I fJ 7 ") ~ -: /;_;I(~r-~~~/h-1()N1Zl~G RADIATION:'lJi~;r~,~~rN/ (,J_,.} /~ /:·'/'~~!'----===·~D EFFECTS.

A report of the United Nations Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
to the Genera/ Assembly,
with annexes

..
...
;

. ,~

i1·

VOLUME I: LEVELS

.,,'
\

NOTE

The report of the Committee without its appendices and annexes appears as
Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-seventh Session, Supplement
No. 25 (A/8725).
In the text of each annex, Arabic numbers in parenthesis refer to sources
listed at the end.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of theSecretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country or
territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.
Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United
Nations document.

UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION
Sales No.: E.72.IX.17

Price: $7.00(or equivalent in other currencies)

Annex C
DOSES FROM OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

CONTENTS
Poragraplis

Parograp/,s

1-2

INTRODUCTION

l. SoURCES OF P.<FORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

II.

LIMITATIOl'.S OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4-12

III.

RESULTS............................... .

13-63

A. The numbers of radiation workers . . . . . . .
B. The distribution of recorded doses in certain dose ranges ...................... .
C. The mean annual dose by type of work ..

14-19

D. The population dose resultin2 from occupational exposure .......... ~IV. SO!>lE SPECIAL PRODLE:l.iS . . . . . . . .
V. ACCIDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60-63

64-67
68-70
71-77
Page

T.-ulLES

20-32
33-59

180

.................................•REFERENCES

185

minimum detectable level, or below an "investigationlevel" 1 selected for monitoring purposes. Because theexposures of most radiation workers are in this low
rang_e, there are few precise data on the actual doses
rece1v~d by them. The difficulties of selecting a repre~entatrve dose value for this lower range are describedm paragraph 34.

Introduction
1. In its 1962 report (72) the Committee discussed
the contribution made by occupational exposure to the
population dose. At that time it was concluded that thegenetically-significant dose (GSD) from this source wasunlikely to exceed a value of 0.5 millirem per year. The
1962 report also presented information on the numbersof workers in various countries, and on the doses being
received by workers in various categories of work involving exposure to radiation.
2. The purpose of the present annex is to present
new information with which the 1962 report can be
updated.

6. Another factor tending to limit the use of monitoring data for the Committee's assessment of dose isth_at the proportion of workers who have been supplied
wrth personal monitoring devices varies considerablyfrom place to place. In some establishments the staff
includin~ those. not likely to ~e exposed to radiatioO:
are provided with such a device, while in others only
those workers whose exposures might exceed threetenths of the annual dose limit are so monitored (seealso paragraphs 16 and 17).

I. Sources of information
3. Surprisingly little information on occupational exposure has been published in the scientific literature,
although a considerable body of data is reported insources of limited availability, such as annual reports ofvarious organizations. Some of the information in thisreport has been submitted to the Committee as unpublished data. Much of the submitted data has needed tobe reprocessed by the Committee in order for it to be
put into the form required for the report. It is to be
hoped that the presentation of such a considerable
amount of unpublished data will encourage the publication of similar information through the~normal scientific channels.
~

7. A m~jo~ problem in using the results of personnel momtormg programmes to make dose estimates~s concerned with the meaning of the term "dose"
1tsel~. ~ith e~temal radiation, irradiated personal
momtonng devices undergo some change which is~su~~ comp~red with the amount of change occurring
m similar devices exposed under calibration conditions.
In most instances the calibration devices indicate the~xposure (in its strict physical sense) in the device
itself, and seldom can it be said that the so-called"dose" in the test device is a true absorbed dose
Similarly. with the monitoring device worn by ~worker, the ~hange produced by irradiation, after being~ompared with a standard, is usually reported as a"dose", although it is not strictly an "absorbed dose".

II. Limitations of the data

4. Most of the data that the Committee has used inthis report were originally obtained for other purposes.
and, in particular, in personnel monitoring programmes
tha! e!ther were designed to check that the exposures ofradiation wo~kers do not exceed some specified level,
or were reqmred by law. For reasons described below,
the data were not always suitable for deriving estimatesof dose in the form required by the Committee.
5. Accurate assessment of dose at the lower exposurelevels is severely limited by the fact that in personnel
monitoring it is usual to ignore doses below either a

8. Of more .significance, however, is the fact thatthe "dose" est1D1ated for the monitoring device isusually assumed to represent the "dose" in tissue
in the person wearing the device. At the low dose levels
encountered by most radiation workers it is not usual
to assess the actual absorbed dose in tissue by taking
account of factors such as depth, direction, and energyof the radiation; instead, for radiation protection pur1 For

173

a description of this concept see reference 24.

III. Results

poses, the rough assumption is made that the "dose"in the monitoring: device is the same as the dose in theunderlying tissues. While this is a satisfactory procedure
for radiation protection, difficulties arise when thereported results are used to estimate the actual dosein tissue, and particularly the whole-body dose.

~3. The main function of this annex is to present
est1?1ates of the population dose resulting from occupauonal exposure to radiation. With a few exceptions
information about population doses was not submitted
to the Committee, so that estimates of the populationdose had to be made from other available data. In
addition, it was felt that it would be useful to present
data on the numbers of radiation workers per thousand population for comparison with the 1962 report,on the distribution of dose in certain ranges and on
the annual mean dose for various occupational categories.

9. It is therefore not surprising that practice varies
as to whether the results of personnel monitoring programmes are reported as exposures (R), absorbed
doses (rad) or dose equivalents (rem). The dose
equivalent is frequently used since it is in terms of thisquantity that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) expresses the maximum
permissible doses for occupational exposure. thus
taking account of differences in the biological effectiveness of different radiations. The dose equivalent (H)is the absorbed dose (D) expressed in rads multiplied
by a quality factor ( Q) determined from the linear
energy transfer (LET i:o) of the radiation (22),However. in many instances it is not possible to know
which quantity was originally determined, and theCommittee has therefore decided, for the purposes ofthis report. to use the term "recorded dose", for wantof a better term. In keeping with its previous practice,
the Committee has adopted the procedure of using
the rad as the unit for this quantity. However, ininstances where the recorded dose may contain asignificant component of high-LET radiation (such as
neutron exposures), it becomes necessary to draw
special attention to this fact.

A.

THE NUMBERS OF RADIATION WORKERS

14. With the increasing use of radiation sources andradio-active substances it becomes increasingly difficult to define what is meant by ''radiation workers".
There is no clear border-line between the group of
workers who are directly engaged in manipulatina
radiation sources and those workers who are les~actively engaged in such work but who are nevertheless exposed to ionizing radiation in the courseof their work. Often a ·•radiation worker" is merely aworker who might receive radiation doses of suchmagnitude that dose monitoring is justified (see paragraphs 15-17). Hence, the actual number of radiation
workers in different countries may sometimes differ
merely as the result of different administrative practices.
15. In the 1962 report the term "occupational
exposure" was considered to apply to all activities
involving exposure of individuals in the course of
their work, regardless of whether or not they weredirectly engaged in radiation work. At that time it wascustomary, for radiation protection purposes, to makea distinction between individuals who were regularly,
and those who were occasionally, exposed in thecourse of their work. In addition there was a large
group of individuals, such as typists, cleaners, etc.,
who worked in radiation establishments, but who
were not considered to be occupationally exposed toradiation. However. in 1966 the ICRP introduced(23) the concept of a single category of occupational
exposure, namely, the radiation exposure received by
any worker in the course of his work.
16. In its 1966 recommendations the ICRP also
noted that for administrative purposes it was convenient to consider two conditions under which workers
are exposed, namely, conditions such that the resulting
doses might exceed three tenths of the annual dose
limit, and conditions in which they are most unlikely
to exceed this value. The ICRP recommended that
personal monitoring and health supervision should beapplied in the former case, but indicated that they
were not generally required in the latter.
17. The anticipated result of this recommendation
was that a considerable number of workers. employed
under conditions such that their exposures were mostunlikely to exceed three tenths of the dose limits,would no longer be subject to personal monitoring,and consequently would not be included in therecords of monitoring programmes. In this case, unlesssteps had been taken to include information on thislatter category. any use of data derived from personalmonitoring programmes would underestimate the actual
number of radiation workers. However, the impact

