Paper

THE THIRD ANNUAL THOMAS S. TENFORDE TOPICAL LECTURE

HPS ASK THE EXPERTS:
THE MOST INTRIGUING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Genevieve S. Roessler,1 Fred Baes,2 and Kelly Classic3

Abstract—The Health Physics Society (HPS) conceived of the idea

of an online “Ask the Experts” (ATE) feature in 1999 when the So-
ciety created its website. ATE features are popular now, but at that INTRODUCTION
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/health-physics by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVIVR99URMMuaobmRQkr3FeBLGOoxHkUhZw== on 03/02/2020

time it was a novel idea, so there was no assurance it would succeed.

Now 20 y later, the HPS considers its ATE feature a success and the
most valuable service the Society offers for the public. Nearly
13,000 questions have been submitted to the feature. They come
both from members of the public and from health physicists. All
have been answered personally by radiation safety experts. While
it is important to answer questions personally, it is recognized that
the most far-reaching impact of the feature is the written material
on the ATE section of the website, which is provided for people
searching for answers to their concerns and questions. Posted mate-
rial includes frequently asked questions, summary papers on topics
of interest, and links to other pertinent information. This is in addi-
tion to answers to a select group of submitted questions. To enhance
the information search, all postings, including answers to questions,
have headlines. These serve as keywords that facilitate website
searches. The feature, managed by one lead editor, 20 topic editors,
and more than 300 experts, draws over one million visitors per year.
This statistic suggests that a substantial number of people are find-
ing answers to their questions on the site and, therefore, do not need
to submit personal questions. ATE editors have learned much
about effective interaction with questioners, especially members
of the public. Most important, answers should show compassion,
present the bottom line first, be brief, and use plain language.
Heavy reliance on peer-reviewed documents adds to the credibility
of the information. Questions from the public cover a wide range of
subjects; however, by far the most frequent deal with medical expo-
sures, especially computed tomography procedures. Other questions
deal with a wide range of concerns including products from Japan,
granite countertops, radon, smoke detectors, luggage and whole-
body scanners, and radiation exposure from airline travel. Another
major concern is exposure to nonionizing radiation sources such as
cell phones, radar, ultraviolet radiation, lasers, and power lines. Ex-
amples are provided of the most intriguing questions that have come
to the ATE feature and the answers provided by the experts.
Health Phys. 118(4):354–359; 2020
Key words: education; Health Physics Society; National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements; public information
1
19890 Fish Lake Lane, Elysian, MN 56028-4431; 2Health Physics
Society, Oak Ridge, TN; 3Health Physics Society, Rochester, MN.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
For correspondence contact: Genevieve S. Roessler, 19890 Fish Lake
Lane, Elysian, MN 56028-4431, or email at gnrsslr@frontiernet.net.
0017-9078/20/0
Copyright © 2020 Health Physics Society
DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001238
354
THE HEALTH Physics Society (HPS) conceived of the idea of
an online “Ask the Experts” (ATE) feature in 1999 when the
Society created its website (HPS 2019a). The newly appointed
Website Editor, Genevieve S. Roessler, and the new Web-
master, Fred Baes, convened a meeting of a small group
of advisors, including HPS members who had extensive
publications experience. The group first laid out the basic
structure of the website—statement of goals, list of officers,
information on meetings, dues structure, rules of the Soci-
ety, and related topics.
Roessler and Baes suggested that this new online tool
would provide a unique opportunity for the Society to reach
members of the public with information on radiation safety.
They outlined their idea of an online ATE feature to the advi-
sory group. ATE features are popular today, but 20 y ago, it
was a novel idea. The group was initially apprehensive about
ATE’s possible success but thought that at the upcoming turn
of the century, they could be creative and recommended a
move forward to develop the editorial and functional struc-
ture to support the feature.
Robert L. Brent, MD, a longtime member of the HPS and
an emeritus member of the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements (NCRP), saw the need for this
outreach and helped the website group set the tone for estab-
lishing an accessible and credible communication venue. He
advocated answering questions in a brief and personal manner.
STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES
The ATE structure was developed so people could submit
their questions through the website. Instructions stated that only
questions in the field of radiation safety would be answered.
Within a few days of the inception of this feature, ques-
tions began to arrive. The majority of the questions came
from members of the public who had concerns about expo-
sures from a number of different radiation sources. An email
www.health-physics.com

Copyright © 2020 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Thomas S. Tenforde Topical Lecture c G. S. ROESSLER ET AL.
with each submitted question went to the website editor for
distribution to an appropriate subject expert.
For each question, an expert prepared an answer and
sent it to the ATE editor, who reviewed it and sent it
promptly and personally by email to the questioner. If the
answer to a question was deemed to be of general interest,
it was posted on the ATE section of the website. The names
of the experts who answered questions were posted, but
questioner names were not.
During the first year, one editor, the webmaster, and
about 40 experts were able to manage the flow of questions.
However, as the volume of questions grew and the type of
questions required broader and more in-depth expertise, it
was more than what one editor could manage. Subject-area
assistant editors, named topic editors, were added as the vol-
ume and variety of questions increased. Since questions were
submitted by health physicists and other technical people in
addition to members of the public, topic editors were added
who had specific expertise in the more in-depth technical as-
pects of radiation safety.
This expanded structure prompted the addition of a
procedural requirement that the questioner select from a list
of topic areas when submitting a question. This sent the
question to the appropriate topic editor, who could then an-
swer the question personally or select an expert in that cate-
gory for an answer. If the expert prepared an answer, it was
sent to the topic editor (with a copy to the main editor). After
review, it was sent personally to the questioner.
Currently, the main editor, the webmaster, 20 topic ed-
itors, a technical editor, an editorial associate, and more than
300 experts participate in the ATE feature.
SUCCESSES
Now, 20 y after its inception, the HPS considers its
ATE feature a success and the most valuable service the So-
ciety offers for the public. Nearly 13,000 questions have
been submitted to the feature. All have been answered per-
sonally by radiation safety experts.
While it is important to answer each question person-
ally, it is recognized that the most far-reaching impact of
the feature is the presence of the answered questions and
other written material on the website, which allows people
to search for answers to their questions without the neces-
sity of posting a question. The posted material includes
frequently asked questions, summary papers on topics of
interest, links to other pertinent information, and answers
to submitted questions of general interest. It is organized
in 26 radiation safety categories. To enhance the information
search, all postings, including answers to questions, have
a short headline. These serve as keywords that facilitate
website searches. This material is all posted at the “Ask
the Experts” webpage (HPS 2016).
www.health-physics.com
Copyright © 2020 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
355
This feature draws over one million visitors per year.
This statistic suggests that a substantial number of people
are finding the answers to their questions on the website
and, therefore, do not need to submit a personal question.
Reference is also made to another HPS publication,
Radiation Answers (HPS 2019b), a document on radiation
written especially for the public.
LESSONS LEARNED
ATE editors have learned much through the years about
effective interaction with questioners, especially members
of the public.
• Answers should show compassion. Experts have learned,
as Theodore Roosevelt said, “Nobody cares how much
you know until they know how much you care.”
• Answers should present the bottom line first.
• Answers should be factual, but as brief as possible to get
the point across.
• Answers should use plain language at the cognitive level
of the questioner. Experts keep in mind the fact that ef-
fective communication occurs among equals.
• Answers can be supported by reference to published doc-
uments. This allows the questioner the option of doing
more reading if interested. NCRP publications, HPS po-
sition statements, and other peer-reviewed documents
add to the credibility of the information for both mem-
bers of the public and colleagues.
