Reducing radiation exposure using commonly available objects

Kobayashi, Daisuke; Miyake, Masao; Kakamu, Takeyasu; Tsuji, Masayoshi; Mori, Yayoi; Fukushima, Tetsuhito; Hazama, Akihiro

doi:10.1007/s12199-012-0314-6

Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine

Table 1 Comparison of surface radiation dose rates and count rates of contaminated soil when shielded by various materials

From: Reducing radiation exposure using commonly available objects

Material	Thickness (mm)	Radiation dose rate (μSv/h)		Count rate (cpm)
Material	Thickness (mm)	Mean ± SD	Reduction coefficient	Mean ± SD	Reduction coefficient
Contaminated soil		13.0 ± 0.1	1.00	7,752 ± 29	1.00
Paper
Newspaper (16-sheet)	1	12.0 ± 0.1**	0.92	6,662 ± 121**	0.86
Corrugated cardboard	4	9.99 ± 0.08**	0.77	5,457 ± 99**	0.70
Two layers	8	8.46 ± 0.04**	0.65	4,672 ± 559**	0.60
Magazine	25	4.61 ± 0.03**	0.35	2,094 ± 89**	0.27
Polystyrene foam board
	10	8.08 ± 0.14**	0.62	4,658 ± 63**	0.60
Two layers	20	5.07 ± 0.09**	0.39	3,254 ± 45**	0.42
Cloth
Polyester:cotton = 65:35	0.3	12.4 ± 0.1*	0.95	7,326 ± 72**	0.94
Two layers	0.6	12.4 ± 0.1*	0.95	7,015 ± 22**	0.90
Four layers	1.2	12.1 ± 0.1**	0.93	6,637 ± 74**	0.86
Polyethylene	0.1	13.0 ± 0.1	1.00	7,595 ± 51**	0.98
Two layers	0.2	12.8 ± 0.1	0.98	7,469 ± 122*	0.96
Four layers	0.4	12.6 ± 0.2*	0.96	7,115 ± 24**	0.92
Ethylene–vinyl acetate	0.1	12.5 ± 0.1*	0.96	7,585 ± 32**	0.98
Two layers	0.2	12.6 ± 0.1*	0.96	7,549 ± 82*	0.97
Four layers	0.4	11.7 ± 0.1**	0.90	7,177 ± 63**	0.93
Cotton:polyurethane = 95:5	0.2	12.6 ± 0.1*	0.97	7,195 ± 59**	0.93
Two layers	0.4	12.6 ± 0.1*	0.97	6,996 ± 51**	0.90
Four layers	0.8	12.2 ± 0.1**	0.94	6,601 ± 79**	0.85
Cotton	0.3	12.7 ± 0.3	0.98	7,405 ± 36**	0.96
Two layers	0.6	12.4 ± 0.2	0.95	7,164 ± 98**	0.92
Four layers	1.2	12.2 ± 0.2*	0.94	6,571 ± 175**	0.85
Wood
Cork	1.3	11.7 ± 0.2**	0.90	6,653 ± 91**	0.86
	6	9.55 ± 0.06**	0.73	5,099 ± 445**	0.66
	10	8.00 ± 0.10**	0.61	4,315 ± 93**	0.56
Betula (birch)	10	7.58 ± 0.03**	0.58	4,044 ± 33**	0.52
Two layers	20	5.25 ± 0.10**	0.40	2,793 ± 43**	0.36
Aluminum sheet	3	9.32 ± 0.09**	0.72	5,345 ± 61**	0.69

Mean ± standard deviation (SD) is indicated (n = 5); * p < 0.01 and ** p < 0.001 compared with contaminated soil by Student’s t test. The reduction coefficient was calculated by dividing the radiation dose rate and count rate of the model ground surface when shielded with materials by those rates without shielding

Back to article page

ISSN: 1347-4715

Contact us

General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com