10. With external monitoring there is seldom muchinformation available about the actual doses received
by the various tissues. Individual workers rarely wear
more than one dosemeter, the exposure of which may
or may not give a true indication of the doses received
by the various parts of the body ( 1). However, when
only a single doserneter is used, it is frequently wornat the position of highest exposure, in which case thedose in more distant parts of the body will generally
be lower than in the dosemeter. Exceptions to this may
occur with localized high exposures of parts of thebody, an extreme example of this being with narrow
beams from x-ray crystallographic machines.
11. For various reasons, therefore, it is probablethat the direct use of data about individual doses frompersonnel monitoring programmes will tend to overestimate population doses for the various tissues ofinterest, but, at the low levels currently involved,
this is not considered to be a serious problem.
12. .~ith .personal monitoring for internal exposure
the :positron 1s even more complex. In work places theambient levels of radio-activity are usually maintained
at low values, and therefore significant internal exposures of radiation workers seldom occur. Intakes ofradio-activity occur, however. on occasion from minor
mishaps or incidents, and monitoring procedures may
thus often be discontinuous. Whilst they are entirely
c:de.quate to ensure compliance with prescribed intake
hm1ts, t!iey may involve considerable uncertainty fordose ~st1mates. at the very low levels occurring. Available mformat10n suggests that when hiQ:her levels
occu~ _they _are limited to very few workers": Exposure
to tntmm 1s, however, an exception. and appreciable
w~ole-bo~y d.oses frequently occur in workplaces wherethrs nuclide 1s used. Another exception is the exposure .of the. 1.ungs of workers engaged in undergrounduraruum m1Illl1g.
174

of the 1966 recommendation of ICRP has not been
fully realized in practice and. in the words of one
report (15), ·'it is difficult to advocate any radical
pruning of the numbers of workers subjected to film
or other forms of monitoring". Thus. it is not possible
to say to what extent the reported numbers of monitored persons may underestimate the actual numberof radiation workers.

24. Tables 3 and 4 show the trend of exposure
with time in Poland and New Zealand. In both countries it is seen that a considerable decrease in recorded
dose has occurred. This is particularly evident in New
Zealand? for which da~a covering a period of 16 years
are avadable on morutoring films exposed to gamma
rays and x rays above 150 kV. Table 4 shows thepercentage of monitoring films exposed in selected
ranges, and demonstrates the marked change that
occurred between 1954 and 1958, which has been
maintained since then.

18. Table l presents data on the numbers of radiation workers per thousand population in various
countries. It will be seen that the total is approximately
the san1e in most countries, a representative figure
being between 1 and 2 per thousand. with a somewhat higher figure for the United States. The highvalue for Norway (2.7 per thousand) may be
accounted for by the particularly large number ofdentists and dental assistants in that country. It is notclear whether the figures for other countries include
dental assistants or not. In general. the number ofworkers in the medical field has not changed since
the time of the 1962 report, being still about 0.3-0.5
per thousand.
19. However. in industry there are indications(Australia, the German Democratic Republic, Sweden)that there has been a considerable increase over thepreviously reported value of about 0.06 per thousand. There has also been an increase in the reported
number of workers in education and research.

B.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF RECORDED DOSES INCERTAIN DOSE RANGES

20. A number of countries supplied data on the
distribution of recorded individual doses in certain
dose ranges for various types of work. With the
exception of exposures resulting from irradiation bytritium. 131 I and some bone-seeking nuclides, which
will be dealt with later, all information about the doses
relates to external exposures. It needs to be emphasized that the numbers of persons in the lowest dose
ranges will depend on the numbers of workers suppliedwith personal dosemeters.

25. A similar trend is shown in table 5, which
illustrates the experience in the gyn:ecological department of a large Swedish medical centre in which radiumis used extensively. Over the period 1961-1968 there
was a marked shift of exposures towards the lower
dose ranges, as a result of intensive efforts to reducethe irradiation of the staff.
26. Exposures of medical workers using radium
tend to be higher than for those exposed to otherradio-nuclides and x rays. as exemplified by data fromthe German Democratic Republic for 1966 ( table 6).
27. Information was received from the United States
about the results of film-badge monitoring of a sample
of workers using radio-active materials ( table 7). The
recorded dose ranges differ slightly from those usedpreviously but they confirm that, in general, the great
majority of exposures lies in the lower dose ranges.
Two significant exceptions may be noted: the first
concerns the large percentages of waste-disposal workers
with exposures in the high dose ranges, and the second
shows the same trend, although to a much lesser extent,
among industrial radiographers.

28. Information from India (table 8) also showsthat most exposures are in the lowest range. However,in contrast with the data for the United States (table 7)
workers in industry, and especially in reactor work,
show a higher proportion of exposures in the range
0.5-5 rads.
29. Data about the exposure of atomic energy
workers are shown in table 9. Most of the data refer
to atomic energy research establishments, but the datafrom Canada's NPD reactor and from the United
Kingdom are for workers in nuclear power stations.
The figures from the United Kingdom are for sevennuclear power stations of the Central Electricity
Generating Board.

21. The recorded dose ranges varied somewhat. andfor the purposes of this report the following ranges,
in rads per year, have been selected: 0-0.5; 0.5-1.5;
1.5-5; >5.
22. Tables 2-10. showing the percentages of monitored workers in different dose ranges must be readwith some caution since the numbers are dependent
on the somewhat arbitrary selection of the group of"radiation workers" being monitored. For example,
an increase in the monitoring programme would be
expected to raise the percentage number in the lowest
dose range and decrease the percentage number in thehighest dose range.

30. An extensive review ( 14) of occupational
exposure in the United Kingdom during the three-year
period 1963-1965 confirms the observations made inother countries about the smallness of the doses received
by most workers. 91-100 per cent of workers being
reported as receiving less than 1.5 rads per year.
Workers in medical radio-therapy. luminizing and industrial radiography received the highest doses, althoughless than I per cent of these received more than an
average of five rads per year. However, a more recent
analysis (2) has been made in the United Kingdom of
the exposures of industrial radiographers working infactory conditions. and in the field ( e.g.. construction
sites. gas pipelines). This showed that 5 per cent offactory radiographers and 11.5 per cent of site radiographers received doses greater than an average of fiverads per year. For the period 1965-1970 the averageannual recorded dose for factory radiographers was
0.9 rad. whereas for site radiography it was 2. 7 rads.

23. Table 2 shows the percentages of monitored
workers in the various ranges in five countries. It will
be seen that most workers are reported as receiving
less than 0.5 rad per year. and that very few receive
recorded doses of more than five rads per year. 2 Data
from Sweden ( 64) show that a large proportion ofworkers receive no detectable exposure in a year.
2 It should be pointed out that under the ICRP recommendations, a worker may exceptionally receive a whole-bodydose up to 12 rems in a single year provided that his average
exposure does not exceed 5 rems per year (23).

175and 0.6 rad per year, and that in other work the doseis lower. Data from Australia, New Zealand and theUnited Kingdom show higher mean doses in medical
radio-therapy than in medical radio-diagnosis, thisapparently being mainly caused by exposure to sealed
radio-active sources. This is confirmed by data from theGerman Democratic Republic (7) from which it canbe calculated that medical workers exposed to radium
and radio-active cobalt sources received an annual
mean dose of 0.79 rad, while those working with x ray
machines ( diagnostic and therapy) received 0.13 rad.

The analysis concludes that the st.and~d of ~adiologi~lprotection for workers engaged m site radiography 1s
significantly lower than for workers employed in. factory
conditions. Nevertheless, the good results obtamed bysome firms in both groups suggest that, if the necessary
precautions are taken, the process of industrial radiography can be carried on without workers receiying
doses greater than those permitted by the national
regulations.
31. Observations over a period of six years (19621967) made in the Federal Republic of Germany (8)showed that the percentage of workers with exposuresover five rads was nearly constant from year to year,
and mostly below 1 per cent, although the total numberof workers doubled in the same period of time.
32. In Japan, in contrast with other countries,
exposures of medical workers in 1968 were rather
greater in the higher dose ranges, but very few recorded
doses exceeded five rads (table 10).

C.

