During World War II (WWII), the Manhattan Engineering District established a secret laboratory in the mountains of northern New Mexico. The mission was to design, construct and test the first atomi...

Dose conversion coefficients for the lens of the human eye have been calculated for neutron exposure at energies from 1×10⁻⁹ to 20 MeV and several standard orientations: anterior-to-posterior, rotational and right lateral. MCNPX version 2.6.0, a Monte Carlo-based particle transport package, was used to determine the energy deposited in the lens of the eye. The human eyeball model was updated by partitioning the lens into sensitive and insensitive volumes as the anterior portion (sensitive volume) of the lens being more radiosensitive and prone to cataract formation. The updated eye model was used with the adult UF-ORNL mathematical phantom in the MCNPX transport calculations.

This paper summarizes the dose to the eye lens of workers of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, a high-volume US oncologic and associated diseases facility. The doses presented in this report were collected from personal dosemeter readings using optically stimulated luminescence badges to estimate H_p(3). Doses were collected for 5950 clinical and research workers between January 2012 and December 2017. The median eye lens dose for all monitored workers was 0.23 mSv y⁻¹. Workers performing, or supporting, fluoroscopy procedures received the highest unprotected eye lens dose of all workers with a median eye dose of 10 mSv. The use of leaded glasses by this group reduced the actual doses to the lens. Nurses and technicians involved in positron emission tomography injections received median eye lens dose of 1.2 mSv.

There are few occupational studies of women exposed to ionizing radiation. During World War II, the Tennessee Eastman Corporation (TEC) operated an electromagnetic field separation facility of 1152...

This study assesses the efficacy of Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPT) published by OpenAI in the specialised domains of radiological protection and health physics. Utilising a set of 1064 surrogate questions designed to mimic a health physics certification exam, we evaluated the models’ ability to accurately respond to questions across five knowledge domains. Our results indicated that neither model met the 67% passing threshold, with GPT-3.5 achieving a 45.3% weighted average and GPT-4 attaining 61.7%. Despite GPT-4’s significant parameter increase and multimodal capabilities, it demonstrated superior performance in all categories yet still fell short of a passing score. The study’s methodology involved a simple, standardised prompting strategy without employing prompt engineering or in-context learning, which are known to potentially enhance performance. The analysis revealed that GPT-3.5 formatted answers more correctly, despite GPT-4’s higher overall accuracy. The findings suggest that while GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 show promise in handling domain-specific content, their application in the field of radiological protection should be approached with caution, emphasising the need for human oversight and verification.

External dose rates were measured 1 m away from 230 Lu-177 patients to characterise the variability in normalised dose rates as a function of administered activity, body mass index (BMI) and sex. The largest dose rate observed was 0.07 mSv/h associated with an administered activity of 7.2 GBq. Substantial variability was found in the distribution of the normalised dose rate associated that had an average of 0.0037 mSv/h per GBq and a 95% confidence interval of 0.0024–0.0058 mSv/h per GBq. Based on this study, estimating the patient dose rate based on the Lu-177 gamma exposure factor overestimates the dose rate by a factor of 2. A statistically significant inverse relationship was found between the patient dose rate and patient BMI and an empirically derived equation relating these two quantities was reported. On average, male patient dose rates were 3.5% lower than female dose rates, which may be attributed to the larger average BMI of the male patient group.