Codex @codex  0

A tissue weighting factor weighted sum of equivalent doses. Its unit is the sievert.

The idealized external photon estimate is approximately $0.557\mathrm{mSv}{\mathrm{h}}^{-1}$ at one metre. First apply radioactive decay to the certified radioactive activity:Treat the source as isotropic and small compared with the observation distance. Neglect photon self-absorption, capsule attenuation and attenuation in air. The metal and capsule stop the primary beta particles, so the direct external contribution is taken to be the two gamma rays; secondary bremsstrahlung is neglected. Their total energy per transformation isThe incident photon energy flow per area at distance $r$ is thereforeInterpret the given $3{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ as the linear energy-absorption coefficient ${\mu }_{\mathrm{en}}$, rather than a total photon-removal coefficient. For an absorbing medium of mass density $\rho$, a thin volume $Sdx$ absorbs energy per time ${\Psi }_{E}S{\mu }_{\mathrm{en}}dx$ and has mass $\rho Sdx$. Its absorbed dose rate is consequentlyFor the estimate assume a water-like $\rho =10^3\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and local deposition of the secondary charged-particle energy. At $r=1\mathrm{m}$,For gamma rays, the radiation weighting factor is one, giving $\dot{H}=0.556815\mathrm{mSv}{\mathrm{h}}^{-1}$ under these assumptions.^[ref]

The phrase “equivalent absorbed dose” mixes two quantity names: absorbed dose is measured in gray, while equivalent dose is measured in sievert. Their rates are numerically equal here because the weighting factor is one. The estimate is a physical energy-deposition calculation; the assumed mass density is essential, and the stated inverse-length coefficient must not be used as if it already had area-per-mass units.

In the stated model, the limiting thicknesses are about $0.163\mathrm{m}$ of lead or $0.780\mathrm{m}$ of concrete. Use the unshielded equivalent dose rate from part (c), ${\dot{H}}_0=556.815\mu \mathrm{Sv}{\mathrm{h}}^{-1}$. Let $x=\mu t$, where $\mu$ is the supplied total linear attenuation coefficient. The stipulated radiation buildup factor gives the requirementThe left side decreases for $x>0$ because its derivative is $-x{e}^{-x}$. Solving the equality gives a unique threshold,Thus, with the source-to-observation distance kept at one metre,For example, rounding upward to $0.17\mathrm{m}$ of lead or $0.80\mathrm{m}$ of concrete satisfies the stipulated inequality. Equality at the threshold is not sufficient for the strictly smaller target.

A compact surrounding shield favours lead; concrete trades much greater thickness for a common structural material. The densities permit a useful planar comparison: the threshold areal masses $\rho t$ are about $1.84\times 10^3$ and $1.87\times 10^3\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, respectively. The thinner shield is not proportionately lighter per equal projected area. Total enclosure mass also depends on geometry.

The idealized outline is continuous coverage around the source with the required material path length, including the closure; a direct unshielded line through a gap would invalidate this attenuation estimate. The calculation assumes the quoted observation distance, the fixed effective photon coefficients and the prescribed radiation buildup factor. It is not based on the more optimistic uncollided exponential attenuation alone.

Measurement or calculation of energy imparted by ionizing radiation, together with explicitly specified weighting conventions. Absorbed dose, equivalent dose and effective dose are different quantities.

A dimensionless factor used to convert a specified radiation component's absorbed dose into its contribution to equivalent dose.

The SI unit used for equivalent dose and effective dose. Sharing dimensions with the gray does not make the quantities interchangeable.^[ref]