Conservatism in linear accelerator bunker shielding
Conservatism in the shielding of linear accelerator bunkers is engrained in the methodology of international protocols and guidelines. However, the degree to which this cautious and prudent approach is necessary should be judged against the International Committee of Radiation Protection’s principles of exposure justification and optimisation. Radiation survey data from 75 concrete barriers was aggregated and compared to exposure predictions from three popular protocols in order to assess any conservatism in factors used to calculate scatter, leakage and beam penetration. These findings, in addition to a list of common conservative practices, were then used to tally the possible fiscal impact of an over-conservative approach to linear accelerator bunker shielding. While primary beam penetration was accurately predicted, stated conservatisms in scatter and leakage was found to be largely misplaced. An estimated total factor of conservatism calculated from a tally was found to be in agreement with literature values of radiotherapist occupational exposure. This factor amounted to a cost increase of 43% for a single bunker if all conservative assumptions were made. There are aspects of linear accelerator shielding design that have been shown to be overly conservative, beyond what is justifiable by the International Committee of Radiation Protection. Some adjustment to international protocol methodology may be required.
KeywordsShielding Conservatism NCRP 151 Bunker Linear accelerator
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.ARPANSA (2016) Radiation protection in planned exposure situations. Radiation protection series C-1. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, MirandaGoogle Scholar
- 9.IAEA (2006) Safety report series no. 47, radiation protection in the design of radiotherapy facilities. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- 10.ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. ann. ICRP 37(2–4). International Commission on Radiological Protection, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- 11.IEC (2009) Medical electrical equipment–part 2-1: particular requirements for the safety of electron accelerators in the range 1 MeV to 50 MeV 60601-2-1, 2nd edn. International Electrotechnical Commission, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 12.Inkret WC, Meinhold CB, Taschner JC (1995) Protection standards. Los Alamos Sci 25:117–123Google Scholar
- 13.IPEM (1997) Design and shielding of radiotherapy treatment facilities. IPEM report 75. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 14.IPEM (2017) Design and shielding of radiotherapy treatment facilities. IPEM report 75, 2nd edn. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 18.NCRP (1976) Structural shielding design and evaluation for medical use of x-rays and gamma-rays of energies up to 10 MeV, rep. 49. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 19.NCRP (2005) Structural shielding design and evaluation for megavoltage x-and gamma-ray radiotherapy facilities: Recommendations of the national council on radiation protection and measurements. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
- 20.Nelson WR, LaRiviere P (1983) Primary and leakage radiation calculations at 6-MeV, 10-MeV and 25-MeV. Health Phys 47(SLAC–PUB–3039):811Google Scholar
- 23.Rattan SI, Kyriazi M (2018) The science of hormesis in health and longevity. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar