-dose-equivalent rate, dH*(10)/
dt, for conditions close to solar maximum activity (open symbols) number of reasons, including weather conditions,
and close to solar minimum (closed symbols), at zero meridian the actual flight path will normally differ from
(i.e., 08 longitude) and at geographic latitudes 08 (circles) and the generic flight path and frequently from the
908 (triangles) (EC, 2004). planned flight path. For the assessment of the

Figure 3.2. Vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidities in GV based on data in 1990 at a 20 km altitude (Shea and Smart, 2001) (after EC,
2004). The background world map is modified, but originally was taken from NASA’s “Visible Earth” catalog: http://
visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id ¼ 2433, copyrights: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html#Guidelines, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
imagepolicy.cfm.

14
Radiation Protection Considerations

effective dose, the planned flight path or a typical Publications 60 (ICRP, 1991) and 75 (ICRP, 1997),
generic flight path for a given route is considered to are applicable to the cosmic-radiation exposure of
give a sufficiently accurate assessment (van Dijk, aircraft crew.
2003). For a given flight route, the value of effective ICRP in Publications 60 and 75 recommends that
dose is known as the route dose. The assessed “In practice, it is usually possible to achieve an
annual dose, or assessed dose for an extended accuracy of about 10 % at the 95 % confidence level
period of work of an aircraft crew member, can be for measurements of radiation fields in good labora-
obtained by combining staff-flight-roster infor- tory conditions. In the workplace, where the energy
mation with route doses. spectrum and orientation of the radiation field are
The methods of assessment (i) and (ii) above generally not well known, the uncertainties in a
should be validated either by comparison with the measurement made with an individual dosimeter
tables of ambient-dose-equivalent rates (Tables 6.1 will be significantly greater. Non-uniformity and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


to 6.3) given in this Report, together with the ratios uncertain orientation of the radiation field will
of effective dose to ambient dose equivalent introduce errors in the use of standard models. The
(Table 6.4). Methods of assessment as in (ii) above overall uncertainty at the 95 % confidence level in
(measurements of ambient dose equivalent) should the estimation of effective dose around the relevant
be validated through traceability to national metrol- dose limit may well be a factor of 1.5 in either
ogy institutes and the use of Table 6.4. The tables direction for photons and may be substantially
are for sets of reference conditions of altitude, geo- greater for neutrons of uncertain energy, and for
magnetic cut-off rigidity, and time in the solar cycle. electrons. Greater uncertainties are also inevitable
A compilation of measured and calculated at low levels of effective dose for all qualities of
ambient-dose-equivalent rates was published by radiation.” These statements apply strictly to the
the European Commission in 2004 (EC, 2004) cov- assessment of the protection quantities, E and HT,
ering the time period from 1993 to 2003. It gives but for doses below limits they can be applied also
values for vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidities to the operational quantities.
from 0 GV to 15 GV, and for standard barometric The ICRU makes recommendations on the accep-
altitudes up to 17 km. These data are the major table levels for total uncertainty in radiation pro-
basis for the analysis leading to the specification of tection measurements in Reports 47 and 66 (ICRU,
reference values of ambient dose equivalent given 1992; 2001) that are broadly consistent with the
in this Report. ICRP statements. The ICRU recommends for single
The establishment of the traceability to national measurements of the operational quantities that
standards of a determination of ambient dose “. . . in most cases, an overall uncertainty of one
equivalent is not simple, given the complexity of standard deviation of 30 % should be acceptable.
the radiation field, the difficulty of accurately The error of instruments may substantially exceed
determining the response characteristics of the this limit at some radiation energies and for
instruments used, the paucity of reference fields for certain angles of incidence, but conform to it when
high-energy radiation, and the difficulties of char- they occur (that is, measurements are made) in a
acterizing these fields. In many cases, measure- radiation field with a broad energy spectrum and
ments will need to be supported by computer broad angular distribution.”
simulations. The determination of ambient dose It is considered that for the cosmic radiation field
equivalent will normally also include corrections in the aircraft at flight altitudes, the combined rela-
for the instrument-response dependence on the tive standard uncertainty should not exceed 30 % for
energy and direction characteristics of the an assessment of an ambient dose equivalent equal
cosmic-radiation fields. These matters are dis- to or greater than an annual dose of 1 mSv, adjusted
cussed in the ISO standards ISO 20785-1:2006 for the assessment period (ICRU Report 47).
(ISO, 2006) and ISO 20785-2:2010 (ISO, 2010). Methods for the estimation of uncertainty are
The accuracy requirements for the measurement given in the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty
and assessment of doses, given in ICRU Reports 47 in Measurement (ISO, 1995) and complementary
(ICRU, 1992) and 66 (ICRU, 2001) and in ICRP documents (ISO, 2008; 2009; JCGM, 2008; 2009).

15
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq021
Oxford University Press

4. Cosmic-Radiation Fields at Aircraft Flight Altitudes

4.1 General Considerations


associated magnetic field varies with the Sun’s

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


The Earth is continually bombarded by high- activity. This results in modulations of the fluence
energy particles that come from outside the solar rates and energy distributions of the GCR particles
system—galactic cosmic radiation (GCR)—and that have penetrated into the heliosphere. At solar
sporadically exposed to bursts of energetic particles maximum, GCR nuclei lose maximum energy
from the Sun. This primary cosmic radiation (Gaisser, 1990) or undergo maximum deflection as
interacts with the atomic constituents of the atmos- they enter the solar system, causing a radiation
phere, producing a cascade of secondary reaction minimum at the Earth. The time of GCR radiation
products that contribute to cosmic-radiation maximum occurs at the time of solar minimum
exposures that decrease in intensity with depth in activity (see Figure 4.1). The relative change in
the atmosphere from aircraft cruising altitudes to dose rates from this solar modulation depends on
sea level (Ferrari et al., 2001; Heinrich et al., 1999; the other two main variables affecting cosmic radi-
Hess, 1912; O’Brien, 1972; UNSCEAR, 2000). ation in the atmosphere: geomagnetic latitude (see
Contributions from solar cosmic radiation, dis- EC, 2004) and altitude.
cussed at the end of this section, to annual doses The Sun’s activity is linked to its varying mag-
are far smaller than those from GCR. netic field, which has a basic dipole component that
About 98 % of the GCR particles are atomic reverses direction approximately every 11 years.
nuclei and about 2 % are electrons. Of the nuclei, Near reversals, at “solar maximum,” there are
about 90 % are protons (hydrogen nuclei), 9 % are many sunspots and other manifestations of mag-
helium nuclei, and 1 % are heavier nuclei (Gaisser, netic turbulence associated with the Sun’s activity.
1990; Simpson, 1983). They can have energies up Between reversals, at “solar minimum,” there are
to about 1020 eV, but lower-energy particles are the relatively few sunspots, flares, and coronal-mass
most frequent. After the GCR penetrates the mag- ejections (CMEs).
netic field of the solar system, the peak of the par- Because cosmic-radiation particles are electri-
ticle energy distribution is between a few hundred cally charged, their trajectories are bent as they
MeV per nucleon to 1 GeV per nucleon, depending cross a magnetic field. The lower the momentum
on solar magnetic activity and to some extent on per charge (magnetic rigidity) of a nucleus, the
the particle type. The particle energy distribution more its path is bent. The magnetic field of the
follows a power function of the form E 22.7 up to Earth reduces the number of low-momentum GCR
1015 eV; above that energy, the distribution stee- particles striking the atmosphere and consequently
pens to E 23. The fluence rate of the GCR at the lowers atmospheric cosmic-radiation dose rates.
location of the Earth is fairly constant in time, and The magnitude of the effect is determined by the
these energetic nuclei approach the Earth approxi- value of the geomagnetic cut-off rigidity. Near the
mately isotropically. equator, where the geomagnetic field is nearly par-
The solar wind is a plasma of protons and elec- allel to the ground, vertically incident particles
trons that boils off the solar corona and propagates with a magnetic rigidity less than about 15 GV are
radially from the Sun at a velocity on average of bent back into space. The minimum magnetic rigid-
about 400 km s21. The solar wind carries with it a ity that a vertically incident particle can have and
relatively strong and convoluted magnetic field. still reach a given location is called the vertical
The GCR particles lose energy by the bulk sweep- geomagnetic cut-off rigidity for that point. Because
ing action of the wind as they diffuse through the the showers of secondary radiation produced in the
wind, and by adiabatic deceleration in interactions atmosphere tend to follow the direction of the
with the wind (Jokipii, 1991; Parker, 1965). Energy incident primary particle and atmospheric
losses are of the order of hundreds of MeV per shielding is least for vertical radiation, the effect of
nucleon. The intensity of the solar wind and the the geomagnetic field is most important for

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

approximately 83 % protons, 15 % He ions, and


nearly 2 % heavier ions (Gaisser, 1990).
The changing contributions to the ambient-dose-
equivalent rate by the various secondary cosmic
radiation constituents in the atmosphere are shown
as functions of altitude in Figure 4.2. At low alti-
tudes, the muon component is the most important
contributor to dose; at aircraft altitudes, neutrons,
protons, electrons, positrons, photons, and muons
are the most significant components. At higher
altitudes, nuclei heavier than protons start to
contribute.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