37. Data concerning certain hospitals in Paris forthe year 1971 (51) show that in spite of the introduction of up-to-date equipment, exposures in radiologicaldepartments were still far from negligible, over 1 percent of workers receiving more than 2 rads per year.
In certain specialized radiological work up to 10 per
cent of the workers received more than 2 rads per year;
this particularly applied to angiography and to radiological procedures conducted during surgery and brachytherapy. The increasing use of medical radiology, andin particular, its use during surgery and in specialized
procedures such as angiography, emphasizes the importance of adequate protection for all those involved inthis work.

THE MEAN ANNUAL DOSE BY TYPE OF WORK

33. Table 11 shows the mean annual recorded dosein rads for monitored workers in various types of work
involving external exposure. In some cases the values
shown are those reported by the country in question.
In the remaining cases no value was given and it had
to be estimated. For this purpose it was necessary to
select a representative dose from the information supplied about the numbers of workers in various dose
ranges.
34. The selection of an appropriate value for themean annual dose for the range 0-0.5 rad has to takeaccount of the well-known skewed distribution within
this range. The value of the mean dose will depend
critically on how many more-or-less unexposed workers
were actually monitored. A Swedish analysis ( 64)shows that, for persons wearing monitoring films thatwere all reported as being exposed below the practicalthreshold value, the mean annual recorded dose wasabout 20 millirads. The mean annual recorded dosewhen films were reported as falling in the range 0.05-0.5
rad was about 150 millirads. For the purposes of thisreport, therefore, the value of 0.1 rad was selected as
the mean dose for the reported range 0-0.5 rad. The
use of this value probably results in an over-estimateof the dose contribution from this range; for example,
the use of this value, if applied to the data in table 2,
results in contributions from the recorded dose range
0-0.5 rad of about 50 per cent to the total calculated
man-rads in each category of work, the actual proportion varying from 12 to 83 per cent. Because thecalculated mean doses are generally low in relation to
the dose limits, this is not considered to be a serious
drawback.
35. For the ranges 0.5-1.5 and 1.5-5 rads, representative values were selected at one rad and threerads. respectively. The Swedish data referred to in theprevious paragraph gave values for these ranges of
0.8 rad and 2.5 rads. respectively. For recorded doses
greater than five rads. representative values were chosen
at the arithmetic mean when ranges were given. or werearbitrarily allotted the value of seven rads when the
only information was that there were exposures greaterthan five rads.
36. A fairly consistent pattern emerges from table
11. indicating that the mean recorded dose in medical
work and in industry usually lies between about 0.2

38. Swedish data (65) show that medical workers
exposed to x rays ( unspecified as to whether diagnostic
or therapeutic) received a mean recorded dose of
0.11 rad per year and that those using radio-nuclides
received 0.34 rad. A point of interest is the relative
contribution to the doses received by radio-isotope
workers from sealed and unsealed sources. More than90 per cent of the mean recorded doses received bythis group was from exposure to brachytherapy sources( 64). Reference has already been made (paragraph 25)
to the exposures in a large Swedish medical centre
using radium ( 3 8). From data summarized in table 5
it was calculated that the annual mean recorded dose
to workers in this centre was steadily reduced froma value of about two rads in 1961 to less than one radin 1968.
39. The mean annual dose to the trunks of veterinary workers, as reported in the United Kingdom for
1964 (14) was 0.24 rad. This can be compared withan assessment of the dose in 1969 (50): in this studya special evaluation of low doses was made. and themean annual doses were estimated to be 0.04 rad inwomen and 0.07 rad in men.
40. The data from New Zealand, which are presented in table 4, have been used to estimate the mean
exposure from gamma rays and x rays above 150 kV.
In 1954 the mean exposure of monitoring films was
2.4 roentgens, and by 1958 it had been reduced to
0.4 roentgen. Since 1958 the mean exposure hasremained steady, at just below 0.4 roentgen.
41. The information presented in table 7, showing
the distribution of recorded dose in the United States,
can be used to calculate mean recorded doses in thevarious types of work. These show general agreementwith the results shown in table 11, but in the case ofwaste-disposal workers the annual mean recorded dose
was 1.84 rads. Industrial radiographers bad a mean
recorded dose of 0.50 rad (54).
42. Amongst other industrial workers, luminizers
in the United Kingdom were reported to have received
an average recorded dose of 0.59 rad in 1964; theseluminizers worked at that time mainly with radium176

activated luminous compound "in rather primitive
working conditions'' ( 14). Luminizing is now tending
to be done with tritium- rather than radium-activatedcompounds. with a consequent reduction in external
exposure. The occupational exposures from tritium
luminizing are from internal radiation and are discussed
in paragraphs 51 and 52.
43. Information about the doses received by atomic
energy workers, whether in research establishments orin nuclear power stations, are not generally available inthe scientific literature. The data included in this reportwere made specially available to the Committee, andin some cases the original data had to be changed into
a form suitable for the Committee's purposes. The annual mean recorded doses of workers in research atomic
energy establishments varied considerably, ranging from0.06 rad in Israel to 0.69 rad in the United Kingdom.
The latter figure is for workers employed by the United
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Among this group,
those working on nuclear-fuel reprocessing were reported as receiving a mean annual dose of 1.5 rads
( 41). A value of 0.11 rad per year in 1968 was reported from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the
United States (47).
44. Data were provided on doses received by workers in seven nuclear power stations operated by theCentral Electricity Generating Board in the United
Kingdom (49). In 1969 these ranged from mean recorded doses of 0.84 rad in the oldest station to 0.17
rad in the newest. In the same year, the mean recorded
dose in three nuclear power stations in the UnitedStates ranged from 0.6 to 1.3 rads (54).
45. Information about a number of nuclear power
stations makes it possible to calculate the ratio of total
staff dose to output of electricity, expressed as manrads per megawatt-year of electricity. This quantity,
whilst not of importance for the individual workers, isof relevance to the total dose incurred by the population. The results are shown in table 12. These results
only apply to the doses received by workers within
nuclear power stations; however, in the case of the
British nuclear power programme an estimate can also
be made of the total occupational dose contributed atpresent by the reprocessing of the nuclear fuel (including waste management) used in the power reactors. The
available data indicate that, for the two years 19681969, the occupational exposure~ contributed by fuelreprocessing ( 41) and by work in the nuclear power
stations ( 49) were:
Fuel reprocessing ... .
Power stations ...... .
Total ............. .

1.6 man-rads per megawatt-year
0.7 man-rad per megawatt-year
2.3 man-rads per megawatt-year