WIDE SPECTRUM OF QUESTIONS
AND QUESTIONERS
Questions
The number of questions received has remained at a
consistent level in recent years, and questions continue to
cover a wide range of radiation safety issues. The Society’s
ATE feature is available for everyone as long as the ques-
tions are about radiation safety. Questions that should be
answered by physicians or lawyers are not answered. Ex-
perts do not do homework for students but often give ad-
vice as to where a student can go for an answer. If a
question is beyond the expertise of the experts, a re-
commendation is given as to where the questioner might
look further.
Although questions cover a wide range of subjects, by
far the most frequent are those that deal with medical ex-
posures. Again, these span a wide range of procedures,
but the highest number involve computed tomography
(CT) procedures. Other questions from the public deal with
a wide range of concerns including contaminated products
from Japan, granite countertops, radon, smoke detectors,
luggage and whole-body scanners, and radiation exposure
from airline travel. Another major concern is exposure to
356 Health Physics
nonionizing radiation sources such as cell phones, radar, ul-
traviolet radiation, lasers, and power lines.
Questioners
Questioners cover a wide range—from those with little
knowledge of radiation safety and a high level of anxiety to
those with knowledge of the field and little or no anxiety
who have a need for some specific information. Questioners
can be grouped into five categories:
• Members of the general public: This group is usually
the least knowledgeable about radiation safety and, proba-
bly because of this lack of knowledge, is the most anxious.
• The news media: These questioners—who include tele-
vision, newspaper, and magazine writers—are usually
responding to a radiological incident or a report of some
perceived or real danger involving radiation or radioactiv-
ity. They need a quick response (usually within hours)
and information in short bites. They appreciate being able
to interview people with radiation safety credentials.
• Entry-level health physicists and other technical per-
sons: The members of this group often do not have the
specific academic background that is necessary for a sit-
uation that has come up in their work or academic re-
sponsibility. They need an explanation of the basics on
a specific concept and recommendations for reference
materials where they can go for further learning. A spe-
cial case includes health physics graduate students who
seek direction and references for their academic study.
• Professionals who are not health physicists: This edu-
cated group—which includes other scientists, medical
doctors, and lawyers—looks for more detail and backup
for their situations and often reassurance that their ap-
proach is valid.
• Professional-level health physicists: This group needs
high-level information in an area of the field not specific
to their training.
EXAMPLES OF INTRIGUING QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS
Examples from members of the public
It is difficult to select only a few intriguing questions
and answers from the large number that have been submitted
in the lifetime of this feature. To give an overview of the
scope and variety of information that is sought from mem-
bers of the public, nine abridged examples are presented.
Education doesn’t necessarily mean knowledge.
Q: I’m pregnant. I need to do business travel by plane. Should
I cancel my trips, especially in the first trimester? (Submitted
by a radiologist with an MD and a PhD at a major institution.)
A: The dose needed to cause harmful effects for an embryo/
fetus is at least 100 millisieverts (mSv). Radiation dose dur-
ing commercial flight is on the order of 0.01–0.02 mSv per
www.health-physics.com
Copyright © 2020 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
April 2020, Volume 118, Number 4
hour of flying time. This means you would need to fly on
1,000 trips of 10 hours each during pregnancy to receive
the amount that might be harmful.
Response: “Awesome, thanks for your help.”
Discussion: This first example is a common question
demonstrating that a good education does not necessarily
mean knowledge about a subject that is somewhat out of a
person’s background. This question leads one to wonder
why physicians, especially radiologists, are not provided
with a better education on radiation and radiation safety.
The reality is that in most medical schools, the curriculum
is so packed that there is no time to cover this and many
other important subject areas.
ATE was a good resource for this physician. The expert
gave information on the dose level above which there might
be concern, gave typical dose levels during commercial
flights, and ended by putting those numbers in perspective.
The answer was brief and factual. It worked in this case and
a nice thank you note was received.
Radon is a popular subject for questions.
Q: While changing my furnace filter, I checked it with a
Geiger counter and found it was radioactive. Is it common
for furnace filters to collect radon daughter products?
A: Your interesting observation sent me to my own base-
ment to measure my filter. I found the same result. The ini-
tial measurement, taken immediately after I removed the
filter, was 10 times the background count in my basement.
