Talk:Radiation protection

message: 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)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per request. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge ALARA to Radiation protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ALARA  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linear non-threshold 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ALARA / ALARP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expand halving thickness section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead castle ... shielding the underside? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Principles of radiation protection - Shielding