The energy distributions of particle fluence rates
for neutrons, protons, pions, electrons, photons, and
muons calculated using FLUKA (Battistoni et al.,
Figure 4.1. Sunspot number (lower curve) and monthly
averaged Climax neutron monitor counts (counts per hour
2007; Fassò et al., 2005) are given in Figures 4.3 to
divided by 100) for solar cycles 20 through 23 (from 1964 to 4.8 (Schraube et al., 2000) for the extreme values of
beginning of 2009) The sunspot numbers are taken from http:// solar activity, geomagnetic cut-off, and altitude that
sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/ (SIDC, 2009). The Climax neutron could be expected for civilian aircraft. In each
monitor data are taken from ftp://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/ figure, the distribution in kinetic energy of particle
NeutronMonitor/DailyAverages.2000-.txt (Climax, 2009).
fluence rates, Ḟ E ¼ dF=dt dE (cm22 s21 GeV21), are
multiplied by the kinetic energy, E, and the integral
vertically incident primary particles. Near the mag- over E is normalized to unity for each particle. The
netic poles, where the geomagnetic field is nearly normalization factor to the total fluence rate, Ḟ , of
vertical, the vertical cut-off approaches zero, and that particle is given in each figure for the respect-
the maximum number of primary cosmic-radiation ive condition.
particles can reach the atmosphere and generate The Earth is exposed also to bursts of energetic
secondary radiation that penetrates to aviation alti- protons and heavier particles from magnetic dis-
tudes. As a result, cosmic-radiation-exposure rates turbances near the surface of the Sun, that is,
are highest in polar regions, and lowest near the solar-proton events or solar-particle events (both
equator (as shown in Figure 3.1). The magnitude of abbreviated to SPEs), and from ejection of large
the effect of cut-off depends on altitude and time in amounts of matter (CMEs). The solar particles are,
the solar cycle.
In the calculations of the cosmic-radiation field,
there is, for a given flight level and stage of the
solar cycle, an acceptable approximation in deter-
minations of the ambient-dose-equivalent rate by
using vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidity instead
of the actual (effective) geomagnetic cut-off rigidity.
Nearer to the geomagnetic equator, there is an
increasing discrepancy between vertical geomag-
netic cut-off rigidity and effective geomagnetic
cut-off rigidity (that takes into account all direc-
tions). However, the dependence of the ambient-
dose-equivalent rate on geomagnetic cut-off rigidity
is reduced near the equator, so that the effect on
the determination of the ambient-dose-equivalent
rate is minimal (O’Brien, 2008).
Solar modulation and the magnetic field of the
Earth alter the energy distributions and the relative
number of GCR protons and heavier nuclei reaching Figure 4.2. Ambient-dose-equivalent rates as a function of
the atmosphere. The composition of the nuclei given standard barometric altitude at 2 GV vertical geomagnetic
cut-off rigidity and mid solar cycle, for various particles of the
above (90 % protons, 9 % He ions, and 1 % heavier cosmic-radiation field in the atmosphere calculated (S. Rollet,
ions) is that for low geomagnetic cut-off ( polar P. Beck, and M. Latocha, private communication, 2009) using
regions) and low solar activity. At a vertical cut-off the Monte Carlo radiation-transport code FLUKA (Battistoni
of 15 GV (near the equator), the composition is et al., 2007; Fassò et al., 2005).

18
Cosmic-Radiation Fields at Aircraft Flight Altitudes

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


Figure 4.3. Distributions in kinetic energy, E, of the neutron Figure 4.5. Distributions in kinetic energy, E, of the charged
fluence rate normalized to unit fluence rate, ðE  FE =_Ḟ Þ. pion fluence rate normalized to unit fluence rate, ðE  FE =_Ḟ Þ.

Figure 4.4. Distributions in kinetic energy, E, of the proton


fluence rate normalized to unit fluence rate, ðE  FE =_Ḟ Þ. Figure 4.6. Distributions in kinetic energy, E, of the electron
fluence rate normalized to unit fluence rate, ðE  FE =_Ḟ Þ.
in some cases, accelerated by the CMEs and associ-
ated solar-wind shock waves. The particles of SPEs
are of much lower energy than the GCR, generally cumulative doses from the GCR. Intense SPEs can
below 100 MeV and only rarely above 10 GeV. SPEs reduce the GCR dose rates by temporarily disturb-
are of short duration, a few hours to a few days, ing the interplanetary and the Earth’s magnetic
and highly variable in intensity. Only a small fields in such a way as to change the GCR intensity
number of SPEs, about 10 or so over the 11-year reaching the atmosphere (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3).
solar cycle with more at times of greater solar
activity, cause significant increases in dose rates at
high altitudes and low geomagnetic cut-offs, and
4.2 Effects of Changes in the Earth’s
can be observed by neutron monitors on the
Magnetic Field
ground. Such events are called ground-level
enhancements (GLEs). For aircraft crew, the The global distribution of geomagnetic cut-off
additional doses from SPEs are far less than the rigidity is affected by changes of the Earth’s

19
COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

when calculated using the different cut-off maps. It


was therefore decided to use the 1990 cut-off values
for all calculations used in this Report. These are
quiet-Sun values.
The periods of low Sun activity are termed
“quiet,” and periods of high activity are termed
“noisy.” Periods of noisy Sun include times of
increased frequency of surface magnetic storms,
and these can affect the Earth’s magnetic field via
the solar wind, and thus influence the GCR and
resultant cosmic-radiation field in the atmosphere.
Many computer code packages for the prediction

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


of aircraft-crew radiation exposure assume a
“quiet” sun.
Calculations of the effects of a noisy Sun (Lewis
et al., 2009) for a number of actual routes for which
in-flight measurements were available have been
compared with results of calculations for the corre-
sponding routes under quiet-Sun conditions.
Figure 4.7. Distributions in energy, E, of the photon fluence rate Calculations were done for conditions correspond-
normalized to unit fluence rate, ðE  FE =_Ḟ Þ.
ing to both solar minimum and solar maximum.
The flights included high-latitude flights (both
northern and southern hemisphere) and trans-
equatorial flights, covering vertical geomagnetic
cut-off values from 0 GV to 15 GV. The maximum
increase in ambient dose equivalent of 20 % was
for trans-equatorial flights (for which doses are
generally lower) for a magnetic storm of maximum
intensity during solar minimum. For a magnetic
storm of maximum intensity during solar
maximum, the increase for a high-latitude flight
was calculated to be less than 2 %.

4.3 Ground-Level Enhancements and


Forbush Decreases
The calculation of the doses to aircraft crew for
the elevated ambient-dose-equivalent rates in the
event of a GLE (see Section 2.2) can only be made
retrospectively. The calculations are possible due to
Figure 4.8. Distributions in kinetic energy, E, of the muon
fluence rate normalized to unit fluence rate, ðE  FE =_Ḟ Þ.
the existence of a number of geomagnetically dis-
persed ground-level neutron monitors (GLNMs),
which continuously monitor the neutron fluence;
magnetic field (see, for example, Shea and Smart, the observed neutron fluence at ground level is
1990). The differences in cut-off rigidity from the caused primarily by cosmic radiation. Figure 4.1
use of the 1990, 1995, or the 2000 magnetic-field shows how the count rate varies with the number
data (Shea and Smart, 2001) were examined. It of sunspots during the time period from 1960 to
was clear that there is little difference in the distri- 2009. Measurements of enhanced dose rates can of
butions of values of cut-off (less than 0.2 GV course be made if aircraft carry appropriate instru-
change). The maximum change in the ambient- mentation. There are only very few measurements
dose-equivalent rate with change in cut-off is reported (see, for example, Beck et al., 2005; Dyer
1 mSv h21 GV21, and therefore, there is little et al., 2003; Lantos and Fuller, 2003; Spurný and
change in calculated values of E and H*(10) as a Datchev, 2001). It should be noted that there can
function of geographic coordinates, and negligible be a strong northern/southern hemisphere asym-
differences in route doses (less than 1 mSv change) metry, and also a dependence on geomagnetic

20
Cosmic-Radiation Fields at Aircraft Flight Altitudes

latitude; below latitudes of about 408, dose rates


are significantly lower (Dyer and Lei, 2001).
The increase of the ambient-dose-equivalent rate
due to solar-particle events can be quite substan-
tial. The uncertainties in the calculated ambient-
dose-equivalent rates were reviewed by Lantos and
Fuller (2003). The relative uncertainties are of the
order of several tens of percent. The reasons for the
large relative uncertainties are mostly the aniso-
tropy and localized nature of the events and the
variability of the energy distribution of the protons.
The greater the intensity of an SPE, the higher is