Measurements over a period of two hours showed that the
activity decreased the way you would expect radon-222 de-
cay products to behave. I suspect it is a common occurrence
to find this activity on furnace filters. The Health Physics
Society has a position statement on indoor radon that you
might find helpful (http://hps.org/documents/radon_
position_statement.pdf) (HPS 2009).
Discussion: Radon questions are frequently submitted
to ATE. The questions often follow the airing of a television
ad or a newspaper article about testing for radon in the
home. This one may have been prompted by media reports,
but the question and the answer were also rather unique. The
questioner has a higher level of knowledge than most. His
curiosity prompted him to take his Geiger counter and mea-
sure his furnace filter.
ATE’s radon expert didn’t get all caught up in theo-
retical explanations. Instead she grabbed her Geiger
counter and measured her own furnace filter to be able
to answer the question. She also pointed the questioner
to the HPS position statement on radon for more infor-
mation on the subject. This is another example of a ques-
tioner who apparently did not need a lot of equations and
scientific backup. Often a simple answer and a reference
to a place where more information can be found is all that
is needed.
 Thomas S. Tenforde Topical Lecture c G. S. ROESSLER ET AL.
All those waves around us.
Q: My nephew is exposed to WiFi day and night. He has a
giant TV screen which he sits close to and he uses an iPad, a
cell phone, and a microwave. I have read that this can be
harmful. Please send me some research that I can offer him.
A: These kinds of exposures are ordinary in modern society.
Eating microwaved food or being near a TV set does not en-
tail any noticeable exposure to electromagnetic fields. While
some may involve exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields,
the levels of exposure are far below U.S. and major interna-
tional exposure limits. The known hazards of RF energy are
associated with excessive heating of tissue and do not occur
with ordinary use of consumer devices. After half a century
of research, no clear evidence has emerged for health risks
from low-level exposure to RF fields.
Discussion: Nonionizing sources of radiation like mi-
crowaves, radio waves, cell phones, radar, power lines, infra-
red, and lasers are a source of enough questions to require
two ATE topic editors. Usually only one source of exposure
is of concern in a question. In this case, a person saw his
nephew surrounded by various waves day and night.
The expert’s brief summary of prevalence and effects
of RF fields eased the person’s mind about his nephew’s life
surrounded by all of his gadgets.
Fukushima is still a worry.
Q: I am interested in a classic car located near the Fukushima
exclusion zone. What would be involved in decontaminating
the vehicle before shipping? Or is it a lost cause?
A: I'm aware that Fukushima fallout was detected on used
cars from Japan in 2012, only 1 y after the accident. Now,
7 y later, most of the fallout is gone due to natural decay
and weathering. Nothing remains radioactive forever. If
the car was garaged, it should be clean. If not, the metal sur-
faces can be cleaned of any remaining radioactivity simply
by washing. The tires could be washed vigorously.
Discussion: The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, oc-
curred following the Tohuku earthquakes and tsunami on
11 March 2011. Eight years later, questions are submitted
to ATE by people with a variety of concerns, especially
about products produced in Japan.
ATE’s expert provided brief but reassuring informa-
tion. It appeared that this person really wanted that car,
and all he needed was for someone to put his mind at ease.
Better communication skills needed.
Q: I am concerned about radiation exposure from re-
peated CTs. I asked the radiologist to tell me how much
I received during my abdominal scan. The amount was
expressed in a way that I cannot convert, 278.29 mGy cm−1
(DLP) [dose-length product].
A: The effective dose from an abdominal/pelvic CT scan is
around 4.2 millisieverts (mSv). At effective doses less than
www.health-physics.com
Copyright © 2020 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
357
100 mSv, the risk of health effects is too small to be seen.
For more information on the risk, check out the HPS posi-
tion statement, “Radiation Risk in Perspective,” http://hps.
org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf (HPS 2010).
