Radiation units: Absorbed, Equivalent & Effective dose
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2024
- Radiation units explained in the easiest way possible. When I had to learn this, I was frustrated because I couldn’t find any websites or videos where this topic was explained clearly. This is why I made this video. I will tell you everything you need to know about radiation units and I hope I can save you some time and frustration ;-).
#radiationunits #absorbeddose #equivalentdose #effectivedose #Nuclearmedicine
Timecodes
0:00 Introduction
0:52 Activity vs exposure
1:10 Activity
1:55 Absorbed dose (Exposure)
2:58 Example 1
3:21 Example 2
3:42 Equivalent dose (Exposure)
4:55 Effective dose (Exposure)
5:54 Example
6:22 Take-home messages
Music: www.bensound.com
Great video. Can someone please answer this question and write down the calculation?
When the equivalent dose level for an environment is 1uSv/hour, what is the equivalent number of ray counts passing through a 10cmx10cmx10cm free space per second? (assume gamma ray only, and add other typical conditions you may need. Just want to know the calculation process)
It's been too long since I have learned this, so I won't be able to help you, but I hope someone else can. Good luck!
I believe this video answers your question: ruclips.net/video/ORbfdLUl0ik/видео.html
ask chatGPT for questions you dont know how to answer, its correct sometimes
Finally found an explanation, it is so wierd that there is so little information on this subject on yt
Yeah I wonder why
Very true
Thank you for watching my video. If you liked it, please consider giving it a thumbs up 👍. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, I'd be happy to help you ☺.
@Dr. Pauline Moyaert I know not all comments are posting on youtube and just wanted to see if my comment thread I started van be seen, thank you
Thankyou so much Dr. Paulien
Thank you so much!
You summarized a whole chapter in 7 minutes.
Thank you, Isa 😊🧡
Was looking for this information on all my RUclips channels going over radiological accidents in history. Thank you for covering this subject.
This is a SUPERB presentation; comprehensive yet concise....thank you!
Thank you so much :-)
This is the best explanation and summary of this topic, thanks
Thank you very much Dr. Paulien for this very informative and clear explanation!
You are very welcome, David! 😊
Thank you so much for this, you have no idea of my struggle. God bless you
Thank you, I appreciate your efforts. I received maximum absorb, equivalent, and effective dose of your lecture. Thank you again, it really helped me. 😊
This was the perfect order of explanation that made this so simple to understand!
Thank you! 💛
I wish there are many more videos regarding this area. I really enjoyed this one.
Simple yet illuminating explanation ... thanks alot
You’re welcome!
Great and clear explanation! Thank you!
Thank you, Gabriel! ☺
Incredible video. Thank you so much for you efforts
Best explanation I've seen. Thank you.
Thank you 😊💪
Thank you soooo much Dr. Paulien
Very useful info, thank you!!!!
Amazing Explanation! Thanks!
You're very welcome! 😊
Wonderful explanation! Thank you.
You're very welcome! 😊
Thank you so much doc!
Thank you so much ! simple, clean and really helpfull
Glad it helped!😍
Perfect informative video, thanks.
Thank you, Mohammed 😊
Wow first time I've understood this thank you!
Thanks! Made my day ☺☺
Very helpful thank you ❤
Hallo Pauline, I came here becouse of curiosity. I played some video game about surviving in radiation enviroment... Thanks to your video I finally understand how it works and is measured. Thank you a lot.
Glad to hear this video was helpful! 😉🤩
@@dr.paulinemoyaert thank you
Very Informative
I understand this now!! At last!
Great video! You’re awesome
Thank you so much ❤ it was very hard to understand but now I understood something
Glad it helped! Good luck!
Thank you for sharing
Thank you. I’m a diagnostic radiologist (Neuro, I don’t do nukes) a few years out of my boards so I completely forgot the nuances of everything. You explanation brought me right back to when my head was full right before my exams, thanks!!
Oh, I'm so glad to hear that! Thanks 'ShakenBacon' 😊
Thanks for your nice explanation.
Glad it was helpful, Omar. Thank you! 😊
Thank you so much
Hi Dr. Paulien, thanks for the explanation. Can you explain the estimated fetal exposure? Thanks
so helpful!
Thank you Paulien! On my way to Chernobyl 🙂
Very useful
Thanks alot Dr 😍😍😍
You're very welcome! 😊
I wish you could feel how thankful I am ❤
Aaawww, thank you so much Manal! It's a pleasure 💛💛
Thank you 🙂
Thank you, too.