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


the relative uncertainty in the estimate of the
increased ambient-dose-equivalent rate. For the Figure 4.9. The influence of Forbush decreases on
GLE that occurred in February 1956 (Foelsche ambient-dose-equivalent rate. The curve shows the relative
et al., 1974), the maximum estimated value of neutron-fluence rate as measured by a GLNM (GLNM, in this
the instantaneous ambient-dose-equivalent rate case as measured by the Climax monitor in Colorado, USA). The
squares show the observed ambient-dose-equivalent rate
was about 10 mSv h21. The extra ambient dose
normalized to the same flight level as for New York. When the
equivalent for a flight during this event might neutron-fluence rate measured at ground level is reduced, the
have been about 20 mSv. However, for the largest ambient-dose-equivalent rate at aircraft altitudes is also
SPE fluence that has occurred since 1956, GLE 42 reduced, but by a greater amount (Kyllönen et al., 2001).
on 29 September 1989, the estimated ambient-
dose-equivalent rate was about 30 times less than
that in 1956. When all 64 GLEs observed since associated with a GLE can increase the dose to air-
1942 are considered, Lantos and Fuller (2003) con- craft crew, the GCR dose is diminished during the
clude that only 18 of them were associated with a Forbush decrease that usually accompanies a GLE.
significant likelihood of an increase in the effective Reductions of up to about 20 % of the normal dose
dose of aircraft crew of more than 30 mSv and only rate have been reported (see Figure 4.9). As an
four by more than 1 mSv. The contribution of SPEs example, monitoring onboard a Czech Airlines air-
to the total lifetime exposure of aircraft crew to craft for several months during 2001 allowed the
cosmic radiation is therefore relatively small, and registration of several Forbush decreases and one
not considered further in this Report. GLE, viz., GLE 60 (Spurný and Datchev, 2001).
The GCR fluence at the top of the atmosphere The associated SPE might have caused a dose of
sometimes decreases also as a result of CMEs and from 15 mSv to 20 mSv in addition to that of from
short-term increases in the solar wind. Such events 30 mSv to 40 mSv for a transatlantic flight under
are called Forbush decreases, they can occur a few normal conditions, whereas each Forbush decrease
times each year (Cane, 2000; Forbush, 1937), and reduced the ambient dose equivalent by from
they can last for several days. While an SPE 10 mSv to 15 mSv.

21
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq022
Oxford University Press

5. Dosimetry of Radiation Fields in Aircraft

5.1 Measurement Methods


with its analysis algorithm, should be treated as

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


The dosimetry of the radiation fields in an air- one measuring assembly and calibrated as such. In
craft requires specialized techniques of measure- practice, based on prior knowledge of the response
ment and calculation. The field comprises mainly characteristics, it is acceptable to calibrate com-
neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons, photons, ponents of the measuring assembly separately, but
and muons. There is no significant contribution to with appropriate attention paid to the effect of
dose equivalent from energetic, primary, heavy other radiation types and the algorithm.
charged particles, or fragments. As a very approxi- A calibration function must be determined using
mate guide, at normal flight altitudes and temper- data on the energy and direction characteristics of
ate latitudes, the relative contributions to total the field or field component to be determined and
ambient dose equivalent are 50 % from neutrons, the energy and angle ambient-dose-equivalent
15 % protons, 20 % electrons plus positrons, 10 % response of a device to be used. This calibration
photons, and 5 % muons (see Figure 4.2). The elec- function can be folded with the field characteristics
trons, positrons, and muons are directly ionizing to establish a correction factor to be applied to the
radiations and, together with charged particles set calibration coefficient determined for a reference
in motion by the indirectly ionizing photons, inter- radiation field, or to establish a field-specific
act with matter via the electromagnetic force. calibration coefficient.
Neutrons and to a lesser extent pions interact For measurement purposes, it is convenient to
via the strong force producing directly ionizing separate the dose into two components: the low-LET
secondary particles. Protons are both directly ioniz- (10 keV mm21) and high-LET (.10 keV mm21)
ing via the electromagnetic force and indirectly components. This approach is based on the depen-
via strong-force interactions. In the general case, dence of the quality factor on LET in water, which is
ambient dose equivalent cannot be determined unity below 10 keV mm21, and is described by a
with conventional dosimetric techniques. However, function Q(L) above (see Section 2.1.5). This separ-
using suitable methods of calibration, measure- ation between low- and high-LET particles can be
ments of acceptable accuracy can be made in most distinguished with TEPCs and with other detectors.
situations. It is generally necessary to apply correc- The low-LET component comprises the following
tions using information on the energy and direction parts: directly ionizing electrons, positrons, and
characteristics of the field, and the energy and muons; secondary electrons from photon inter-
angle ambient-dose-equivalent response character- actions; most of the energy deposition by directly
istics of the device. ionizing interactions of protons; part of the energy
The types of detectors that can be used for deposition by secondary particles from strong inter-
measurements to determine ambient dose equival- actions of protons and neutrons. The high-LET com-
ent onboard aircraft are similar to those devices ponent arises from relatively short-range secondary
used at high-energy particle accelerator labora- particles from strong interactions of protons and
tories. Because of the several types of particles con- neutrons.
tributing to the measurement quantity, and their Another common approach to classify the com-
large energy ranges, it is usually necessary to use ponents of a radiation field is to distinguish
more than one measuring device, or to use a between neutron and non-neutron components.
measuring device operating in more than one This approach is based on the detection technique
mode, for example, a tissue-equivalent proportional applied, as many measurement systems are not
counter (TEPC) in which different ranges of sensitive to neutron radiation. There are simi-
energy-deposition event sizes are treated differ- larities between the neutron and the high-LET
ently. For all such cases, the combination of components and the non-neutron and the low-LET
measuring devices, or operating modes, together components. However, at neutron energies above

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

20 MeV, the neutrons produce, in addition, an The radiation-transport codes take as input the
increasing low-LET contribution. cosmic-radiation field at the top of the atmosphere
The low-LET and the non-neutron component can and solve, either analytically or by Monte Carlo
be measured using a TEPC, an ionization chamber, simulation, the radiation-transport equations that
a Geiger–Müller detector, a silicon-based detector, a describe the interactions of each particle with the
scintillation detector, or a passive-luminescence or constituents of the atmosphere in order to calculate
ion-storage detector. The high-LET and/or neutron the field at a given aircraft altitude and geographic
component can be measured using active devices location. The effect on particle trajectories of the
such as a TEPC, an extended-range neutron survey Earth’s magnetic field is included in approxi-
meter, a multi-sphere neutron spectrometer, or mations using tables of geomagnetic cut-off rigid-
passive devices such as an etched-track detector, a ities. The main sources of uncertainty in the
bubble detector, or a fission foil with damage-track calculations of effective-dose rate arise in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


detector. Passive etched-track detectors can be used
to determine this component using two approaches: † the data on the GCR particle fluence rates and
as an LET spectrometer and/or through the simple energy distributions at the top of atmosphere,
counting of secondary charged-particle tracks (EC, including the method of taking the changes of
2004). solar activity into account;
The summed components, low-LET plus high-LET, † the basic characteristics of transport codes and
or non-neutron plus neutron, will with suitable cali- the cross-section data used;
bration and normalization give the total ambient † the use of vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidity
dose equivalent. Therefore, it is essential for the instead of doing a full calculation using the direc-
measurement of complex radiation fields that the tion distribution of cut-off rigidity;
instruments used are fully characterized in reference † statistical uncertainties of the calculated
radiation fields at national metrology institutes, fluence and energy distributions at points in the
where possible, thus ensuring that full traceability is atmosphere.
established. The individual uncertainties related to these
Details of the conceptual basis for the measure- factors are important, but in some cases not accu-
ment of the cosmic-radiation field in aircraft and a rately known.
description of measurement methods can be found,
for example, in ISO (2006), and the calibration of
instruments for these measurements in ISO (2010). 5.3 Effect of Aircraft Structure and Contents
Additional detailed information on the measure- Calculations of the effect of aircraft construction
ment methods particularly relevant to the measure- that have been published (Battistoni et al., 2005) are
ment results used as the basis of the reference for a simplified model that does not take account of
values of the ambient-dose-equivalent rate given in the predominance of particles coming from above
Tables 6.1 to 6.3 can be found in EC (2004), ICRU and of the direction dependence of cut-off rigidity.
(2001), ISO (2006), and Lillhök et al. (2007). The magnitude of the effect depends, of course, on
the type of aircraft and on the position in the air-
5.2 Calculation Methods craft, the amount of fuel and cargo, and numbers of
passengers on board. It is expected that the overall
There are a number of radiation-transport codes effect of interactions of the incident radiation with
used to calculate the radiation field at aircraft alti- the aircraft fabric, passengers, cargo, and fuel is to
tudes produced by galactic cosmic radiation. There decrease ambient-dose-equivalent rates by a few
are several programs that use the results of such percent.
radiation-transport calculations of effective-dose
rates at aircraft altitudes to calculate effective
doses to aircraft crew using flight data. There are
5.4 Variability of Route Doses
also calculations of effective doses to aircraft crew
that are based on the results of an extended set of Uncertainties associated with assessing aircraft-
measurements. There is generally good agreement crew effective doses using different calculation
among the results of such calculations, in particu- methods have been assessed (van Dijk, 2003). The
lar if one considers the different approaches, the actual variation in flight routes and the consequent
different approximations made in the solution of variations in the (calculated) effective doses were
the radiation-transport equations, and the various considered and treated as a random uncertainty.
sources of uncertainties (Bottollier-Depois et al., For the routes investigated, the relative uncer-
2009; EC, 2004). tainty values obtained ranged from 4 % to 21 %.