Response: “You're a Prince! I can't thank you enough for
your timely and thorough response. This is exactly what I
am looking for. I truly wish physicians would be trained to
provide this level of objective information rather than the
often-palliative responses they use to assuage concerns.”
Discussion: By far the most frequent and most detailed
questions are about medical exposures and are asked by the
most anxious questioners. These primarily involve CT
scans. This example is typical. Because patients are so con-
cerned about radiation exposures, they often ask medical
personnel how much dose they have received from an exam.
Had the radiologist in this case been a better communica-
tor, the person’s concern might have been allayed. ATE’s expert
gave an estimate of the effective dose and put it in perspec-
tive by referring to the appropriate HPS position statement.
Four topic editors are required to handle the questions in
the medical subject areas: Medical and Dental Patient Issues
(two editors), Medical and Dental Equipment/Shielding, and
Nuclear Medicine Issues. A number of medical questions
also come in to the Radiation Effects category.
Scary information on the internet.
Q: I have had two barium swallows and two mammograms. I
was informed I had a 1:33,000 risk of cancer from the barium
swallows and 1:49,000 risk of cancer from my mammograms.
I am presuming these calculations are from the LNT (linear no-
threshold) model and that the risk is theoretical. Why is the
LNT model still used if the risk of cancer associated with med-
ical imaging at doses below 100 mSv is “too small to see?”
A: The expert discussed the conservative approach of LNT,
put doses below 100 mSv into perspective, and recom-
mended the Image Gently® website for information on the
risks and benefits of medical exposures.
Response: I cannot thank you enough for your reassuring
words and for giving me a better understanding of the ef-
fects of radiation. Unfortunately, before finding the Ask
the Experts page, I read a lot of scary information about ra-
diation, which caused me extreme anxiety.
Discussion: Poor or misleading information on the inter-
net, television, and other media sources can be scary. Present-
ing the facts in plain language and putting doses in perspective
can reassure concerned people. The Image Gently® website
(SPR 2014) was recommended for more information.
The answer to this question stimulated this concerned
questioner to submit two more detailed follow-up questions.
The topic editor expended many pages and much more
background information on radiation dose units and quanti-
ties and why different dose units are used. This is not an un-
usual case. It happens fairly often that a questioner will
358 Health Physics
come back for more detailed information and more reassur-
ance. Thus, characteristics of a successful ATE topic editor
or expert include patience and understanding.
Concern about cat after a nuclear stress test.
Q: My husband is going to have a nuclear stress test next
week. He is to avoid coming within 3.05 m of small chil-
dren for 24–48 hours post-test. I am concerned about our
cat. I am assuming if a young child can potentially be af-
fected, a small animal could as well.
A: You don’t need to be concerned about your cat. The rec-
ommendation for your husband to avoid coming within 3.05
m of small children for 24–48 hours after the test is a very
conservative precaution. The precaution is not based on size.
It is based on the fact that developing cells present in children
are more sensitive to radiation than fully developed cells.
Discussion: People are often concerned after a family
member has a nuclear medicine procedure. They have been told
that the patient will be radioactive for some period of time after
the exam. To many people, a pet is part of the family and needs
to be seen as such by the expert who answers the question.
Journalist fights radiophobia.
Q: I am a journalist from the Netherlands setting up a
website on radiophobia. I cover all kinds of radiation related
subjects: hormesis/LNT, Brazilian beaches, radiotherapy,
etc. I am interested in the case of Harold McCluskey, who
in 1976 was heavily contaminated with americium-241.
He lived another 11 y and died of a disease unrelated to
the accident. Did someone calculate his lifetime exposure?
A: In a September 1995 Health Physics article on the acci-
dent, cumulative absorbed doses to his bone surface, liver,
and lung were listed. The article concluded that “the proba-
bility of not observing a fatal cancer based on BEIR-IV risk
factors for these absorbed doses was 12%.”
Note: The entire article was provided to the questioner
along with a suggestion that he join the Society so that he
would receive the Journal for reference on other topics of
interest for his website.