Thank you
Loved the videos, kindly make a detailed video on renal imaging plz
Thank you, Seemab! 😊
Great video
Thank you 😊
I love this. Best video on the subject. Why did you use 0.03 in the calculation but the thyroid was grouped under 0.04 in the table?
Hi Wallo Maie, thank you for your comment. I'm sorry for this confusion, I don't exactly remember why I used two different numbers, but I think because I used two different sources. The tissue weighting factor for the thyroid is between 0.03 and 0.05 - depending on the source. Hope this helps and thank you for pointing this out. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158810/table/T50/)
Finally 🎉🎉
Im in online courses and was given multiple online resources to try and answer some questions. This single video explained equivalent dose far better than my supplied sources. Thank you for this
Thank you Daniel! 😊🤩
Hello Dr. I'm back with another question/answer for you I think you really need to focus on.
Absorbed dose as I learned it.
1. Range (MeV)
2. Deposition through the range (while life Deposition)
3. Area of irradiation (inverse square law does not apply to extended sources)
4. Density of the means ( skin, muscle, fat, blood, bone etc)
REM RAD conversion
The issue I know with this presentation is that it uses only one theory and not both. The system you are using is called the Linear Hypothesis made and pushed by the nuclear industry laboratories. With this theory you can only deduce your external exposure of high energy gamma ray colliding with matter and causes ionization. The reason you think it covers it all is because Alpha and Beta particles are involved in the equation but they really aren't. As far as external exposure is concerned, Alpha and beta can do very little to your dead skin alone amd can be absorbed through the skin but you aren't really measuring the Alpha or the Beta. You're measuring the gamma photon released at the end of both Alpha and Beta decay modes where the daughter stabilizes by releasing a gamma Photon. This has nothing to do with ingesting those same Alpha and Beta particles that get trapped inside your body to release a certain MeV at the point of decay and a high energy gamma so the daughter stabilizes.
For anything internal we must switch back to the Linear No threshold that deals with low dose long term internal exposures as I just explained and not just the external gamma photon exposures the system you just explained. Both systems can be useful but much less so the one you are teaching of the high whole body dose of high energy gamma collisions with matter. Petkau affect. Have you ever heard of the Linear No threshold hypothesis before and if so what is your thoughts on why it isn't being used? Thank you Dr. For your time.
Hi Paul, this video is intended for students who want to know the basics of radiation units. I've had many positive comments about this video, so I don't think it is a problem that I'm only using one theory and not both.
@@dr.paulinemoyaert Absolutely mam, please don't get me wrong here. It's the system that was made not any one person. I am trying to help educators and Dr. alike to understand the boat we are all in and want to share my knowledge with as many honest, kind people that I meet everyday and you're definetly one of those people. I respect you whole heartedly and only want to help where I think it would do the most good for the most people. I am in service always mam, including serving my country amd will continue until I am no longer able to. Thank you for your time mam
Thankyou
Great video. Why does exposure only take into account x- or gamma rays, not particles (alpha, beta, etc.)?
The exposure is the quantity of ion produced by a X or gamma radiation in air, including the ion produced by secondary particles.
Thanks for your explanation , I wanna ask if there's another explanation for the laws of these quantities
I don't really understand your question. If you want another explanation, maybe watch another youtube video? Or google it? 😉
Again nicely done Doc
Kindly also help me out
THANKS
Thank you, Khei
Superb ❤.....from India
Thankuu
AWESOME video !!! Thank you !
Thank you so much! As a radiography student I was going crazy trying to figure out the differences between these measurements. Question though - what is air kerma in relation to the three? It almost sounds the same as Gray(Gy).
Hi! Thanks for your comment. Glad to hear my video helped.
Absorbed dose and kerma are very related concepts.
- Absorbed dose (Gy) specifically accounts for the energy deposited in the absorbing material and considers ALL types of ionizing radiation (photons, electrons, protons, etc.).
- KERMA (Gy) focuses on the energy transferred from the incident radiation to charged particles (usually electrons) within the material. It doesn't account for the energy carried away by the secondary particles (e.g., scattered photons).
So in short, absorbed dose tells you how much total energy is absorbed, including what the material itself absorbs. Kerma is more about the INITIAL energy release in the material, specifically to charged particles, without considering what happens to that energy afterward. Both are measured in grays. I understand the confusion, I have to admit that I don't understand it completely myself :-). If someone has a better explanation, please shoot!