24
Dosimetry of Radiation Fields in Aircraft

The relative random uncertainty in the estimate of examined. This was considered as acceptable agree-
annual effective dose would be much less. The ment with the requirement of a total uncertainty of
effect of using the planned route, as opposed to the 30 % (ICRU, 1992). From long-term monitoring
actual flight path, was treated as a systematic runs, using a silicon spectrometer, covering more
uncertainty, and relative uncertainties obtained than 600 individual flights mostly over the North
ranged from 2 % to 19 %. The effect of the model Atlantic Ocean (Spurný and Datchev, 2003), calcu-
used was also treated as a systematic uncertainty, lated and measured results were compared.
with a relative uncertainty of 10 % assigned. It was Navigation data were available for all these flights.
concluded that the relative combined standard The relative combined standard uncertainties of
uncertainties in the estimated effective doses for measured route doses were consistent with those
single flights, obtained as the square root of the obtained for the calculated values, typically 20 %
sum of the squares of the three components, (two relative standard uncertainties, or a coverage

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


ranged from 11 % to 27 % for the 12 routes factor of k ¼ 2).

25
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq023
Oxford University Press

6. Reference Data

6.1 General Approach have a relative expanded uncertainty (k ¼ 2) of less


than 25 %, and the good agreement implies that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


Measurement results for the ambient-dose-
the standard uncertainties are probably somewhat
equivalent rate for the period 1992 to 2006 have
less than those estimated by the laboratories that
been evaluated, and the data for three time periods
have made the measurements. The overall accuracy
selected to cover most of the range of solar activity,
is as good as, if not better than, that achieved gen-
the most common range of altitudes, and a full
erally in routine operational radiation protection
range of vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidities,
measurements.
have been fitted with a simple function using a
Some short-duration measurements of lower stat-
Bayesian approach (see Section 6.5). The fitted
istical accuracy and one small set of data that are
model equation has been used to determine values
clearly outliers have been excluded, and in some
for the chosen reference conditions. These tabu-
cases, frequently repeated measurements on a
lated values, given in Section 6.6 in Tables 6.1 to
single flight are grouped and averaged. Otherwise,
6.3, are the recommended reference values of
all measurements are given equal weight and are
ambient-dose-equivalent rate. Ratios of effective
fitted for the time periods, altitudes, and vertical
dose to ambient dose equivalent for the reference
geomagnetic cut-offs with a simple model equation.
conditions are tabulated in Table 6.4 (see Section 6.7).

6.3 Accuracy of Measurement Results


6.2 Measurement Results
6.3.1 General
Since about 1990, an extensive series of measure-
ments of the cosmic-radiation field in an aircraft To assess the components of the uncertainties
has been made. These have included four multina- and the overall accuracy of values of ambient dose
tional, multi-institutional coordinated measure- equivalent determined by measurements, detailed
ment, and research and development programs information about the instruments, and their cali-
funded by the European Commission (Beck et al., brations, are needed. For the majority of the results
1999; EC, 1997; O’Sullivan, 1999; O’Sullivan et al., used in this Report, this information, and a detailed
2004). The participants in these programs also held discussion of the estimation of the uncertainties,
regular workshops (Kelly et al., 1999; Reitz et al., can be found in EC (2004), ISO (2009), and JCGM
1993). Many of the results obtained by these and (2009). The neutron-radiation reference fields at the
other European investigations have been summar- Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB),
ized, and detailed descriptions given of the Germany, traceable to national standards, have
measurement methods, in two European Radiation been most important for the interpretation of the
Dosimetry Group (EURADOS) reports published by results of most instruments. Other traceable fields
the European Commission (EC, 1996; 2004). The used for calibration are the low-LET radiation fields
results compiled in the 2004 EURADOS Report, at national metrology institutes and at secondary
which include results of the measurement program standards laboratories. Neutron calibrations were
of the Royal Military College, Canada, form the also performed in the high-energy neutron fields at
basis for the database used in this Report, with the Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium),
some later measurements of Wissman (2006) the iThemba Laboratory for Accelerator-Based
added. The results obtained using a wide variety of Sciences (South Africa), and the The Svedberg
instrument types and based on different methods Laboratory (TSL) (Sweden), and also in the high-
of calibration, response characterization, and energy proton fields at TSL. The responses of
interpretation, show very good agreement. Almost neutron detectors were in many cases normalized
all the results for ambient-dose-equivalent rate using common radionuclide-based sources (Am–Be,

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

Cf, Pu–Be). The CERF (CERN EU Reference Field) important uncertainty is caused by the relatively
(Mitaroff and Silari, 2002) high-energy reference low frequency of high-LET events, which deposit
neutron facility was widely used for normalization only a minor fraction of the absorbed dose, but
and for comparisons of instrument responses. which contribute a much larger fraction of the
Agreement with other instruments in the CERF field ambient dose equivalent. The low frequency of
is often taken as a demonstration of the in-flight high-LET events will determine the statistical
capability of an instrument to determine the uncertainty in the effective quality factor. Some
neutron-dose component with acceptable accuracy. similar considerations can be applied to the
Some instruments that had been calibrated using interpretation of a Si-diode spectrometer (see EC,
similar approaches were calibrated in-flight against 2004). To reduce the influence of the statistical
a tissue-equivalent proportional counter from PTB. uncertainties in the comparison of measured and
In particular instances of the determination of the calculated data, routes for which the integral

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


calibration and the uncertainty, the UK Health dose-equivalent value is less than 10 mSv have
Protection Agency’s passive survey instrument uses been avoided in the evaluations.
field-specific calibration coefficients derived from For active detectors, such as ionization chambers,
determinations of the instrument’s energy and scintillation counters, Geiger–Müller detectors, and
angular dependence of response folded with the moderator-based neutron monitors, which do not
energy distribution of the field in the aircraft, determine LET or lineal-energy distributions and
assuming isotropic irradiation. On the other hand, consequently do not determine values of the effec-
for the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies (DIAS) tive quality factor, the statistical uncertainties are
(Ireland) detector stack, a high-LET ambient-dose- reported to be small even for short acquisition
equivalent component is obtained from an entirely times.
independent method of calibration, including deter- Passive detectors are generally less sensitive
mining the LET dependence of response using a than active detectors. Single track-etch detectors
range of ions at the National Institute of need to be exposed for a few hundred hours for
Radiological Sciences (Japan). The Agenzia acceptable statistical uncertainty. To reduce the
Nazionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente’s (Italy) exposure time, stacks of detectors are generally
detector stack, and the Nuclear Physics Institute’s used.
(Czech Republic) silicon spectrometer, make use of a For the range of particle types and energies (and
combination of a low-LET beam calibration and a LET) of the fields in the aircraft, it is found that all
normalization in the CERF field, as well as with the devices used to determine ambient dose equivalent
neutron sources already mentioned. The Nouvelle (with the possible exception of the DIAS approach
Approche Unifiée d’un Système Intégré de Contrôle for the neutron and heavy charged-particle com-
d’Ambiance Aérospatiale (NAUSICAA) (France) ponents) need to be calibrated in reference fields in
instrument and the Centro de Investigaciones, terms of ambient dose equivalent. In some cases,
Energéticas, Medioambientes y Technológicas’ the analysis of the results of the calibration
(CIEMAT) (Spain) detector set are calibrated in requires additional input from calculations of the
fields of radionuclide-based neutron sources and a device response characteristics. Reference fields
low-LET source. The Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten’s are not available for all components of the fields in
(Sweden) TEPCs are calibrated in a low-LET photon the aircraft. Various calculations and corrections
field, and the response to other components is esti- become necessary, introducing additional com-
mated from the knowledge of the response to some ponents of systematic uncertainty. The energy dis-
of those radiations. tributions of the different components of the field
in aircraft are approximately independent of alti-
tude and geomagnetic cut-off rigidity. Therefore, a
6.3.2 Measurement Uncertainties
calibration established in a radiation field of
The uncertainties of on-board measurement similar composition and energy distribution would
depend on the type of detector and the method reduce the uncertainty of the measurement of
used for its evaluation, and on the dose rate and either the low-LET or non-neutron component, or
total dose. The relative combined standard uncer- of the high-LET or neutron component. A suitable
tainties reported by the different groups for TEPCs comparison field for the neutron component has
are from 5 % to 10 % (1 SD) for a one-hour been the CERF neutron field. However, the trace-
measurement of ambient-dose-equivalent rate. The ability to internationally accepted standards of this
sizes of the TEPCs used were such as to allow the field has not yet been established.
measurement of an absorbed dose of 2 mGy with a For instruments intended to measure only the
standard deviation of about 0.05 mGy. However, an low-LET ambient-dose-equivalent component, the