Discussion: This question was one of the easiest to an-
swer because it only involved the provision of a published
article (Toohey and Kathren 1995) containing the informa-
tion. No interpretation was necessary. The journalist was
pointed not only to the article conclusion but to the article’s
closing paragraph, which says: “The lack of carcinogenesis
in this case does not indicate that currently accepted risk
factors for alpha irradiation are in error. Even assuming up-
per limits of risk, there was a significant (>10%) chance of
not observing a cancer induced in this case in the period be-
tween exposure and death. In actuality, risks may well have
been lower due both to cell killing and the relatively short
latent period.”
It is not known at this time what use the journalist has
made of this information.
www.health-physics.com
Copyright © 2020 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
April 2020, Volume 118, Number 4
Grand Canyon.
Q: What were the likely exposures and health effects to
Grand Canyon museum visitors from the three buckets of
uranium ore that were on display there for three decades?
A: We assume your question is prompted by the USA Today
article on 19 February 2019 that stated: “For nearly two de-
cades at the Grand Canyon in Arizona, tourists, employees,
and children on tours passed by three paint buckets stored in
the national park’s museum collection building, unaware that
they were being exposed to radiation.” The concern came af-
ter a Grand Canyon safety manager released information to
the press about “measurements made by Park Service offi-
cials, which appeared to be hundreds of times higher than
thresholds set by the government for exposure to radiation.”
Discussion: ATE experts reviewed available informa-
tion and concluded that “the uranium ore in the buckets is
a low-risk material that, unless ingested, would not be emit-
ting enough radiation to cause a harmful effect.”
More detailed information is given in an information
sheet (HPS 2019c): http://hps.org/media/documents/
uranium_at_the_grand_canyon_information_sheet.pdf.
ATE editors had been alerted to the USA Today article
and were prepared for questions that might come to ATE.
The ATE main editor worked with the HPS media liaison
to facilitate a response to questions that came in from re-
porters in Tennessee, Arizona, and several other locations.
Responses were handled by phone interviews. Reporters
also were referred to an information sheet written by HPS
uranium experts and posted on the HPS website that same
day (HPS 2019c).
In the days following, several articles appeared in news
reports that quoted health physicists. The headline for one of
the stories (Wagner 2019) said, “Experts dispute Grand Can-
yon safety manager’s claim that radiation posed risk to pub-
lic.” In the weeks that followed, other articles were published
suggesting that the radiation levels were overstated as we had
originally suspected.
Nonpublic sector
Questions from the nonpublic sector (health physicists,
physicians, lawyers, and other technical people and scien-
tists) comprise about 15% of the total received. The questions
are almost always much more complex, and the answers re-
quire more time and a broader and deeper base of knowledge
on the part of the expert.
Because of the complexity involved, individual sample
questions and answers are not presented here. Instead,
Table 1 lists the question number and titles of the examples
to give some idea of the type and level of the questions
asked and answered.
These questions and answers are posted on the ATE
feature of the HPS website and can be accessed by the
listed links.
