Talk:Radiation protection

[Untitled]
The reference to Cresson Kearney's work is authoritative and supports the content. I'm removing the "lacks references" label Ray Van De Walker 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per request. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Ionising radiation protection → Radiation protection – Radiation protection is currently a redirect to ionising radiation protection, but radiation protection involves more than just ionizing radiation. For example, there is protection against the low energy (visible light and below) electromagnetic radiation emitted by things like power lines, microwaves and cell phones. Instead of starting a separate article at radiation protection, I think that the article should be moved and expanded to cover both. Also, moving it gets rid of the United States/Commonwealth spelling difference - ionizing versus ionising, which is more pronounced than it would be otherwise because the ionizing radiation article uses the U.S. spelling. -- Kjkolb 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Support; I'm not wholly familiar with the article subject, but your reasoning is quite sound. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge ALARA to Radiation protection
ALARA is more than just a catchphrase ( although some countries do use it as such) - it is a fundamental principal of radiation protection as determined by the ICRP. As such it warrants a separate heading. The concept of alara is all about control and considering options for reducing exposures. At one level it can be application of cost benefit analysis or at the operational level it can be talking through alternatives. The aim overall is to keep doses as low as reasonably achievable because the basic tenet of radiation protection is that there is no safe exposure level and therefore each exposure, no matter how small has an associated risk. There is a view that there is a threshold but this is not internationally accepted. Anderson. Sept 2007 ALARA is just a catchphrase used in the context of radiation protection, so I proposed a merge.--Yannick 13:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think it's a term from safety engineering, especially in any medical context where quanitification of the risks is impractical. Ray Van De Walker 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also the related concept of ALARP - as low as reasonably practicable. This has its own article and it might be more appropriate to merge these two topics so that a differential appreciation might be made, with links back to Radiation Protection, Safety Engineering, Risk Analysis etc.

Soarhead77 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of time, distance, and shielding contribute directly to keeping radiation doses ALARA. I think ALARA need only be defined in this section.

Th'wing 20:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ARALA is also used in the Diagnostic Ultrasound field and ultrasound is not generally thought of as employing radiation. In my opinion, this would argue against the move. Lgrove 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the page as it now exists is focused on radiation protection, ALARA is a broader regulatory concept that is applied to many risk-related technologies - notably food safety. A better plan may be to expand the scope of the ALARA page, and maintain its independence - though I'm not qualified to do so. Dbushey 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

my name is rogelio montelongo and i need help about radiation because here where i live i dont know who and why they are transmiting to me radiation bexause i feel all the sintoms about radiation and i worry about my family if somebody knows where i can get help please help me Youarenext (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ALARA
ALARA This section should be updated. As written, it only considers external radiation exposure. It does not consider internal radiation exposure from inhaling airborne radioactive material. In the United States, such consideration is now required by a revision to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20 (10CFR20). This is available at: 

Subpart H includes the requirement to maintain the Total Effective Dose Equivalent at ALARA. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides guidance on this in Regulatory Guide 8.15, "Acceptable Programs For Respiratory Protection," available at. Section C.2 of this Regulatory Guide addresses this issue.

Hence, an update to this section is neeed. Radretired (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of ALARA uses and example involving external radiation exposure. This is done to outline the concept of ALARA. There is no need to consider all exposure pathways in order to describe this concept. This section does not appear to be intended to outline how to calculate total effective dose, or to guide people on how to actually carry out radiation protection functions. No change is required. 121.45.102.131 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Linear non-threshold
The mention of linear non-threshold models should not be proposed without acknowledging the linear threshold, and Hormesis models. Also, the hormesis model is the most acceptable theory in the eyes of most HPs, where as the non-threshold model is simply the "worst-case" scenario model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JR0811 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, but mentions of the hormesis model in other articles (e.g. Chernobyl disaster effects) have caused edit wars in the past. The alternative theories are linked in the lede paragraph of the LNT article itself.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ALARA / ALARP
I have been trying to sift through edits, redirects and confusing terminology to try and figure out what happened to ALARA. As best I can tell it had its own page, was merged here, and then arbitrarily had its name changed to ALARP along with an added false statement the two are interchangeable(a statement that isn't even poorly cited). At that point it looks like some minor edit skirmishes took place with anon editors changing ALARP to ALARA and then those changes were reverted because of broken links. While the underlying philosophies of ALARA and ALARP are similar they have distinct differentiation. The International Commission on Radiological Protection specifically speaks of ALARA and the legal implementation of ALARA is primarily US and ALARP is UK. I'm going to try leaving this open for discussion before trying to bring ALARA back, I really would like to see some justification for the changes.--Tmckeage (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Expand halving thickness section
We already have a table of gamma ray halving thicknesses. I think we should duplicate that chart for any type of radiation that is appropriate. It is my understanding that neutron radiation and x-rays follow similar curves but alpha and beta do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalchik (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This table is troubling in several regards. The information can only be accurate for a specific energy (spectrum) of gamma rays - a fact which is not stated. If one follows the link, you can learn that it applies to gamma rays from a nuclear blast - which might vary based on distance and type (fusion vs fission). The fact that it applies to a weapon discharge makes it less useful for the most common radiation protection applications (industrial and medical). Additionally, the reference quoted is not terribly authoritative. It would be best to use a global scientific source like the IEAE. Mark (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead castle ... shielding the underside?
It appears the lead castle shown in the article does not have a bottom section. Do they normally shield the bottom side or not?

Such a structure appears to be deceptively dangerous if materials were stored underneath the structure in a cabinet or other chamber. Even placed in the lowest level of a building on a concrete floor, without a bottom layer of shield bricks, it would appear that radioactive samples could be capable of irradiating the concrete and subsoil under the building.

DMahalko (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

hello tamira :) what you doing flower pot :P xxx

Principles of radiation protection - Shielding
Just stumbled over the "thickness" of shielding being given in g/cm2. Not sure if this is some specific way of denomination or if it should read g/cm3 (cubed instead of squared in order to represent a volume in relation to the weight/mass). If squared is correct an explanation may be necessary. 08:03, 06 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.102.202 (talk)

The unit g/cm2 is correct and means that in a square centimeter of material there is X grams. So an easy one is water which has a density of 1 and 1 g/cm2 is 1 cm thick. For comparison with lead, the density of lead is 11.29 g/cm3 so a thickness of 1/11.29 (0.08) cm will have a mass of 1 gram.

In shielding that thickness of 0.08 cm of lead and 1 cm of water do not have equal shielding effect because there is energy dependence with the number of protons in the nucleus of the shield, 82 for lead. Water composition of hydrogen (one proton) and oxygen (eight protons) do not have the same shielding as the lead.Bsdnuke69 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)