46. Only limited information is so far available on
the dose related to electrical output, but the data indicate that, at the present time, for a fairly-wellestablished nuclear power programme, electricity canbe produced at a rate of two or three man-rads per
megawatt-year, of which the dose contributed by fuelreprocessing appears to form the major part. Improved technology. and the trend towards the construction of power reactors with greater electrical output, inwhich the staff exposures are not likely to raise proportionately, are expected to result in lower values of manrads per megawatt-year. as indicated in table 12. Technical developments in reprocessing plants which are
likely to be greatly expanded in the next decades are
expected to result in a reduction of the total occupa-tion~l dose per megawatt-year. In the United Kingdom,
for mstance, nuclear power generation is expected toreach about 90 GW y ( 46) by the year 2000 and thecontribution of occupational exposure to the total population dose is still likely to be relatively small comparedwith the natural radiation background (population
doses from environmental contamination bv nuclear
power stations are discussed in annex A of this report).
4 7. During the first sh: months of 1971 the exposure of the crew of the N.S. Otto Hahn was at the rateof 0.5 man-rad per megawatt-year (thermal) (71):this cannot be compared directly with the estimates ofdose per megawatt-year for nuclear power stations forwhich .the power output ii expressed as megawatt-year( electncal).
48. The data that have so far been referred to comemainly from the more developed countries, in which,as has been seen, average annual doses are now usuallymuch less than one rad. A report from Pakistan ( 43)
on 600 persons monitored by means of film badges, rePresenting 20-30 per cent of all radiation workers in thatcountry, showed average weekly exposures of about
34 milliroentgens, corresponding to approximately 1.5
rads per year. Five per cent of the films were reported
as showing exposures greater than 100 milliroentgens
per week, or five rads per year. The Pakistani reportstates that in organizations having a "local radiationsafety facility" the average weekly dose was 10 milliroentgens and that 2 per cent of the films exceeded
100 milliroentgens per week; the report does not state
what proportion of workers in these organizations were
supplied with film badges.
49. All the preceding results relate to external exposures. Data are available from Canada (56) on thewhole-body doses from tritium uptake by workers at
the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories. where tritium
monitoring is performed only when it is suspected thata tritium intake has occurred. Among individuals monitored in this way the average recorded whole-bodydose in 1968 was 0.24 rad. The dose from the uptakeof tritium may be compared with the dose from external
gamma radiation, which averaged 0.70 rad among
those workers receiving detectable exposures.
50. At the Canadian heavy-water reactors, occupational exposure to tritium accounts for 12-26 per centof the dose (table 12).
51. Estimates of the dose received by workers using
tritium in industry have also been reported in the
United Kingdom (33). These workers were employedin the luminous-paint industry, and in filling gas incapsules used as self-luminous warning signs etc. The
doses received by the workers were derived from themeasured concentration of tritiated water in their urine.
Table 13 shows the distribution of doses reported in
the original paper. and a calculated value of the meandoses for the years 1963-1969.
52. Data on annual mean doses are also available
for luminizers usin!? tritium in France and the Federal
Republic of Germ-any. A group of French workers,
numbering from 15 to 35, was reported to have received mean doses of 0.17-0.86 rad in the four years
1968-1971 ( 51 ) . The results of a survey of luminizers
in the Federal Republic of Germany are shown intable 14. It will be seen that over the period 19621969 there was a steady improvement. due to an energetic programme of radiation protection. Tritiumenergized luminous paint was introduced to reduce1771969-1970 40 per cent of 4.700 workers were exposed
to average concentrations greater than 30 pCi 1·1 ( 66).
58. In some mines where men were exposed tohigh concentrations of radon and its daughter products
an increased incidence of lung cancer has been reported( 40). An increased incidence of lung cancer has also
been reported in fluorspar (13) and h:ematite (15)mines. Because of the difficulty in assessing luna dosefrom inhalation of radon, no attempt has ~been° madehere to assess a population dose from occupational exposure in mines. Estimates of the risk of developing
lung cancer as a result of exposure to radon and its
daughter products are discussed in annex H of thisreport.
59. The risk of cancer in underground miners haspresented one of the major problem~ in radiation protection. However, during recent years there has been amarked improvement in workina conditions in mines
with a subsequent lowering of the exposure to rado~
and its daughter products.

population exposures from radium in wrist watches.
Its increasing use in consumer products, and the problems of monitoring the internal exposures of workers,emphasize the need for stringent control of its use inindustry, especially after the recent publication of two
fatalities among tritium workers in Germany ( 61).
53. Contamination by tritium from watches at wholesale importers, retailers and refiners has been reported.
A dose of 0.5 rad in a year was estimated to have been
received by an individual working in a firm of wholesale importers which handled 200 Ci per year andwhich had poor ventilation. Contamination was negligible in retail establishments. Watch repair-men andrefiners had negligible internal contamination ( 6) .
54. Several investigations of medical and paramedical personnel working with radio-nuclides have beenreviewed ( 62). Individuals working with iodine radionuclides received higher doses than those working withother radio-nuclides ( 99 mTc. 133 Xe. 137 Cs. 74 As, 2 ~Na.
6 BGe); 70 per cent of individuals working with mI
showed contamination of their thyroid glands. with anaverage activity of 5 nanocuries, and a maximum levelof 20 nanocuries. The degree of contamination appeared to be related to the quantity of material handled.
and not to the professional category of the worker.
Only 15 per cent of persons working with 131 I showed
the presence of the nuclide in their thyroid glands. themaximum amount being four nanocuries. These lower
levels with 131 I were attributed to the availability of
pre-packaged forms of this nuclide for diagnostic purposes, improved procedures for radio-nuclide handlingand administration, and increased emphasis on radiological protection.
55. Data were submitted from Argentina (3) on
the dose to the thyroid gland among workers at theComisi6n Nacional de Energfa At6mica involved in the
production of 181I and of compounds labelled with thisnuclide. In 1969 57 per cent of the workers accumulated less than 0.6 rad, 25 per cent received 0.6-3 rads,
3 per cent received 3-6 rads, and 15 per cent received
a dose in the 6-30 rads range. None had a total dose
greater than 30 rads, the maximum permissible dose
for the thyroid gland.
56. At the same establishment 93.5 per cent ofworkers exposed to bone-seeking radio-active materials( enriched uranium and 3 ~P) had an annual intake, byinhalation, of less than 2 per cent of the maximum
permissible, and 6.5 per cent had intakes between 2
and 10 per cent of the annual maximum permissible

D.

THE POPULATION DOSE RESULTING FROMOCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

60. The Committee's 1962 report contained estimates of the genetically-significant doses ( GSD)
resulting from occupational exposure, and it was
c_on_cluded that 0.5 millirem represented an upper
l1m1t to those doses; this conclusion was based on datafrom three countries.
61. !he policy adopted by the Committee forcalculating average population doses is described indetail in annex A, paragraphs 5 to 13.
62. To make a precise estimate of the GSD. however.. requires knowledge of the actual gonad doses,
the s12e of the groups receiving such doses, and thechild expectancy of such groups. Only Ja pan and
New Zealand have used these factors, and both conclude that the total value of the GSD was 0.07
millirad in the particular year studied. For New Zealand an estimate was also made of the corresponding
per caput dose to the whole population. which wasapproximately twice the value of the GSD. The contributions to the GSD are shown in table 15.
6_3. For countries where the required data are notavailable, the table also shows over-all population
doses. In one case (Australia) allowance was madefor the dose actually received by the gonads andfor the _ages of the exposed individuals. The remaining
population doses were simply determined as a per caput
dose to the entire population of the particular country.
Since the latter doses were obtained from personalmonitoring, and did not allow for depth dose or
child expectancy, they are likely to be over-estimates.
Nevertheless, the available data strongly indicate thatthe population dose is unlikely to exceed 0.5 millirad
per year, and that in many cases the actual value
may be less than 0.1 millirad per year.

(3).

57. A special case of internal exposure involving
also some workers who are not usually recognized asradiation workers. is the exposure to radon and its
radio-active daughter products in underground mines.
lnhalation of radon and its daughter products in various
types of underground mines has been reported, particularly in the mining of uranium (20, 68). thorium( 45). fluorspar (13). tin (15) and h:ematite ( 15). In
some uranium mines considerable practical difficulties
have been experienced in keeping the concentrations ofradon below currently recommended limits: for example, in Argentina in 1970. 24 per cent of about 150
uranium miners were exposed to an integrated concentration of "equilibrium equivalent radon';'' greater than
60 nCi h 1·1 (3) which corresponds to the maximHm
permissible concentration in air recommended by ICRP,
inhaled for 2,000 hours. In Swedish metal mines in

IV. Some special problems
64. In addition to the occupational exposures thathave been considered in this chapter there are anumber of categories of radiation work that may
present special problems for radiation protection. These
include radiation exposure of television maintenancemen: a survey concludes that ··occupational x-radiation
exposure of television repair-men and assemblers is178virtually non-existent" ( 59). This conclusion is supported by a study of the exposure of television repair
shops in Baltimore, United States, in which it was
found that negligible doses were received ( 74). A
survey of 30 aircraft-instrument repair shops in the
United States revealed many cases of significant radium
contamination resulting from repair and stripping
operations on radium luminous dials ( 60).
65. Additional categories of radiation work about
which it would be valuable to have information or
associated radiation doses include exposure of radar
operators to x rays emitted from klystrons and magnctrons; exposures in educational institutions, especiallyin schools for x-ray technologists; exposures of transportation workers; exposures of aircraft maintenanceworkers; and exposures of radio-pharmaceutical manufacturers.
66. Consideration is given in annex A of thisreport to the exposure of the crews of supersonicaircraft. The total galactic cosmic-ray dose equivalent
rate at supersonic altitudes is estimated to be about
1 mrem h·1, which is approximately double the rate at
subsonic altitudes. The annual dose to be received bycrews of supersonic aircraft might be about 1 rem
per year. depending on the length of time spent at
supersonic altitudes. This may be compared with theexposure of crews in current subsonic jet aircraft,
who are estimated ( 42) to receive about 0.5 rem
per year. In addition, crews of supersonic aircraft
may be exposed to solar flare radiation, but it isexpected that appropriate measures will ensure thatthe dose contribution from this source will be small.
67. Astronauts in space can be exposed to a fairly
constant background of 30-50 millirads per day fromprimary galactic radiation and its secondaries ( 34).
In addition, they can also be exposed to periodic
solar flares and magnetically-trapped radiations. inwhich the dose rates have been estimated to vary froma fraction of a rad per hour up to 20 rads per hour,
and the duration from minutes to days ( 34). The total
dose for space missions up to six months' duration
has been estimated to range up to 2,000 rads, depending upon the phase of the solar cycle (34).
V. Accidents

