Icru 84
Icru 84
Icru 84
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
Joint report of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
RADIATION UNITS AND
MEASUREMENTS
and
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION
DECEMBER 2010
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
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 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
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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
3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Dose and Dose-Rate Assessment Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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-
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
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
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-
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
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
10
Definitions of Quantities and Terms
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.
11
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq020
Oxford University Press
3.1 General their paths are bent as they cross a magnetic field.
In particular, the magnetic field of the Earth will
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
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
15
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq021
Oxford University Press
18
Cosmic-Radiation Fields at Aircraft Flight Altitudes
19
COSMIC-RADIATION EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT CREW
20
Cosmic-Radiation Fields at Aircraft Flight Altitudes
21
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq022
Oxford University Press
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
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
25
Journal of the ICRU Vol 10 No 2 (2010) Report 84 doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq023
Oxford University Press
6. Reference Data
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
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
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 %).
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
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.
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
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).
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
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).
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
Please visit the web site for pricing and ordering information
www.jicru.oxfordjournals.org