Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-NOTICE-
Thi* report was prepared as an account of work
sponsored by the United States Government. Neither
the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy
Commission, ivr any of their employees, nor any of
their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com
pleteness or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product or process disclosed, or represents that its use
would not infringe privately owned rights.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Natural Radiation Environment
II Conference, Houston, Texas, August 7-11, 1972.
GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATIONS IS ENVIRONMENTAL
ABSTRACT
Freshly annealed dosimeters were mailed to the stations where they were
period, the dosimeters were returned to Livermore for readout. Light output
is proportional to the radiation dose received by the phosphor from the sum
from the elevation and geomagnetic latitude of the station, and terrestrial
was 9.4 uR/hr with a range from 3.7 to 19.9 pR/hr. The median terrestrial
exposure rate was 5.5 pR/hr. Low backgrounds were found in the Hawaiian
Islands, Northern Alaska, and Florida. High backgrounds in the Rocky Mountain
INTRODUCTION
l
covered a large portion of the United States. The advantage in using the
personnel are required in the field for its operation and possible
of the total background. This paper describes a pilot study made by the
were made at 107 weather atatfona throughout the Snlted Statea using CaF.:Dy
so that they provide essentially the same geoserry for all measurements.
About 70X of the shelters were located over grass; the balance were over
DOSIMETRY PR0CEC5E
A total Of 300 CaF-:Dy (TLD-200) chips and 150 LiF (TLD-100) chips
holder contained two TLD-200 chips and one TLD-100 chip. One hundred and
-4-
atatlon* with instructions for conducting the test and a postcard for
acknowledging receipt of the dosimeter and recording the date the dosimeter
with instructions for its immediate return by matl. All remaining dosimeters
and copper liner. This container provided a low background storage area for
control and calibration dosimeters. The five dosimeters noted above were
placed in this container after their round trip. At the end of six weeks,
a group of the control dosimeters were irradiated using the 60-keV gamma flux
241 241
About 102 of the signal is lost during this period. Thereafter, fading
proceeds at a much slower ratej at the end of three months, losses of about
3035 may be expected. % made no attempt to apply fading corrections per se.
the three-month test period, and calibration and test dosimeters were both
read out at the end of the test period. After six weeks, the extent of
dosimeters.
The survey was conducted during the -leriod March 1 to June 1, 1971.
At the end of May, recall notices were sent out. Those five stations
were again sent dosimeters with Instructions to return both this dosimeter
and the one from their shelter In the sane envelope. He estimated the
All dosimeters were read in the LLL automatic hot gas research reader.
After subtracting the average transportation dose (1.71 mrad) and normalizing
r,
to a 90-day exposure period, the CaF. » d dose data were converted to uR/hi
exposure rates using the conversion factor 0.853? the rad/R response of
CaF at 1 MeV.
2
dependence of CaF below about 200 keV, as shown in Fig. 2, energy filters
2
of respective light outputs of the CaF,:Dy and the LiF in our dosimeter
package. In no case did we see any increaae in this ratio above the normal
As noted, CaF, dose rates uere converted to exposure rates using the
merely a s a convenient r e f e r e n c e .
o b t a i n t e r r e s t r i a l r a d i a t i o n exposure r a t e s .
to an annual dose rate of 30 area per year. "The accuracy of the terrestrial
California <Mt. Hamilton, 4202 ft; Mt. Uablo, 3849 ft; and Livermore, 600 ft).
To exclude the lesa energetic terrestrial radiation, the CaF, dosimeters were
comparison of the CaF, mrad dose observed with the cosmic air dose calculated
agreement with the 0.7 hard-to-total cosmic-ray flux ratio at sea level
observed by Lowder and Beck. This agreement suggests that CaF,:Dy gives
Median total background radiation was 9.4 uR/hr with a range from
are higher in mountainous regions than at lower elevations. Table III lists
the ten stations from the survey with the highest elevations. It is
exposure rates for this group, those stations with the highest total
the cosmic. Thus with few exceptions, in the Rocky Mountains States, increased
exposure ratal in Table I art 2.7a and 0,84, reepectlvely, clearly showing
which la not coaBon in normal radiation doaiaatry. Koraally, the net doaa
ahield. During the time dosimeters used for calibration irradiations vera
was determined using control and calibration readings froa six sets of
13
data. Stapa in this calculation were aa follows:
a The overall TLD and reader sensitivity were determined for each
froa the TLD's uaed had a standard deviation of about 1.6Z. The typical
sensitivity in light output per mrad waa found to have a atandard deviation
of about 4%.