68. Occasionally, radiation injuries occur in persons occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation.
These can usually be attributed to severe overexposures resulting from failures of safety procedures
or from carelessness. A number of injuries have beenreported in x-ray analytical work (37), and in industrial radiography ( 4, 5).
69. In addition to the few accidents that haveresulted in radiation injury, there has been a numberof incidents, some of which have involved exposuresin excess of currently accepted limits, but which have
not resulted in injury (11). A survey of lost-time
accidents in operations of the United States Atomic
Energy Commission and its associates over the period
1943-1970 (73) showed that during that period over
4 109 man-hours were worked. Lost-time injuries
attributable to all causes amounted to 17,934. ofwhich 9,147 occurred in AEC operations. Only 3 8of the 9.147 lost-time injuries were caused by nuclear
radiation; these included three fatalities shortly after
exposures received as a result of criticality accidents
in the early days of atomic energy ( three additional
179

deaths caused by the explosion of the SL-1 reactor
not being included). A report (76) has reviewed 400
incidents involving radium. most of which involved
loss of radium sources from medical establishmentswith approximately one third of the sources not bein;
recovered. No injuries were reported in this review:
The total contribution to the population dose from allthese accidents is likely to have been very small.
70. Two reports from Thailand emphasize thehazards of the hand-held fluoroscope. A prolonged exposure (about 30 minutes) with a poorly protected
hand-held fluoroscope resulted in injury to a handof an examining physician and to the foot of bis
patient ( 57). The absorbed dose in the skin of thepatient's foot was estimated to be greater than
6,000 rads. Another instance of severe injury occurred in the band of a physician using a mobile
x-ray machine and a hand-held fluoroscope (58).
The dose to the physician's hand was estimated to be
between 3,000 and 6,000 rads. No injury was reported
as developing in the patient, in whom the dose wascalculated to be 10-15 per cent of that received by
the physician. An investigation bas revealed the existence of 30 additional hand-held fluoroscopes in thesame country.
VI. Summary

71. Data assembled since the Committee's 1962
report indicate that the total number of radiation
workers has remained at about 1-2 per thousand of
total population.
72. The majority of radiation workers receive very
low exposures, and very few exceed the recommended
maximum permissible doses recommended by theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection.
The mean annual recorded dose for most types ofradiation worker lies in the range of 0.2-0.6 rad per
year. In particular types of work, notably industrial
radiography and medical work involving the use ofradium, higher exposures have been reported. Mean
annual recorded doses as high as 2.7 rads per year
have been reported for industrial radiographers working on site radiography.
73. The integrated dose among occupationallyexposed persons involved in the production of electricity by nuclear power is at present about 2-3
man-rads per megawatt~year, most of the doseapparently being received during the reprocessing of
nuclear fuel. Improved technology is expected to resultin lower values of man-rads per megawatt-year.
74. The genetically-significant dose from occupational exposure has been estimated in two countries
to be 0.07 millirad in a year, with a corresponding per
caput dose of about twice this value. Other estimatesof the per caput dose range as high as 0.8 milliradin a year. This may be compared with the 1962
estimate of 0.5 millirem as being the likely upper
limit of the genetically-significant dose from occupational exposure.
75. Over-exposures and injuries are now extremelyrare in most kinds of radiation work. There are. however, several types of radiation work in which accidental high exposures and injuries are still not
uncommon. Chief among these are industrial radiography and x-ray crystallography, in which carelessoperating procedures are nearly always the causeof reported injuries. The use of the hand-held fluoro-

by the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection. Much effort is currently being put into
reducing the exposures of underground miners.
77. There has also been some initial difficulty inthe luminizing industry, when there has been a change
from the use of radium to tritium in the luminous compound, in preventing excessive uptake of tritium by
the workers. Experience shows that special care needs
to be taken if the exposures of the staff are to be
kept well below the recommended limits.

scope for the examination of patients has led to anumber of reported injuries, both in patients and in
the examining physicians.
76. Difficulty is being experienced in a numberof underground mines (and, in particular, uranium
mines) in maintaining the inhalation exposures ofminers below currently recommended limits. Abnormally high incidences of lung cancer have beenreported in various groups of underground miners
exposed to levels much above those recommended

TABLE 1. NUMBER OF RADL.o.TION WORXERS PER THOUSAND POPULATION
Typ, of work
ChiroMedical Diag11osis Therapy Dental practic

Argentina
1969 ........................
Australia ..... - ·-· .............
1966-1967 .. ·- ...............
Belgium
1968 ........................
Denmark
1968 .......................
Federal Republic of Germany
1969 .......................
Finland
1967
France1969-1970 ...................
German Democratic Republic
1966 ........................

Vet erinary

l11d11strial

Reuucl,andeducatfo,iAtomice11crgy

Total

Refere11ce

3

0.08
0.41

0.11

0.02

0.40

0.4

0.01

0.8

0.2

0.02

0.03

0.14

........................

0.14

0.25

0.08

1.5

67

0.1

0.2

0.02

0.7

18

0.03

0.2

0.2

1.5

17

0.09

0.12

0.07

0.4a

9

0.9

69

0.27
0.32

0.11

0.49b

2.1

51

0.2

--0.2--

1.5

7

0.04

0.05

0.07

0.7

52

0.28---

0.06

0.05

0.02

0.4

19

0.7c

0.1

0.02

0.8

75

0.85

0.30

0.9

Italy

1966 ........................
Japan
1968 .......................
Netherlands
1969 ........................
New Zealand
1969
Norway1968 ........................
Poland1966 ........................
Sweden1968 ........................
Thailand1970
United Kingdom
1968-1969 ·- - ................
United States1970 ........................

0.27........................

0.06

0.20

0.32

0.10

0.55

0.51

0.05

1.8d

<0.01

0.04

0.07

0.05

0.13

0

1.3

48

0.01

0.08

0.12

0.19

2.7

30

0.07

0.07

0.5

39

0.13

0.16

2

36

<0.1

58

0.38
0.01

1.0

0.5

0.15

........................

0.36b

0.07
1.33

1.55

0.87

41, 49. 50

a Does not include x-ray workers.

c Includes research and education.

b Includes nuclear power stations.

d Includes a value of 0.8 for dental assistants.

TABLE 2.
C::cchosltn.·akia,
1966 (12)PERCE~'TAGE OF WORKERS IN RECORDED DOSE R.iu',GES

Dose

0-0.5 .........
0.5-1.5
1.5-5 .. . . . ' .....
>5

Fit:la,id,

Federal R,-p«blic of
Germany, 1969 (9)Medical I11d11str;• Jfrd:cal I 11dus:r:,,

87.2
9.8
2.2
0.7

73.7
14.8
10.4
1.0

88.9
10.8
0.2

87.3
12.4
0.3

Gcrn:rz;: De11:ocratic
Republic 1966 (7)1967 (69)Po/end'1966 (32)aHdresearch

Resc!lrch
Medicaluu:versitJ.'
and
a,id
a,:d
rcsearcli lndustr:,• .:.'.!cdical lm:iustrj,1 research Medical Ind:1str:,• otl,cr

89.0
10.4
0.4

89.8
7.2
3.0

Unfr•crsity

ra,:ge(rad y·')42

3.7• These data refer only to persons engaged in work with radio-nuclides.