28
Reference Data

unwanted response to neutrons introduces another noted that even if the calibrations have been made
uncertainty. However, whereas neutrons contribute in an identical way and if the measurements have
about 50 % of the total dose equivalent in a field been made with similar instruments, the daily vari-
in the aircraft, the relative contribution to the ation of the solar wind can influence the outcome of
total absorbed dose in tissue and tissue-equivalent such evaluations. Measurements at identical geo-
proportional counters is only about 10 %. In metal- graphical positions and altitudes but performed on
walled ionization chambers and in thermolumines- different dates have a relative deviations of from 10 %
cence dosimeters (TLDs), the neutron kerma (for to 20 %.
the energy distribution in the fields being con- In order to simultaneously compare various
sidered) is lower than that in tissue. For TLDs, in instruments in real conditions in the same radiation
general, the relative light-conversion efficiency for field, a comparison was organized aboard a
the neutron-generated secondary charged particles Paris-Tokyo round-trip flight (Bottollier-Depois

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


is also low overall. As a result, the systematic com- et al., 2004). Systems of instruments with both
ponent of the relative standard uncertainty result- passive and active detectors were used. The overall
ing from the unwanted neutron response is dispersion among the results obtained for ambient
unlikely to exceed about 5 % of the total H*(10). dose equivalent with the different dosimetric
Moderator-based neutron monitors need to be modi- systems was found to be between 10 % and 15 % (one
fied to improve their high-energy response, for relative standard uncertainty). This agreement is
example, by adding lead or other high-atomic-number satisfactory if one considers that each system used a
material. Most of those neutron monitors are also sen- different specific technique and was calibrated using
sitive to high-energy protons; this effect is unlikely to independent reference sources and procedures; fur-
increase the reading by more than about 10 %. thermore, the composition of the radiation field
Relative systematic standard uncertainties for varied with the altitude and geomagnetic latitude
TEPC measurements of total ambient dose equival- along the route. The agreement between the average
ent are typically about 15 %. Some indications of ambient dose equivalent obtained by measurements
the uncertainties for low-LET instruments can be and calculations was consistent for the total ambient
deduced from the results of onboard comparisons. dose equivalent and for the neutron and non-
neutron components separately.
An investigation was performed within the Fifth
6.3.3 Summary of Assessment of Accuracy of
European Research Framework and the CAATER
Measurement Results
program (Coordinated Access to Aircraft for Trans-
Many different kinds of detectors have been used national Environmental Research) to compare
to produce the evaluated results given in this measurements of ambient-dose-equivalent rate on
Report, with some instruments calibrated using board an aircraft circulating in a limited area. The
independent methods. The relative combined stan- aircraft circulated at constant flight levels (FL) at
dard uncertainties of experimentally determined the geographic positions N57E8 (west of Aalborg,
ambient-dose-equivalent dose rates when treated as Denmark) and N45E12 (north of Rome, Italy). For
independent measurements are about from 10 % to each flight, the deviations from the positions were
15 %. The information on the uncertainties for the less than 18 in both longitude and latitude.
individual sets of measurement results are not Measurements were made for 2 h at flight levels of
always sufficiently detailed for them to be easily FL400 and FL320. Measurements were made with
compared or summarized. However, for the TEPCs, six active instruments. Five instruments were
the relative systematic standard uncertainty is gen- based on microdosimetry techniques employing
erally reported to be 15 %. The corresponding rela- tissue-equivalent proportional counters, while one
tive statistical standard deviation is typically from was based on analysis of the distribution of energy
5 % to 10 % for a one-hour measurement. The rela- imparted by single particles in a Si-diode detector.
tive combined standard uncertainty for a TEPC is There were differences among TEPCs in the
then about 20 %, which is larger than the uncer- reported dose-equivalent rates for the high- and
tainty indicated in the comparisons of results low-LET components for similar total H*(10) rates.
reported by EURADOS (EC, 2004). For several The cause of these differences is at least partly
other instruments, which do not require a determi- linked to observed differences in the calibration
nation of the LET, the random uncertainties are methods (Lillhök et al., 2007). In general, the
smaller. It is clear that there is good agreement for experimental results of different investigators
the reported measurement results, and the relative showed agreement within one relative standard
combined standard uncertainty is within the deviation of 10 % or less for all flights except at the
requirement of 30 % (ICRU, 1992). It should be lower FL320 above Rome. In this case, the relative

29
COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

standard deviation was twice as large. This was rigidities, and phases in the solar cycle, functions
caused by the low dose rate, and the very few that depend on the first two parameters, standard
high-LET events, which contribute a large fraction barometric altitude, and geomagnetic cut-off, rc,
of the ambient-dose-equivalent rate. were considered. To account for the influence of the
The on-board measurements with several instru- phase in the solar cycle, a function dependent on
ments reported by Lillhök et al. (2007) and those of the fluence rate of secondary neutrons at ground
Bottollier-Depois et al. (2004) both indicate a rela- level as measured by a ground-level neutron
tive standard deviation of the measurement of the monitor (GLNM) was used. The monitor at Oulu,
ambient dose equivalent in the aircraft of 10 %. This Finland, was chosen (Oulu, 2009). An investigation
estimate does not include the variation introduced demonstrated that the fit was not sensitive to the
by short-term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field choice of GLNM (relative effect on reference values
and in the solar wind. The estimated relative stan- of less than 5 %).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


dard uncertainty due to these short-term changes is Previous analyses have shown (see, for example,
from 10 % to 20 %. Combining these two com- Schrewe, 2000) that a simple function can be fitted
ponents gives a total relative combined standard to data corrected to a common altitude. The func-
uncertainty of from 15 % to 30 %, in broad agree- tion used here has a linear term for H*(10) plus a
ment with the value for the expanded uncertainty term with an exponent in terms of the vertical
(k ¼ 2) of 25 % observed for the large set of measure- geomagnetic cut-off, both terms expressed as func-
ments reported by EURADOS (EC, 2004). tions of standard geomagnetic altitude and
Measurements to compare active and passive GLNM rate (Schrewe, 2000; Wissmann, 2006). The
devices, in particular devices to estimate the ambient-dose-equivalent rates are expressed in
neutron component and to perform spectrometry, terms of Taylor expansions in the standard baro-
were carried out in 1997 on board a high-altitude metric altitude and the fluence rate of secondary
aircraft. The results showed close agreement of neutrons at ground level. The Taylor expansions
ambient-dose-equivalent rates measured at these are carried out with respect to initial values of
high altitudes of FL520 to FL700, at geographic lati- these quantities that are appropriate for the par-
tudes of 188N to 608N over the USA and the Pacific ameter ranges of interest. Only lower-order terms
Ocean (Goldhagen, 2000; Wilson et al., 2003). in the expansion are kept. It is not straightforward
to choose which lower-order terms to include in the
expansion; an insufficient number of terms lead to
6.4 Reference Conditions a fitted function that is robust but which does not
fit the data well, while an excessive number of
Reference values have been chosen for the
terms lead to unrealistic oscillations. Different
ambient-dose-equivalent rate at three altitudes
choices of lower-order terms have been examined
selected to cover most of the normal range for the
and several tools that are available in Bayesian stat-
majority of large passenger-jet aircraft flights:
istics have been used to select the one that gives
FL310, FL350, and FL390; 18 vertical geomagnetic
optimal results (Wissmann et al., 2010).
cut-off rigidity values to cover the full range from
Bayesian parameter estimation is used to deter-
0 GV to 17 GV in increments of 1 GV; and for three
mine the values of the parameters that give the
time periods (three calendar months, January 1998,
best fit to the data. All the calculations have been
January 2000, and January 2002). The time periods
carried out using WinBUGS (Lunn et al., 2000), a
were chosen to encompass a large proportion of
software package for Bayesian estimation using a
solar-modulation values, reasonably representative
Markov-chain Monte Carlo program. The goal of
and taking account of periods of greater fluctuation.
the analysis is to calculate the posterior probability
These time periods were selected as they include a
density of the parameters given the measured data,
large number of measurements, although as indi-
and the main tool used is the Bayes theorem. This
cated in Section 6.5, other data were also included.
requires defining a likelihood function and choosing
prior distributions for the parameters (Sivia and
Skilling, 2006). For the likelihood function, it is
6.5 Data Analysis and Parameter Estimation
assumed that the measurement uncertainties are
To fit the data, the ambient-dose-equivalent rate normally distributed with an unknown variance
is modeled with a parameterized function, and that is determined by the data. Non-informative
Bayesian statistics are used to determine the priors are chosen for the analysis, which is a con-
optimal choice of parameters. Because the data set servative assumption. In the event, the data are
includes measurements made at different standard robust enough to determine optimal values of the
barometric altitudes, vertical geomagnetic cut-off parameters without the need of informative priors.

