Occupational Exposure of Water-Plant Operators to High Concentrations of Radon-222 Gas

El, Fisher; Lj, Fuortes; Field, R. William

doi:10.1097/00043764-199608000-00010

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found annual average radon concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 4.9 kBq·m −3 . In a small comparison of three workers monitored at work and at home, none had higher occupational exposures compared to home levels; however, Fisher et al (1996) concluded that employees working longer hours in some plant areas may accumulate exposures exceeding 4 WLM annually (32) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radon in Us Workplaces: A Review

Daniels

Schubauer‐Berigan

2017

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to naturally occurring radon is unavoidable and is second only to smoking as a direct cause of lung cancer in the United States (U.S.). The literature for existing information on U.S. occupations that are prone to increased radon exposures was reviewed. Current recommendations and applicable protective standards against occupational radon exposure that are applicable to U.S. workers are discussed. Exposure varied widely among several working populations, most of whom were employed in industries that were unrelated to the uranium fuel cycle. Radon protection standards differed among agencies and have not changed since the height of domestic uranium production in the 1970s. In contrast, European countries are adopting recommendations by the International Commission on Radiation Protection to set a reference level near a derived annual exposure of about one working level month, which is 25% of the level currently established for U.S. miners.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radon in Us Workplaces: A Review

Daniels

Schubauer‐Berigan

2017

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trautmannsheimer et al, 2003;Nagels et al, 2009) or on basis of the local activity concentrations and the residence times (e.g. Fisher et al, 1996;Vaupotic, 2002;Marinko et al, 2004;Chmielewska et al, 2014;Stietka et al, 2014). Regarding possible, subsequent dose reduction measures, a determination of the local activity concentration is needed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At facilities with a water treatment, there can be large diurnal variations depending on its operation mode, e.g. 222 Rn can outgas in large amounts during the backwash process of a filter (Fisher et al, 1996). In some of these cases, it is expedient to consider these diurnal variations of the activity concentration with separate measurements.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These should be conducted with an active measurement device with a sufficient time resolution (Hingmann et al, 2001). Except for some above mentioned selected measurement points in the studies of Fisher et al (1996) and Hingmann et al (2001) all annual effective doses reported in Table 1 are based on passive measurements without time resolution. Both studies show, that the average 222 Rn concentrations may significantly differ from those during the residence times of the staff.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For such simultaneous long-term measurements at numerous sites, passive devices offer advantages because of their moderate costs. Fisher et al, 1996 * x of y > z indicates, that in x of y waterworks levels higher than z were determined (only one general value per waterworks given).…”

Section: Measurement Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measurement strategies for radon in indoor air of waterworks – a review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In waterworks, 222 Rn can exhale in large amounts through open water surfaces and cause a significant dose contribution. Annual effective doses up to 56 mSv y À1 are documented in literature. This paper gives a literature review on studies associated with radon measurements in indoor air of waterworks À covering more than 800 waterworks in nine regions. Special attention is given to the assessment of the workers' effective dose, which can be done either on basis of the personal exposure or on basis of the local activity concentrations and the residence times. Especially at facilities with a water treatment, large diurnal variations depending on its operation mode were reported. The average 222 Rn concentrations may considerably differ during the time spent of the staff and do not allow to determine the correct annual effective doses. Personal detectors avoid this problem and do not require the survey of the residence times, while the determination of the local exposure allows for the identification of spots with high activity concentrations to set dose reduction measures.

show abstract

Radon in Water

Makinde‐Odusola¹

2004

Water Encyclopedia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some groundwater contains the naturally occurring radioactive gas, radon‐222 (radon). Radon dissolved in groundwater is released into indoor air when plumbed in water is agitated indoors. Radon released from domestic water typically contributes less than 2% of total indoor radon. This article describes the health risks from radon in domestic water and the efforts within the United States to regulate radon in drinking water. The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) found that the primary health risks from radon in domestic water are lung cancer and stomach cancer, primarily to ever‐smokers. Radon concentration in air could reach levels considered unsafe for underground miners at some water treatment facilities that aerate water as part of the treatment process. Inhalation of radon gas and its progeny may result in lung cancer (inhalation risk). An estimated 11% of the health risk is from direct ingestion of radon dissolved in drinking water (ingestion risk). The NRC found that radon is a greater source of cancer risk than any other regulated chemical in drinking water. Some ecological studies contradict using the linear nonthreshold (LNT) model to assess the health risks from exposure to radon at low levels typical of indoor air. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relied on the LNT model to assess health risks and propose standards and goal for radon in drinking water. Some water utilities could opt for treatment to comply with the radon in drinking water standard. Some other water utilities might avoid treatment by adopting a multimedia approach to radon mitigation. The multimedia approach could be more cost‐effective and achieve greater health risk reduction. Noneconomic considerations may influence that decision. Health risk reduction and cost analyses (HRRCA) suggest that most of the benefits would accrue to ever‐smokers and smaller water systems could incur most of the costs.

show abstract

Occupational Exposure of Water-Plant Operators to High Concentrations of Radon-222 Gas

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Radon in Us Workplaces: A Review

Radon in Us Workplaces: A Review

Measurement strategies for radon in indoor air of waterworks – a review

Radon in Water

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About