180

99.0
0.5
0.5

96.2
2.5
1.3

97.2
2.1
0.7

92.0
4.6
3.0
0.4

78.8
14.4
6.3
0.4

94.7
3.9
1.4

95.5
3.3
1.2

TABLE 3. PERCENTAGE OF POLISH WORKERS IN RECORDED DOSE RANGES (26-28)

Dose ra11gc(rady.l). . .. . . . . . . .....................

<O.l
0.1-0.4 .............................
0.4-1.2 .............................
1.2-5 ...............................
>5 ......................... . . . . . . . .

1966

1967

1968

1969

85.5
9.3
3.3
1.3
0.7

89.5
7.0
2.2
0.9
0.4

91.1
6.3
2.0
0.5
0.2

92.0
5.6
1.7
0.5
0.1

T ..\BLE 4. PERCENTAGE OF MONITORING FILMS E.XPOSEl)A IN SELECTED EXPOSURE RANGESIN NEW ZEALAND (55)E.xpos11rt range(R :,·')

0-0.5
0.5-1.5
1.5-5 .............................. .

>5 ................................. .

1954

1958

1963

1969

24.0
30.0
29.5
16.5

84.0
10.8
4.0
1.2

86.0
9.5
3.6
0.9

88.8
6.4
3.2
1.6

a Exposure to gamma rays and to x rays over 150 kV.

TA!lLE. 5. PERCENTAGE. OF WORKERS IN RECORDED DOSE RANGES(GYN£COLOGY DEPARTMENT, R.ADIUMHEMME.T, STOCJOIOLM, SWEDEN} (38)Dost range(rad y.l)

1961

1962

1963

1961

1965

1966

1967

1968

~1 .................
1-2 ................
2-5 ................

51.6
17.2
19.4
11.8

60.4
12.1
17.4
10.1

62.7
15.5
17.6
4.2

69.4
6.9
17.5
6.3

69.3
9.3
17.3
4.0

64.7
20.6
14.0
0.7

77.2

80.2
17.0
2.8
0

>5 .................

15.3
7.4
0

TADLE 6. PI:RCENTAGE OF MEDICAL RADIATION WORKERS IN RECORDED DOSE RANGES(GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, 1966)

Dou range(rad :,.1)

0-0.5
0.5-1.5
1.5-5 ........................... .

>5 .............................. .

(7)
Radi<>-nuclides

Xray

Radiumotlur than radium

98.l
1.4
0.4
0.1

64.1
19.3
15.7
0.8

86.8
7.4
5.4
0

TADLE 7. PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS IN RECORDED DOSE RANGES IN LICENSED INSTALL..\TIONSB (United States, 1968) (54)Dose range(rad:;·')

0-0.5 .................
0.5-1 ...................
1-5 ...................

>5 ......................

AcademicJ.fedical'

Major
J,roc,sso-r

Industryoc•eralIndustry
radiograp/iy

Waste
disposal

96.5
2.1
1.4
0

87.9
7.1
4.7
0.2

88.0
4.0
6.8
1.2

91.7
3.4
4.7
0.2

75.0
10.5
14.0
0.5

46.2
6.6
33.8
13.3

Fuel

Power a11d

processing and research
reprocessing reactors

86.1
5.4
7.4
0.1

95.7
2.4
1.7
0.2

All
other

94.6
3.4
1.8
0.2

a The data in this table apply to facilities licensed under the United States Atomic Energy Act, and do not include thoseworkers exposed to machine-produced radiation exclusively.

TABLE 8. PERCENTAGE OF WORKERS IN RECORDED DOSE RANGES (INDIA, 1969) (31)
Dost range(rad :y.l)

0-0.5 .............
0.5-1.5 .............
1.5-5 ...............

>5 ..................

Research
a11d

F11el

},[edical

Indu,tryeducation

reprocessi:ig

Waste
dispo,al

92.1
5.4
2.2
0.4

77.6
15.7
4.7
1.9

97.4
1.8
0.6
0.2

93.4
5.4
1.2
0

89.1
8.1
2.7
0

181

Ptr.JJer a,:dre.search
reactors

68.9
16.6
14.4
0.1

T.~BLE 9.

PERCF.NTAGE OF ATOMIC ENERGY WORKERS IN RECORDED DOSE RANGES( All external, except tritium)
Canada,' NPD,
A?Jt"fltitta,

NEA.

Dose rangt(rad yJ.)

1969 (77)

Ct1na.da.~

AECL,

External

Triti:tm

88.6

86.4

7.0
4.4
0

1970,1971 (3) 1968 (56)0-0.5 ' .................
0.5-1 ....................
0.5-1.5 ...................
1-5 ....................
1.5-5...............
>5 . .

98.4

1968

1969

1968

84.4

97.6

75.1

75.4

10.3

11.8

2.2

14.0

22.2

3.3
0

3.8
0

0.2
0.01

10.4
0.4

2.5
0

U,:ited
1968

93.8
3.6

0.5

2.6

0

a Nuclear power demonstration station.
TABLE 10.

States,ORNL (47),1.1....................

0b Seven nuclear power stations.

PERCENTAGE OF JAPANESE WORKERS L"l RECORDED DOSE RANGES (1968)

Dost ranpc(rad y• 1 )0-0.5 .................... .
0.5-1 ..................... .
1-5 ..................... .
>5 ..................... .
TABLE 11.

UnitedFrance,India,
Kin~dom,•
CEA (25) BARC (31), CEG (49),

MedicalIndustrial

84.3
9.4
5.9
0.3

92.8
3.4
3.3
0.4

Rcsrarchandeducation(19)
Atomicenergy

98.2

96.1
2.5
1.4
0

1.1

0.6
0.1

MEAN ANNUAL RECORDED DOSE (rad) BY TYPE OF WORK (EA'TER.'-lAL EXPOSURE)
Type of work

MedicalAustralia
1966-1967
Belgium
1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Brazil1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Czechoslovakiad
1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Denmarkd
1968 . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. ..
Federal Republic of Germany
1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finlandd
1967 .................. .
France1969-1970 ............. .
German D::mocratic Republicd
1966 .................. .
Indiad1969 .................. .
Israel
1969
Italy
1966
Japan
1968 .................. .
Netherlands
1969 .................. .
New Zealandd
1969 .................. .
Polandd
1966 .................. .
Sweden1968 .................. .
Thailand1969 .................. .
United Kingdom
1964 .................. .
United Statesd
1969-1970 ............. .

Diag,,osis

Therapy

Dentol

0.19

0.34

0.02

Chiropractic Veterinary

0.03

0.07

Resrarch
a11d

Industrial education

Atomice,k•rp:, Rcfrrcnu

0.25

0.07

0.13
(1969)

67

0.66

0.48

0.32

18

0.23

0.42

0.16

0.11

10

0.34

0.62

0.08

0.29

0.005

0.18

0.03

0.31

12

0.36

0.05

0.J7B

0.34A

0.07

9

0.21
0.075

17

69

0.11

0.03

51

0.17

0.15

0.26

7

0.21

0.62

0.06

0.49

31

0.08

0.04

0.06

16

0.07

0.07

.,

0.08
0.29

0.38

52
0.09

0.40
0.08

0.34

0.07

0.09

0.06

0.13

19

0.27

75

0.42

0.16

48

0.44

0.18

0.17

39

0.15

0.10

0.02

0.10

64

0.33b

--0.86C-

0.28

58

0.300.59

0.69d(1969)

14
41

0.35
0.34

0.49

0.27
0.12

a Includes atomic energy.
b Including dental.

0.24•---'0.16---70

d Values calculated by the Committee.
e But see special estimate referred to in paragraph 39.

e Including medical therapy.

182

TABLE

12.

RECORDED STAFF DOSE IN RELATIO'S TO ELECTRICAL OUTPUT FOR SELECTED NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS

Rattd
Reactor power (12)Reactor

Years

Total
JIIa11•electrical
Total
rads
outp11t staff doseper
(MW y) (mau•rads) MW(e) y!)•Pc(Jl W ( e))s11 r-.;eycd

Berkeley (United Kingdom)

GCR

276

1965-1969

1,401

2,027

1.4

Bradwell (United Kingdom).

GCR

300

1965-1969

1.436

1,269

0.9

Chinon 1, 2, 3 (France) ....

GCR

750

1962-1969

1,059

647

0.6

Dungeness (United Kingdom).