30
Reference Data

The above analysis was done using the large and 6.7 Relationships Between Quantities
very comprehensive data set of approximately
The relationship between effective dose and
20 000 measurements made by several groups with
ambient dose equivalent can be established only by
different types of detectors and under different con-
calculation. Results are presented here for calcu-
ditions. A sensitivity analysis was performed, which
lations for the atmospheric particle fluence rates, for
consisted of analyzing the data set several times,
each time using a different assumption, for example,
removing some groups of data, allowing for relative
Table 6.2. January 2000 reference values of the ambient-dose-
calibration factors between different groups of data, equivalent rate, Ḣ*(10), in units of mSv h21, for values of
etc. The goal was to see to what extent the vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidity, rc, from 0 GV to 17 GV, and
ambient-dose-equivalent rates that result from the for flight levels FL310, FL350, and FL390.
analysis are sensitive to these different assumptions

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


rc (GV) _ ð10Þ (mSv h21)
H
about the data. The conclusion is that the results of
the analysis are robust, with relative agreement to FL310 FL350 FL390
within approximately 5 % under the different
assumptions that were made. A summary of 0 4.0 5.2 6.4
Bayesian parameter estimation, and an associated 1 3.9 5.1 6.3
technique for model comparisons, has been devel- 2 3.7 4.8 6.0
3 3.5 4.6 5.6
oped by Wissmann, Reginatto, and Moller.
4 3.3 4.2 5.2
5 3.0 3.9 4.8
6 2.8 3.6 4.4
7 2.5 3.3 4.0
8 2.3 3.0 3.6
6.6 Reference Values of 9 2.2 2.7 3.3
Ambient-Dose-Equivalent Rate 10 2.0 2.5 3.0
11 1.9 2.3 2.8
The reference values of the ambient-dose- 12 1.7 2.2 2.6
equivalent rates for the reference conditions of 13 1.7 2.1 2.5
14 1.6 2.0 2.4
the FL and vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidity are 15 1.5 1.9 2.3
listed in Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, for the reference 16 1.5 1.8 2.2
months January 1998, January 2000, and January 17 1.5 1.8 2.1
2002, respectively.

Table 6.1. January 1998 reference values of the ambient-dose- Table 6.3. January 2002 reference values of the ambient-dose-
equivalent rate, Ḣ*(10), in units of mSv h21, for values of equivalent rate, Ḣ*(10), in units of mSv/h, for values of vertical
vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidity, rc, from 0 GV to 17 GV, and geomagnetic cut-off rigidity, rc, from 0 GV to 17 GV, and for
for flight levels FL310, FL350, and FL390. flight levels FL310, FL350, and FL390.

rc (GV) _ ð10Þ (mSv h21)


H rc (GV) _ ð10Þ (mSv h21)
H

FL310 FL350 FL390 FL310 FL350 FL390

0 4.3 5.9 7.6 0 3.7 4.7 5.7


1 4.2 5.8 7.4 1 3.6 4.6 5.6
2 4.0 5.5 7.0 2 3.4 4.4 5.3
3 3.8 5.2 6.6 3 3.3 4.1 5.0
4 3.5 4.8 6.0 4 3.0 3.9 4.7
5 3.2 4.4 5.5 5 2.8 3.6 4.3
6 2.9 4.0 5.0 6 2.6 3.3 4.0
7 2.7 3.6 4.5 7 2.4 3.0 3.7
8 2.5 3.3 4.1 8 2.2 2.8 3.4
9 2.2 3.0 3.7 9 2.1 2.6 3.1
10 2.1 2.7 3.3 10 1.9 2.4 2.9
11 1.9 2.5 3.0 11 1.8 2.2 2.7
12 1.8 2.3 2.8 12 1.7 2.1 2.5
13 1.7 2.1 2.6 13 1.6 2.0 2.4
14 1.6 2.0 2.5 14 1.6 1.9 2.3
15 1.5 1.9 2.3 15 1.5 1.9 2.2
16 1.5 1.9 2.2 16 1.5 1.8 2.2
17 1.5 1.8 2.2 17 1.4 1.8 2.1

31
COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

the reference conditions (Ferrari et al., 2001), that Table 6.4. Ratios of E/H*(10) for values of vertical geomagnetic
are folded with the conversion coefficients from cut-off rigidity, rc, from 0 GV to 17 GV and for flight levels
FL310, FL350, and FL390. The effective dose, E, was calculated
fluence to ambient dose equivalent (Pelliccioni,
for aircraft-absent conditions and assuming an isotropic
2000) and from fluence to effective dose for an iso- radiation field from the superior hemisphere.
tropic radiation field from the superior hemisphere,2
for aircraft-absent conditions. The ratios of effective rc (GV) E/H*(10) (Sv/Sv)
dose to ambient dose equivalent for the reference
FL310 FL350 FL390
conditions are given in Table 6.4. The ratios are not
dependent on the stage of the solar cycle.
0.4 0.88 0.90 0.91
6 0.90 0.91 0.92
17 0.91 0.93 0.94
6.8 Use of Reference Data

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


The reference values of the ambient-dose-
equivalent rate, together with the values for the appropriate for the operator’s flight schedules,
ratio of effective dose to ambient dose equivalent, using the routine dose-assessment procedure.
are intended to be used to perform conformity Conformity should be demonstrated with refer-
checks on routine procedures for the assessment of ence to a conformity acceptance interval (see
effective dose from calculations of the radiation JCGM, 2009; 2010). The recommended relative
field [as described in Section 3.2, approach (i)]. It is acceptance interval is +30 % for the comparison of
proposed that this conformity assessment be done effective-dose rate based on the routine dose-
by calculating values for a number of the reference assessment procedure and the values obtained
conditions given in this Report that are considered using the data given in this Report.

2
Conversion coefficients from fluence to effective dose taken
from an ICRP/ICRU joint report Dose Conversion Coefficients for
External Radiation Sources (for the Adult Reference
Computational Phantoms) in preparation for publication in Ann.
ICRP (Elsevier Health Science, Oxford, UK).

32
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq024
Oxford University Press

References

Battistoni, G., Ferrari, A., Pelliccioni, M., and Villari, R. European Radiation Dosimetry Group, WG11
(2005). “Evaluation of the doses to aircrew members (European Commission, Luxembourg).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


taking into consideration the aircraft structures,” Adv. EC (1997). European Commission. “Detection and dosim-
Space Res. 36, 1645– 1652. etry of neutrons and charged particles at aviation alti-
Battistoni, G., Muraro, S., Sala, P. R., Cerutti, F., Ferrari, tudes in the Earth’s atmosphere,” pp. 283– 338 in
A., Roesler, S., Fassò, A., and Ranft, J. (2007). “The Nuclear Fission Safety Programme 1992–1994
FLUKA code: description and benchmarking,” pp. Radiation Protection Research Action Final Report,
31–49 in Proc. of the Hadronic Shower Simulation Vol. 1 (European Communities, Brussels).
Workshop 2006, Fermilab, 6 –8 September 2006, EC (2004). European Commission. Cosmic Radiation
Albrow, M., and Raja, R., Eds., AIP Conf. Proc. 896 Exposure of Aircraft Crew: Compilation of Measured
(American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY). and Calculated Data. Report Radiation Protection 140
Beck, P., Ambrosi, P., Schrewe, U., and O’Brien, K. of the European Radiation Dosimetry Group, WG5
(1999). ACREM, Aircrew Radiation Exposure (European Commission, Luxembourg).
Monitoring, ARC Seibersdorf Research Report EU (1996). Council of the European Union. Council
OEFZS-G-0008 (ARC Seibersdorf, Austria). Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, Laying
Beck, P., Latocha, M., Rollet, S., and Stehno, G. (2005). down Basic Safety Standards for the Protection of the
“TEPC reference measurements at aircraft altitudes Health of Workers and the General Public against the
during a solar storm,” Adv. Space Res. 36, 1627 –1633. Dangers Arising from Ionizing Radiation. Official
Bottollier-Depois, J. F., Trompier, F., Clairand, I., Journal European Communities No. L 159 39, 1– 28.
Bartlett, D. T., Beck, P., Lewis, B., Lindborg, L., Fassò, A., Ferrari, A., Ranft, J., and Sala, P. R. (2005).
O’Sullivan, D., Spurny, F., and Tommasino, L. (2004). FLUKA: A Multi-Particle Transport Code. European
“Exposure of aircraft crew to cosmic radiation: Organization for Nuclear Research CERN Report
on-board intercomparison of various dosemeters,” CERN-2005-10 (European Organization for Nuclear
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 110, 411– 415. Research, Geneva).
Bottollier-Depois, J. F., Beck, P., Bennett, B., Bennett, L., Ferrari, A., Pelliccioni, M., and Rancati, T. (2001).
Bütikofer, R., Clairand, I., Desorgher, L., Dyer, C., “Calculation of the radiation environment caused by
Felsberger, E., Flückiger, E., Hands, A., Kindl, O., galactic cosmic rays for determining air crew
Latocha, M., Lewis, B., Leuthold, G., Maczka, T., exposure,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 93, 101 –114.
Mares, V., McCall, M. J., O’Brien, K., Rollet, S., Rühm, Foelsche, T., Mendell, R. B., Wilson, J. W., and Adams, R.
W., and Wissmann, F. (2009). “Comparison of codes R. (1974). Measured and Calculated Neutron Spectra
assessing galactic cosmic radiation exposure of aircraft and Dose Equivalent Rates at High Altitudes:
crew,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 136, 317– 323. Relevance to SST Operations and Space Research.
Cane, H. V. (2000). “Coronal mass ejections and Forbush National Aeronautics and Space Administration
decreases,” Space Sci. Rev. 93, 53–77. Report NASA TN D-7715 (National Technical
Climax (2009). University of New Hampshire, ftp:// Information Service, Springfield, VA).
ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/DailyAverages.2000-. Forbush, S. E. (1937). “On the effects in cosmic-ray inten-
txt, supported by National Science Foundation Grant sity observed during the recent magnetic storm,” Phys.
ATM-0339527. Rev. 51, 1108– 1109.
Dyer, C. S., and Lei, F. (2001). “Monte-Carlo calculations Gaisser, T. (1990). Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics
of the influence on aircraft radiation environments of (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).
structures and solar particle events,” IEEE Trans. Goldhagen, P. (2000). “Overview of aircraft radiation
Nucl. Sci. 48, 1987– 1995. exposure and recent ER-2 measurements,” Health
Dyer, C. S., Lei, F., Clucas, S. N., Smart, D. F., and Shea, Phys. 79, 526 –544.
M. A., (2003). “Calculations and observations of solar Heinrich, W., Roesler, S., and Schraube, H. (1999).
particle enhancements to the radiation environment at “Physics of cosmic radiation fields,” Radiat. Prot.
aircraft altitudes,” Adv. Space Res. 32, 81–93. Dosim. 86, 253– 258.
EC (1996). European Commission. Exposure of Air Crew Hess, V. F. (1912). “Über Beobachtungen der durchdrin-
to Cosmic Radiation. A Report of EURADOS Working genden Stralung bei sieben Freiballonfahrten,” Physik.
Group 11. Report Radiation Protection 85 of the Zeitschr. 23, 1084– 1091.

# International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 2010


COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW

ICRP (1991). International Commission on Radiological Jokipii, J. R. (1991). “Variations of the cosmic-ray flux
Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International with time,” pp. 205– 220 in The Sun in Time, Sonett,
Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP C. P., Giampapa, M. S., and Matthews, M. S., Eds.
Publication 60, Ann. ICRP 21(1 –3) (Pergamon Press, (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ).
Oxford, UK). JCGM (2008). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology.
ICRP (1997). International Commission on Radiological Evaluation of Measurement Data—Supplement 1 to
Protection. General Principles for the Radiation the “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in
Protection of Workers. ICRP Publication 75, Ann. ICRP Measurement”—Propagation of Distributions using a
27(1) (Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK). Monte Carlo Method. JCGM Report 101 (Bureau
ICRP (2007). International Commission on Radiological International des Poids et Mesures, Sèvres, France).
Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the JCGM (2009). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Uncertainty of Measurement—Part 1: Introduction to
ICRP Publication 103, Ann. ICRP 37(2– 4) (Elsevier the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. JCGM

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


Health Science, Oxford, UK). Report 104 (Bureau International des Poids et
ICRP (2009). International Commission on Radiological Mesures, Sèvres, France).
Protection. Adult Reference Computational Phantoms. JCGM (2010). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology.
ICRP Publication 110, Ann. ICRP 39(2) (Elsevier Uncertainty of Measurement—Part 4: The Role of
Health Science, Oxford, UK). Measurement Uncertainty in Deciding Conformance to
ICRU (1980). International Commission on Radiation Specified Data. JCGM Report 106 (Bureau
Units and Measurements. Radiation Quantities and International des Poids et Mesures, Sèvres, France).
Units, ICRU Report 33 (International Commission on Kelly, M., Menzel, H.-G., Ryan, T., and Schnuer, K.
Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD). (1999). Proc. Int. Conf. Cosmic Radiation and Aircrew
ICRU (1992). International Commission on Radiation Exposure, Dublin, July 1 –3, 1998, Radiat. Prot.
Units and Measurements. Measurement of Dose Dosim. 86, 245.
Equivalents from External Photon and Electron Kyllönen, J.-E., Lindborg, L., and Samuelsson, G. (2001).
Radiations. ICRU Report 47 (International Commission “Cosmic radiation measurements on-board aircraft with
on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MD). the variance method,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 93, 197–205.
ICRU (2001). International Commission on Radiation Lantos, P., and Fuller, N. (2003) “History of the solar par-
Units and Measurements. Determination of ticle event radiation doses on-board aeroplanes using a
Operational Dose-Equivalent Quantities for Neutrons. semi-empirical model and Concorde measurements, ”
ICRU Report 66, J. ICRU Vol. 1(3) (Oxford University Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 104, 199 –210.
Press, Oxford, UK). Lewis, B. J., Desmoreaux, M., Green, A. R., Bennett,
ISO (1975). International Organization for Standardization. L. G. I., Butler, A., McCall, M., and Saez Vergara, J. C.
Standard Atmosphere. ISO 2533:1975 (International (2004). “Assessment of aircrew radiation exposure by
Organization for Standardization, Geneva). further measurements and model development,”
ISO (1995). International Organization for Standardization. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 111, 151– 171.
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement Lewis, B. J., Green, A. R., and Bennett, L. G. I. (2009).
(GUM). ISO/IEC Guide 98 Part 3 (International “Effect of ‘noisy’ Sun conditions on aircrew radiation
Organization for Standardization, Geneva). exposure,” Adv. Space Res. 44, 184 –189.
ISO (2006). International Organization for Standardization. Lillhök, J., Beck, P., Botollier-Depois, J. F., Latocha, M.,
Dosimetry for Exposures to Cosmic Radiation in Civilian Lindborg, L., Roos, H., Roth, J., Schraube, H., Spurny,
Aircraft—Part 1: Conceptual Basis for Measurements. F., Stehno, G., Trompier, F., and Wissmann, F. (2007).
ISO 20785-1:2005 (International Organization for “A comparison of ambient dose equivalent meters and
Standardization, Geneva). dose calculations at constant flight conditions,” Radiat.
ISO (2008). International Organization for Standardization. Meas. 42, 323 –332.
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement Lunn, D. J., Thomas, A., Best, N., and Spiegelhalter, D.
(GUM)—Supplement 1: Numerical Methods for the (2000). “WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework:
Propagation of Distributions. ISO/IEC Guide 98 Part 3-1 concepts, structure, and extensibility,” Stat. Comput.
(International Organization for Standardization, 10, 325– 337.
Geneva). Mitaroff, A., and Silari, M. (2002). “The CERN-EU
ISO (2009). International Organization for High-Energy Reference Field (CERF) Facility for
Standardization. Uncertainty of Measurement—Part 1: dosimetry at commercial flight altitudes and in space,”
Introduction to the Expression of Uncertainty in Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 102, 7 –22.
Measurement. ISO/IEC Guide 98-1:2009 (International O’Brien, K. (1972). “The cosmic ray field at ground level,”
Organization for Standardization, Geneva). pp. 15– 54 in Proc. 2nd Int. Conference on Natural
ISO (2010). International Organization for Radiation Environment, August 1972, Honiton, USA.
Standardization. Dosimetry for Exposures to Cosmic US Department of Commerce Report Conf-720805-PC
Radiation in Civilian Aircraft—Part 2: Characterization (US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC).
of Instrument Response. ISO 20785-2:2010 O’Brien, K. (2008). “Limitations of the use of the vertical
(International Organization for Standardization, cut-off to calculate cosmic-ray propagation in the
Geneva). Earth’s atmosphere,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 128, 259–260.