 Thomas S. Tenforde Topical Lecture c G. S. ROESSLER ET AL. 359

Table 1. Nonpublic sector questions. Topic Editor / Staff

Question No. Question and Link Accelerators Kamran Vaziri
Alpha emitters Ronald L. Kathren
Q6240 How do positron and electron ranges compare? Cell phones/micro/radio waves/radar/powerlines Kenneth R. Foster
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q6240.html Computers/consumer products Orhan Suleiman
Q6886 Is CR-39 a tissue-equivalent dosimeter material? Decommissioning/radioactive waste Tim Vitkus
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q6886.html Environmental/background radiation Jan Johnson
Q6937 How do I calculate the alpha detection efficiency for a Health Physics Society/American Howard Dickson
rectangular detector? Academy of Health Physics
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q6937.html Historical Raymond Johnson
Q7150 Can I relate instrument calibration results obtained with Homeland security/security screening Tom O’Connell
plutonium-238 to plutonium-239 results? Industrial radiation/radiation effects John Hageman
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q7150.html Instrumentation/radiation basics George Chabot
Q7763 Why bother with the reduced chi-square value? Lasers/infrared/ultraviolet Paul Charp
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q7763.html Medical & dental equipment/shielding Kennith Lovins
Q8622 Is there an inherently different neutron albedo dosimeter Medical & dental patient issues Kent Lambert
response in men vs. women? Medical & dental patient issues Victoria Morris
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8622.html Nuclear power/devices/accidents Joel Cehn
Q9059 What are the optimum conditions for bubblers for Nuclear medicine patient issues Marcia Hartman
tritium collection Policy/guidelines/standards/regulations Margaret Cervera
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9059.html Pregnancy & radiation/radiation workers Kelly Classic
Q10406 How much does soil moisture affect gamma attenuation? Radiation safety careers Richard Brey
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q10406.html Webmaster Fred Baes
Q11421 Why are our TLDs suddenly overresponding to 6 MV x Technical Editor Craig Little
rays? Editorial Associate Sharon Hebl
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q11421.html
Q12633 Are there any rules-of-thumb expressions for estimating
beta dose rates in air at various distances?
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12633.html
REFERENCES
Q12845 Why do these different expressions for bremsstrahlung
yields from electrons give different results, and Health Physics Society. Update on perspectives and recom-
which is correct? mendations on indoor radon. Position Statement of the
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12845.html Health Physics Society. Herndon, VA: HPS; 2009. Available
at http://hps.org/documents/radon_position_statement.pdf.
Accessed 20 July 2019.
Health Physics Society. Radiation risk in perspective. Position
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Statement of the Health Physics Society. Herndon, VA: HPS;
2010. Available at http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.
This paper addresses the history and structure of the pdf. Accessed 10 October 2019.
Society’s ATE feature and gives a sample of the types of Health Physics Society. Ask the experts [online]. 2016. Available at
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/. Accessed 20 July 2019.
questions and answers that have been received and an- Health Physics Society. HPS Specialists in Radiation Protection [online].
swered over the 20 y of its operation. Lessons learned are 2019a. Available at http://hps.org/. Accessed 20 July 2019.
also presented. The most rewarding evaluation of the suc- Health Physics Society. Radiation answers [online]. 2019b. Available
cess of the venture came from the Society board, which at https://www.radiationanswers.org/. Accessed 20 July 2019.
Health Physics Society. Uranium at the Grand Canyon—HPS Ex-
stated that it considers its ATE feature a success and the pert Input. Herndon, VA: HPS; 2019c. Available at http://hps.
most valuable service the Society offers for the public. org/media/documents/uranium_at_the_grand_canyon_
ATE editors view the support for the scientists as an- information_sheet.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2019.
other significant service offered by ATE. Society for Pediatric Radiology. The Image Gently Alliance
[online]. 2014. Available at https://www.imagegently.org/.
Editors state that the most important conclusion about Accessed 20 July 2019.
this endeavor can be stated briefly, “We help people! Espe- Toohey RE, Kathren RL. Overview and dosimetry of the Hanford
cially the very many, very anxious members of the public.” americium accident case. Health Phys 69:310–317; 1995.
That’s why the two dozen editors and the more than Wagner D. Experts dispute Grand Canyon safety manager’s claim
that radiation posed risk to public [online]. 2019. Available at
300 experts are such willing volunteers. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/
20/grand-canyon-museum-uranium-radiation-safety-manager-
Acknowledgments—Current ATE topic areas are listed below along with the warning-elston-swede-stephenson/2923344002. Accessed 20
names of the prestigious, talented, willing, and hard-working topic editors July 2019.
and staff. It is impossible to estimate how many volunteer people hours go into
this effort each year. It is huge and it is very important work. ■■

www.health-physics.com

Copyright © 2020 Health Physics Society. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.