GCR

550

1965-1969

1,803

915

0.5

Hinkley Point (United Kingdom)......... .

GCR

500

1965-1969

2,245

1,526

0.7

Latina (Italy)

GCR

200

1962-1969

965

590

0.6

Marcoule (G-2. G-3)
(France) ............... .

GCR

80

1958-1969

571

219

0.4

Oldbury (United Kingdom) ..

GCR

600

1968-1969

624

156

0.2

Sizewell (United Kingdom)

GCR

580

1965-1969

1,423

360

0.3

Tokai (Japco-1) (Japan)

GCR

160

1965-1969

318

703

2.2

Trawsfynydd (United Kingdom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GCR

500

1965-1969

1,564

653

0.4

Indian Point (United States)..

PWR

265

1962-1969

1,033

1,386

1.3

Shippingport (United States)

PWR

90

1965-1969

255

893

3.5

Trino Vercellese (Italy)

PWR

247

1964-1969

386

250

0.6

Big Rock Point (United States)
Dresden (United States) .....

BWR
BWR

70
200

1962-1970
1960-1970

305
1,223

1,217
2,038

4.0
1.7

Garigliano (Italy) . . . . . . . . . .

BWR

150

1963-1969

645

750

1.2

N Reactor (United States) . . LWGR

790

1966-1969

1,248

1,446

1.2

PHWR

208

1967-1969

155

1.386

8.9

1971

338

198

0.6

Douglas Point (Canada)

Pickering 1, 2 (Canada) .... PHWR 1,080

TABLE

13.

Notes

Annual range 1.4-1.5 man-rad
per MW y
Annual range 0.8-1.2 man-rad
per MW y
Man-rads apply to reactor staff
only
Annual range 0.3-0.8 man-rad
per MW y
Annual range 0.6-0.8 man-rad
per MW y
Man-rads include doses received during refuelling andin large maintenance operations
Man-rads apply to reactor staff
only
Annual range 0.2-0.3 man-rad
per MW y
Annual range 0.3-2.1 man-rad
per MW y

1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

Annual range 0.3-0.9 man-rad
per MW y
Annual range 0.5-5.3 man-rad
per MW y
Annual range 1.0-8.7 man-rad
per MW y
Man-rads include doses received during refuelling andin large maintenance operations
Annual range 0.8-4.0 man-rad
per MW y
Man-rads include doses received during refuelling andin large maintenance operations
Annual range 0.8-3.7 man-rad
per MW y
Tritium contributes 12 per centof doseTritium contributes 26 per centof dosePERCENTAGE OF WORKERS USING TRffiU~l IN RECORDED DOSE RANGES

Workers
monitored

(0.1
rad

0.1-1.5
rad

1,5.5
,ad

43

62.8
51.8
61.7
19.0
39.3
41.1

34.9
44.6
38.3
71.4
58.9
58.9
59.8

2.3
3.6

56
47
42
56
56
82

3 I.7

n Two individuals, with doses of 7 rads and 55 rads.

183

49
21. 2549
49
21, 522L 25
49
49
21, 44(UNITED KINGDOM) (33)
Year

49

0

11.9

>5

Mean dose
rad

0

0.38
0.58
0.34
0.93
0.49
0.49
1.43

rad

0
0

0
0

0
0
0

6.1

2.4n

49
53
54
21, 5263
35
21, 52

21. 5421, 771i

TABLE 14. PERCENTAGE OF LUMINIZERS USING TRITIUM, IN RECORDED DOSE RANGES (FEDERALREPUBLIC OF GERMA:NY) (29)Year

1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . .............
1963 .........................
1964 ... . . . . . . . . ..............
1965 . . . . . . . . . . ...............
1966 .........................
1967 .........................
1968 ........................
1969 ........................

No. ofsupervised
persons(0.1 rad0.1.1.s rad

1.S-5 radrad

Mea1: dose
rad

2
4
18
108
89
108
99

0
0
0
28.7
34.3
33.7
28.7
26.3

0
0
25.0
66.5
36.1
58.4
52.7
61.6

0
0
0
5.4
16.6
7.9
16.7
11.1

100
100
75.0
0
13.0
0
1.9
1.0

88
44
8
0.69
0.87
0.41
0.49
0.39

)5

TABLE 15. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE POPULATION DOSE (mrad y-1)
(All per caput doses except Japan and New Zealand)
Type of work

MedicalAustralia
1966-1967 .............
Federal Republic of Germany
1969 ..................
Finland
1967 ........ - .........
German Democratic Republic
1966 ..................
Israel1969 ..................
Japanb1968 ...................
New Zealandb
1969 ..................
Norway1968 ..................
Poland1966 ..................
Sweden1968 ..................
United Kingdom
1968-1969 ..............
United States1970................
-

Diagnosis

Therapy

DentalCliiro-practic

Researcl,
Veterin.ary

lr.dustrial

0.04

0.05a

0.14

0.01

0.044
0.016

0.022

0.017

0.07

0.002

0.003

and

education

o.o5a

0.024

0.001

0.009

0.006

0.01

Atomicer.ergy

0.004

0.005

0.02

Total

Refercnce

0.1

67

0.14

9

0.15

69

0.2

7

0.07

16

0.07

19

0.07

48

0.05

30

0.01

39

0.1

64

0.23C
0.4

0.1

a Includes atomic energy.
b Calculated as genetically-significant dose.
CUKAEA (1969): 0.20; CEGB (1968): 0.03.

184

0.3--

41, 490.8

70REFERENCES
1. Adams, N. The assessment of whole-body dose,using personal dosemeters, Health Phys. 21: 105107 (1971).
2. Atherton, N. J. and C. D. Burgess. Industrial
Hygiene Division, Department of Employment,
London. (Communication.)
3. Beninson, D., Comisi6n Nacional de Energfa At6mica, Argentina. (Communication.)
4. Beninson, D., A. Placer and E. Van der Elst.
Estudio de un caso de irradiaci6n humana accidental. Handling of Radiation Accidents, 415429, IAEA, Vienna (1969).
5. Biles, M. B. Characteristics of radiation exposure
accidents. Handling of Radiation Accidents, 3-18,
IAEA, Vienna (1969).
6. Bradley, F. J., R. Blais and A. Jones. Impact oftritium on the watch industry. Rad. Health Data
and Reports 12: 601-610 (1971).
7. Brasack, G. Occupational radiation exposure in
the German Democratic Republic in 1966. Report
SZS-20/68, 1968. ORNL-tr-2151.
8. Bundesminister filr Bildung und Wissenschaft.
Umweltradioaktivitat und Strahlenbelastung 19561968. Schriftenreihe Kernforschung 2, 1970.
9. Bundesminister filr Bildung und Wissenschaft.
Umweltradioaktivitat und Strahlenbelastung, Jahrcsbericht 1969, Schriftenreihe Kernforscbung 3,
1970.
10. Caldas, L. R. Universidade Federal do Rio deJaneiro, Institute de Biofisica, Brazil. ( Communication.)
11. Catlin, R. J. Radiation accident experience: causes
and lessons learned. Handling of Radiation Accidents, 437-450, IAEA, Vienna (1969).
12. Chysky, J. and J. Trousil. Occupational exposure
to ionizing radiation in the CSSR; United Nations
document A/ AC.82/G/L.1320.
13. de Villiers, A. J. and J. P. Windish. Lung cancer
in a fluorspar mining community. I. Radiation
dust and mortality experience. Br. J. Ind. Med.
21:94-108 (1964).
14. Duggan, M. J., E. Greenslade and B. E. Jones.
External radiation doses from occupational exposure. Nature 221: 831-833 (1969).
15. Duggan, M. J., P. J. Soilleux, J. C. Strong et al.
The exposure of United Kingdom miners to radon.
Br. J. Ind. Med. 27: 106-109 (1970).
16. Feige, Y. Israel Atomic Energy Commission,
Soreq Nuclear Research Centre. (Communication.)
17. Grande, P. Radiation Hygiene Laboratory, Copenhagen, Denmark. (Communication.)
18. Halter, S. Ministere de la sante publique et de lafamille, Brussels, Belgium. (Communication.)
19. Hashizume, T., T. Maruyama, Y. Kumamoto
et al: Estimation of genetically significant dosefrom occupational exposure in Japan. Chiba-sbi(1970).