34
References

O’Sullivan, D. (1999). Study of Radiation Fields and 4063–4066 in Proc. 27th Int. Cosmic Ray Conference,
Dosimetry at Aviation Altitudes: Final Report January Hamburg.
1996–June 1999. The Dublin Institute for Advanced SIDC (2009). Solar Influences Data Analysis Center.
Studies School of Cosmic Physics Report 99-9-1 Monthly Report on the International Sunspot Number,
(Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin). online catalogue of the sunspot index: http://www.sidc
O’Sullivan, D., Tommasino, L., Schraube, H., Grillmaier, .be/sunspot-data/ (Royal Observatory of Belgium,
R., Bartlett, D. T., Lindborg, L., Heinrich, W., and Brussels), accessed May 2009.
Silari, M. (2004). Investigations of Radiation Fields at Simpson, J. A. (1983). “Elemental and isotopic compo-
Aircraft Altitudes, Final Report of European sition of the galactic cosmic rays,” Ann. Rev. Nucl.
Commission contract no. F14P-CT950011 (Dublin Part. Sci. 33, 323– 381.
Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin). Sivia, D. S., and Skilling, J. (2006). Data Analysis—A
Oulu (2009). Oulu Cosmic Ray Station. Neutron monitor Bayesian Tutorial, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press,
count rates: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi (Sodankylä Oxford, UK).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


Geophysical Observatory, Sodankylä, Finland). Spurný, F., and Datchev, Ts. (2001). “Measurements on
Parker, E. N. (1965). “The passage of energetic charged board an aircraft during an intense solar flare, ground
particles through interplanetary space,” Planet. Space level event 60, on April 15, 2001,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim.
Sci. 13, 9– 49. 95, 273– 275.
Pelliccioni, M. (2000). “Overview of fluence-to-effective Spurný, F., and Datchev, Ts. (2003). “Long-term monitor-
dose and fluence-to-ambient dose equivalent conver- ing of onboard aircraft exposure with a Si-diode based
sion coefficients for high energy radiation calculated spectrometer,” Adv. Space Res. 32, 53–58.
using the FLUKA code,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 88, UNSCEAR (2000). United Nations Scientific Committee
279– 297. on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and Effects
Reitz, G., Schnuer, K., and Shaw, K. B. (1993). Proc. of Ionizing Radiation (2000): UNSCEAR 2000 Report
Workshop Radiation Exposure of Civil Aircrew, to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, Vol.
Luxembourg, June 25–27, 1991, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. I: Sources (United Nations, New York).
48, 3. van Dijk, J. W. E. (2003). “Dose assessment of aircraft crew
Schraube, H., Heinrich, W., Leuthold, G., Mares, V., and in the Netherlands,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 106, 25–31.
Roesler, S. (2000). “Aviation route dose calculation and Wilson, J. W., Jones, I. W., Maiden, D. L., and
its numerical basis,” paper T-4-4, P-1a-45 in Proc. 10th Goldhagen, P., Eds. (2003). Atmospheric Ionizing
Int. Cong. International Radiation Protection Radiation (AIR): Analysis, Results, and Lessons
Association, IRPA10 (http://www2000.irpa.net/irpa10/ Learned from the June 1997 ER-2 Campaign. NASA
cdrom/01230.pdf). Report NASA/CP-2003-212155 (National Aeronautics
Schrewe, U. J. (2000). “Global measurements of the radi- and Space Administration, Langley, VA).
ation exposure of civil air crews from 1997 to 1999,” Wissmann, F. (2006). “Long-term measurements of
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 91, 347 –364. H_  ð10Þ at aviation altitudes in the northern hemi-
Shea, M. A., and Smart, D. F. (1990). “The influence of sphere,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 121, 347 –357.
the changing geomagnetic field on cosmic ray measure- Wissmann, F., Reginatto, M., and Moller, T. (2010).
ments,” J. Geomag. Geoelectr. 42, 1107 –1121. “Ambient dose equivalent at flight altitudes: A fit to a
Shea, M. A., and Smart, D. F. (2001). “Vertical cutoff large set of data using a Bayesian approach,”
rigidities for cosmic ray stations since 1955,” pp. J. Radiol. Prot. 30, 513– 524.

35
JOURNAL OF THE ICRU
OXFORD .JOURNALS
Previous reports available from Oxford University Press

Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Stopping Powers and Ranges for Protons and Alpha Particles
Therapy (IMRT) Report 110. 49, 1993
Report no. 83, 2010 Phantoms and Computational Models in Therapy, Diagnosis and Protection
Mammography - Assessment of Image Quality Report no. 48, 1992
Report no. 82, 2009 Measurement of Dose Equivalents from External Photon and Electron
Quantitative Aspects of Bone Densitometry Radiations
Report no. 81 , 2009 Report no. 4 7, 1992
Dosimetry Systems for Use in Radiation Processing Photon, Electron, Proton and Neutron Interaction Data for Body Tissues,
Report no. 80, 2008 with Data Disk
Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis in Medical Imaging Report no. 46D, 1992
Report no. 79, 2008 Photon, Electron, Proton and Neutron Interaction Data for Body Tissues
Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Proton-Beam Therapy Report no. 46, 1992
Report no. 78, 2007 Clinical Neutron Dosimetry-Part I: Determination of Absorbed Dose in a
Elastic Scattering of Electrons and Positrons Patient Treated by External Beams of Fast Neutrons
Report no. 77, 2007

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicru/article/10/2/NP/2923209 by guest on 11 May 2021


Report no. 45, 1989
Measurement Quality Assurance for Ionizing Radiation Dosimetry Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement
Report no. 76, 2006 Report no. 44, 1989
Sampling for Radionuclides in the Environment Determination of Dose Equivalents from External Radiation
Report no. 75, 2006 Sources - Part 2
Patient Dosimetry of X Rays used in Medical Imaging Report no. 43, 1988
Report no. 74, 2005 Use of Computers in External Beam Radiotherapy Procedures with
Stopping of Ions Heavier Than Helium High-Energy Photons and Electrons
Report no. 73, 2005 Report no. 42, 1987
Dosimetry of Beta Rays and Low-Energy Photons for Brachytherapy with Modulation Transfer Function of Screen-Film Systems
Sealed Sources Report no. 41 , 1986
Report no. 72, 2004 The Quality Factor in Radiation Protection
Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Electron Beam Therapy Report no. 40, 1986
Report no. 7 1, 2004 Determination of Dose Equivalents Resulting from External
Image Quality in Chest Radiography Radiation Sources
Report no. 70, 2003 Report no. 39, 1985
Direct Determination of the Body Content of Radionuclides Dose and Volume Specification for Reporting Intracavitary
Report no. 69, 2003 Therapy in Gynecology
Retrospective Assessment of Exposures to Ionising Radiation Report no. 38, 1985
Report no. 68, 2002 Stopping Powers for Electrons and Positrons
Absorbed Dose Specification in Nuclear Medicine Report no. 37, 1984
Report no. 67, 2002 Microdosimetry
Determination of Operational Dose Equivalent Quantities for Neutrons Report no. 36, 1983
Report no. 66, 200 I Radiation Dosimetry: Electron Beams with Energies Between 1 and
Quantities, Units and Terms in Radioecology 50MeV
Report no. 65, 2001 Report no. 35, 1984
Dosimetry of High Energy Photon Beams based on Standards of Absorbed The Dosimetry of Pulsed Radiation
Dose to Water Report no. 34, 1982
Report no. 64, 2001 Radiation Quantities and Units
Nuclear Data for Neutron and Proton Radiotherapy and for Radiation Report no. 33, 1980
Protection Methods of Assessment of Absorbed Dose in Clinical Use of
Report no. 63, 2000 Radionuclides
Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy Report no. 32, 1979
(Supplement to ICRU Report 50) Average Energy Required to Produce an Ion Pair
Report no. 62, 1999 Report no. 31, 1979
Tissue Substitutes, Phantoms and Computational Modelling in Medical IBtrasound Quantitative Concepts and Dosimetry in Radiobiology
Report no. 61, 1998 Report no. 30, 1979
Fundamental Quantities and Units for Ionizing Radiation Dasie Aspects of High Energy Particle Interactions and
Report no. 60, 1998 Radiation Dosimetry
Clinical Proton Dosimetry-Part I: Beam Production, Beam Delivery Report no. 28, 1978
and Measurement of Absorbed Dose Neutron Dosimetry for Biology and Medicine
Report no. 59, 1998 Report 110. 26, 1977
Dose and Volume Specification for Reporting Interstitial Therapy An International Neutron Dosimetry lntercomparison
Report no. 58, 1997 Report no. 27, 1978
Conversion Coefficients for Use in Radiological Protection Against External Radiation Conceptual Basis for the Determination of Dose Equivalent
Report no. 57, 1998 Report no. 25, 1976
Dosimetry of External Beta Rays for Radiation Protection Determination of Absorbed Dose in a Patient Irradiated by Beams of X or
Report no. 56, 1997 Gamma Rays in Radiotherapy Procedures
Secondary Electron Spectra from Charged Particle Interactions Report no. 24, 1976
Report no. 55, 1995 Measurement of Absorbed Dose in a Phantom Irradiated by a Single Beam
Medical Imaging-The Assessment of Image Quality of X or Gamma Rays
Report no. 54, 1995 Report 110. 23, 1973
Gamma-Ray Spectrometry in the Environment Measurement of Low-Level Radioactivity
Report no. 53, 1994 Report no. 22, 1972
Particle Counting in Radioactivity Measurement Radiation Protection Instrumentation and Its Application
Report no. 52, 1994 Report no. 20, 1970
Quantities and Units in Radiation Protection Dosimetry Specification of High Activity Gamma-Ray Sources
Report no. 51 , 1993 Report no. I 8, 1970
Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy Radiation Dosimetry: X rays Generated at Potentials of 5 to 150 kV
Report no. 50, 1993 Report no. 17, 1970
Stopping Powers and Ranges for Protons and Alpha Particles, with Data Disk Linear Energy Transfer
Rep011110. 49D, 1993 Report no. 16, 1970

Please visit the web site for pricing and ordering information
www.jicru.oxfordjournals.org

You might also like