• The six total background values were used with the time In the
The results showed a radiation dose rate of 46 ± 3 urad (CaF.) per day
assuaed that radiation self-dose for the CaF.rDy is negligible for these
release was approximated by averaging the doses received by two extra sets
was somewhat less than 10X of the average test exposure dose. This
cr more properly, when the ratio of transit dose to test exposure dose
these instrument shelters, execution of this survey would have been much
more difficult.
consider chat at the median exposure rate the precision of our method is
about ±51. Light output data from the two chips of CaF^Dy In each
dosimeter deviated from the average by less than 21. Residual uncertainty
SUMMARY
9.4 uR/hr, with a range from 3.7 to 19.9 uR/hr. Measurements were made by
Measurements can be made at little expense, and only modest field effort is
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mr. Graden Harger of the National Heather
Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, fox his efforts in arranging for National
data processing.
-13-
REFERENCES
(1966).
Nature of
Background radiation (uR/hr) Geomagnetic Elevation •oil under
Location Terrestrial Cosmic Total Let (°N) (ft) dosimeter*
•c- gross, D - dirt, S • sand, C - concrete, A - asphalt, R - crushed rock, W - wood chips.
Ttble I, (continued)
Nature of
Background radiation (uR/hr) Geomagnetic Elevation •oil under
Location Terras trial Coanlc Total Let <°H) (ft) dosineter*
Nature of
Bickground radiation (ijR/hr) Geomagnetic Elevation aoll under
location Terrestrial Cosmic Total Lat (°N) (ft) dosimeter*
T-ible I. (continued)
Nature of
Background radiation (uR/hr) Geomagnetic Elevation soil under
Location Terreatrial Coaalc Total Lat (°N> (ft) dosimeter*
Calculated
Elevation cosaic a i r Observed Ratio
Location (ft) dose (mrad) dose (mrad) observed/calculated
Colorado Springs,
Colorado 6170 48.7 12.3 6.6 18.9
Grand Junction,
Colorado 4840 47.5 8.9 5.6 14.5
rate interval.
interval.
distribution.
Lindeken - Fig. 1
1000
Undeken - Fig. 2
-r—T 1 1 |" ' -[—1 1 'I I
Terrestrial median
5.5 (iR /hr
L_, Range 0 . 3 to U. 9 (iR/hr
0
J
2
I I
4
I
i
I i 1
8
• I
70
1 I
12
_D
14
Exposure interval — (iR/hr
Undelten • Fig. 3
60 E
50 r
Cosmic median
3.9|iR/hr
40h
Range 3 . 0 - 7 . 2 (iR/hr
30|-
20[-
10|-
5 6 7
Expoture interval — |dt/hr
Undeken • Mf. 4
1
I ' I ' I ' I
15-
Total (tarrastriol + cosmic)
madian 9.4 |iR/hr
Ronga j . 7 to 19.9 nR/hr •
10-
l • I
8
• I
10
• I
12
. I
14
IHH
16 18 20
Expotura interval — |Jt/hr
Llndakaa - Hg. S
9 *»H - »»w«n
-oz
_! ——i L.
notice
« * thtoti SWMGompmni. I * o * « * e IMHrf Stttw K*
the UBIMJ SIMM AioMk gangy CMWIW Wow. war iay of Utrir
tMftoycct. mw awy of thtit coMumoan, «i>ccmiKtPW.ct tktm
KPptoyw*. imfaWMiy w*tm<)r» « f w a r i f t o t w i i n i w r i
My k p l litUWyor m f w u i b i l i n f a i l * tccurKy.CTwrttirnTTt
«t w t f u f m of any MfonMikMi.app»t», pfodaci w p u n *
dttdetrf,«f(fm«H»ihri Hi i*e > M W n t Wiinfc pronely-
VUfecdu