Hey Dr. Paulien, thanks for such an informative video. May I know the sources of this video. Which books you are referred to make this video??
Hi Sumanth, I used mainly Dutch books to make this video. I also used google scholar (more scientific background) + some website that I found via a simple google search. I wish I could give you more information, I made this video more than a year ago and I didn't keep my script. However, I'm planning on making an updated version of this video and I'll make sure that I include all my sources.
Very nice explanation
I asked the radiologist how much radiation I received in my head CT scan and they said they used 40mGy. That freaked me out but now I understand that they were referring to the the absorbed dose. With that information what do you surmise the effective dose could have been?
I'm sorry, I don't know what the effective dose would have been. What I can say is that you shouldn't worry to much about the radiation dose of a head CT scan, it's absolutely not that much.
Hello, i have one question. Im med student and in my book it is said that apsorbed dose = f x exposed dose. It is said that factor f depends on type of apsorber but nothing more. What is factor f? And also it is said that exposed dose is dose which patient is exposed because of the ionisation of the mass of the air (C/kg) and apsorbed dose is dose that is in the patient (J/kg). So, how can apsorbed dose be larger number than exposed dose - we multiply exposed dose with factor f?
Hi Nives, I wish I could help you but it's been a long time since I've studied this and I have to admit that I've forgotten most of what I've learned about this. I won't be able to help you. I hope someone else who watches this video can help you. I'm really sorry.
*How the equivalent dose takes different tissues into account?* Do you mean tissues-organs or tissues-matter(like water)? Because if you want to get the equivalent dose, you just take the Absorbed dose and combine it with the radiation type weighting factor, thats all, isn`t it? Or maybe you mean that equivalent dose is an "advanced" absorbed dose where you take exposure and multiply it by the "matter absorbtion factor" and by the radiation type weighting factor. I mean if I want to convert absorbed dose to the equivanlent dose I dont have to take any tissue into account, because again I already have the absorbed dose?
Hello ! Thank you for the informative video. I'm confused at 4:30 part where you compare 1SV of alpha vs 1SV of beta radiation. Alpha radiation does 20 x more biological damage than beta, but then you proceed to say that 1SV of each type of radiation has same biological effect. I'm confused which one is it?
Hi! I'm so sorry, but it's been a while since I made this video, and there might be a few mistakes in it - my bad. I apologize for any confusion caused. I'm planning on updating this video soon.
To clarify, while it's true that alpha radiation causes about 20 times more biological damage than beta radiation on a per-hit basis, when we talk about sieverts (SV), we consider not only the type of radiation but also the biological impact, tissue sensitivity, and the potential for harm. The Sievert is a unit that takes into account the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of different types of radiation.
So, when I mentioned that 1 SV of alpha and 1 SV of beta radiation have the same biological effect, I meant that the dose in sieverts considers the varying levels of damage caused by each type of radiation. (Although 1 SV of alpha is equivalent to 1 SV of beta radiation, you'd need to give a much higher dose in gray of beta radiation to achieve the same effect).
I hope this helps!
@@dr.paulinemoyaertThank you for your response! I think I now understand what you are trying to say. To clarify in simplest terms possible, 1SV of alpha and 1SV of beta radiation refer to the exact same absorbed dose measured in Sieverts on the same tissue type. So for the sake of the comparison and visualization, in order to compare and get to the same level of biological effect (in terms of potential to harm) on same tissue type, the beta radiation would have to include much higher mGy dose because of its weighting factor of 1 to have the same potential to harm the tissue as alpha radiation with weighting factor of 20?
Do you mean that all types of radiation used in medicine diagnostics have the same weight factor ?! And therefore we can say 1msv = 1mGy
Still trying to figure out what air Kerma is. Hmm...
Shouldn’t the effective dose be 0.3 mSV ??
The effective dose = 10 x 0.03 which is equal to 0.3 mSv not 0.03
Thank you! That is a mistake, indeed.
I still don't get it
Im crying my eyes out, 8 hours and still don't get it
Mmmmmm😊
🇦🇿👍🙏🙏🙏
Una radiografia con la pechblenda di marie curie ruclips.net/video/TFi5bLrbBJ4/видео.html
👍
Incredible video. Thank you so much for you efforts