20. Holaday, D. A. History of the exposure of miners
to radon. Health Phys. 16: 547-552 (1969).
21. International Atomic Energy Ag:ency. Power andResearch Reactors in Member States. May 1970
Edition. IAEA, Vienna (1970).
·
22. International Commission on Radiation Units andMeasurements. Radiation Quantities and Units.
ICRU Report 19. Washington (1971).
23. International Commission on Radiolo!!ical Protection. Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection ( Adopted
17 September 1965). ICRP Publication 9. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1966).
24. International Commission on Radiological Prot~ction. Gen.era! principles of monitoring for radiation protection of workers. Committee 4 Report.
(Adopted by the Commission on May 24, 1968.)
ICRP Publication 12. Pergamon Press, Oxford(1969).
25. Jammet, H. Commissariat
l'energie atomique,France. (Communication.)
26. Jankowski, J. Organizacja pomiar6w dawek osobniczych promieniowania rentgenowskiego orazwyniki za okres 1966-1967, Medycyna Pracy 19:564-570 (1968).
27. Jankowski, J. and B. Krych. Pomiary dawek indywidualnych za pomoca dawkomierzy fotometrycznych w Polsce w roku 1969 u os6b zawodowo narazonych na Dzialanie promieniowania
rentgenowskiego, Medycyna Pracy 20: 369-374(1969).
28. Jankowski, J. and B. Krych. Wyniki pomiar6w
dawek indywidualnych w Polsce w 1969 r u os6b
zawodowo narazonych na dzialanie promieniowania rentgenowskiego, Medycyna Pracy 21: 385393 (1970).
29. Kistner, G. Bundesgesundheitsamt, Federal Republic of Germany. (Communication.)
30. Koren, K. State Institute of Radiation Hygiene,
Norway. (Communication.)
31. Krishnamoorthy, P. N. Bbabba Atomic ResearchCentre, Trombay, Bombay, India. (Communication.)
32. Kucharski, M., T. Musialowicz, J. Jasiak et al.
Pomiary dawek indywidualnycb i ocena narazenia
os6b pracujacych ze zr6dlami promieniowania
jonizujacego w Polsce w roku 1966. Raport
CLOR-68/D, Warsaw (1968).
33. Lambert, B. E. and J. Vennart. Radiation doses
received by workers using tritium in industry.
Health Phys. 22: 23-30 (1972).
34. Langham, W. H. (ed.). Radiobiological factors
in manned space flight. National Academy of
Sciences. Washington (1967).
35. Lee, Byron Jr. Commonwealth Edison Company,
Chicago. (Communication.)a

185

36. Lindell. B. National Institute of Radiation Protection,' Stockholm, Sweden. (Communication.)
37. Lindell, B. Occupational hazards in x-ray analytical work. Health Phys. 15: 481-486 (1968).
38. Lindell, B. Professional responsibilities of thehealth physicist in relation to the medical profession. Health Phys. 20: 475-484 (1971 ).
39. Liniecki, J. Instytut Medycyny Pracy, Poland.
(Communication.)
Lundin,F. E. Jr., J. K. Wagoner and V. E.
40.
Archer. Radon daughter exposure and respiratory
cancer quantitative and temporal aspects. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Instituteof Environmental Health Sciences, Joint Monograph No. 1, 1971.
41. McLean, A. S. National Radiological Protection
Board, United Kingdom. (Communication.)
42. Minx, R. P. United States Department of Defense.
(Communication.)
43. Mirza, K. F. and W. K. Malik. Average exposure
to radiation workers in Pakistan. Health Phys. 18:569 (1970).
44. Misono, K. National Institute of Radiological
Science, Ja pan. (Communication.)
45. Mistry, K. B. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Trombay, Bombay, India. (Communication.)
46. Moore, R. V. Fast breeder reactor power stations,
UKAEA Monthly Bulletin "Atom" , No. 149,
p. 59, 1969.
47. Morgan, K. Z. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. (Communication.)
48. New Zealand, Department of Health, National
Radiation Laboratory, Radiation Control and
Population Dose in New Zealand. NRL-UN/2,
Christchurch (1970).
49. Orchard H . C. Central Electricity Generating
Board, United Kingdom. (Communication.)
50. O'Riordan, M. C. X-ray hazards in practices. Vet.
Ree. 87: 640-643 (1970.)
51. Pellerin, P. Ministere de la Sante Publique et dela Securite Sociale, Service Central de Protection
contre Jes Rayonnements Ionisants, France. (Communication.)
52. Polvani, C. Comitato Nazionale per !'Energia
Nucleare, Italy. (Communication.)
53. Prestele, J. A. Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc., New York. (Communication.)
54. Rogers , L. United States Atomic Energy Commission. (Communication.)
55. Roth , G. E. and N. F. Paris. National Radiation
Laboratory, Christchurch, New Zealand. (Communication.)
56. Rowe, P. C. and G. Cowper. Analysis of personal radiation exposures in 1968. AECL-3112,
Chalk River, Canada (1969.)
57. Samsen, L. and B. D. P. Williamson. The radiation hazards associated with the use of hand-held
fluoroscopes in Thailand. Thai Journal of Radiology 4: 167-175 (1966.)

58. Samsen, L. Radiation Protection Service. Department of Medical Sciences, Bangkok, Thailand.
(Communication.)
59. Savic, S. D. Results of a study of color television
set assembly and repair workers x-ray safety.
Radio!. Health Data Rep. 11: 519-525 (1970).
60. Schmidt, G. D., J. A. Halperin, E. Geiger et al.
Surveys of Radium Contamination in Aircraft
Instrument Repair Facilities, 1966-1967. Radial.
Health Data Rep. 12: 7-16 (1971.)
61. Seelentag, W. Two cases of tritium fatality,
Paper presented at Tritium Symposium, Las
Vegas, Nevada, 1971.
62. Shleien. B. and E. LeCroy Jr. J. Nucl. Med. 12:
523-525 (1971.)
63. Sinderman, R. W. Consumers Power Company,
Jackson, Michigan. (Communication.)
64. Snihs. J.-0. National Institute of Radiation Protection, Stockholm, Sweden. (Communication.)
65. Statens Stralskyddinstitut, Verksamheten, Stockholm (1968.)
66. Statens Stralskyddinstitut, Verksamheten, Stockholm (1970.)
67. Stevens, D. J. Commonwealth X-ray and Radium
Laboratory, Australia. (Communication.)
68. Stewart, C. G. and S. D. Simpson. The hazards
of inhaling Radon-222 and its short-lived daughters: consideration of proposed maximum permissible concentrations in air. Radiological Healthand Safety in Mining and Milling of Nuclear
Materials, Vol. 1, 333-357, IAEA, Vienna( 1963.)
69. Toivonen, M. and A. Isola. On the exposure ofradiological employees in Finland during 19651967. Report SFL-A 11, Helsinki ( 1968).
70. Tompkins, P. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (Communication.)
71. Ulken. D. Gesellschaft filr Kemenergieverwertungin Schiffbau und Schiffahrt MBH, Federal Republic of Germany. (Communication.)
72. United Nations. General Assembly, Report of theUnited Nations Scientific Committee on the Effectsof Atomic Radiation. 1962, Official Records ofthe General Assembly, Seventeenth Session. Supplement No. 16 (A/5216.)
73. United States Atomic Energy Commission, Operational Accidents and Radiation Exposure Experience 1943-1970. Washington (1971.)
74. United States Department of Health, Educationand Welfare. A radiation survey of television
repair shops in the Baltimore area. BRH/DEP
71-4, Rockville, Md. (1971.)
75. Van Daatselaar, C. J. Ministry of Social Affairs
and Public Health. Netherlands. (Communication.)
76. Villforth, J. C., E. W. Robinson and G. J. Wold.
A review of radium incidents in the United Statesof America. Handling of Radiation Accidents.
389-398. IAEA. Vienna (1969.)
77. Wilson, R. Ontario Hydro. Toronto, Canada.
(Communication.)
78. Wilson, R ., G. B. Knight and G. A. Vivian.
Operating health physics experience in heavy
water reactors. Paper delivered at IRPA Congress,
Brighton ( 1970.)
186