Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
Re: Nuclear Medicine Dosages & Risks
<http://www.ieo.it/Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
Is this a reliable Radiation Dose Calculator?
DSH
Is this a reliable Radiation Dose Calculator?
DSH
On Apr 17, 12:59 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> <http://www.ieo.it/Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
>
> Is this a reliable Radiation Dose Calculator?
>
> DSH
Yes. It's actually a mirror of the official site,
http://www.doseinfo-radar.com/RADARHome.html
Keep in mind that it only provides *estimates* of radiation dose.
Generally when I'm using it, if what I think I should be getting is
within a factor of 2-3 of what I get from the RADAR site, I'm happy
with it.
Eugene
> <http://www.ieo.it/Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
>
> Is this a reliable Radiation Dose Calculator?
>
> DSH
Yes. It's actually a mirror of the official site,
http://www.doseinfo-radar.com/RADARHome.html
Keep in mind that it only provides *estimates* of radiation dose.
Generally when I'm using it, if what I think I should be getting is
within a factor of 2-3 of what I get from the RADAR site, I'm happy
with it.
Eugene
Hmmmmmmmmm...
Are you saying that if the correlation between your value and that given at
the RADAR site is within a factor of plus or minus 2-3x you are happy with
the result? That's quite a spread.
How do you determine "what you think you should be getting" in order to
compare?
DSH
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:185b563c-0f7b-49dc-a2ee-1c2dfd459318@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 12:59 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> <http://www.ieo.it/Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
>>
>> Is this a reliable Radiation Dose Calculator?
>>
>> DSH
>
> Yes. It's actually a mirror of the official site,
> http://www.doseinfo-radar.com/RADARHome.html
>
> Keep in mind that it only provides *estimates* of radiation dose.
> Generally when I'm using it, if what I think I should be getting is
> within a factor of 2-3 of what I get from the RADAR site, I'm happy
> with it.
>
> Eugene
Are you saying that if the correlation between your value and that given at
the RADAR site is within a factor of plus or minus 2-3x you are happy with
the result? That's quite a spread.
How do you determine "what you think you should be getting" in order to
compare?
DSH
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:185b563c-0f7b-49dc-a2ee-1c2dfd459318@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 12:59 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> <http://www.ieo.it/Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
>>
>> Is this a reliable Radiation Dose Calculator?
>>
>> DSH
>
> Yes. It's actually a mirror of the official site,
> http://www.doseinfo-radar.com/RADARHome.html
>
> Keep in mind that it only provides *estimates* of radiation dose.
> Generally when I'm using it, if what I think I should be getting is
> within a factor of 2-3 of what I get from the RADAR site, I'm happy
> with it.
>
> Eugene
On Apr 17, 3:57 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Hmmmmmmmmm...
>
> Are you saying that if the correlation between your value and that given at
> the RADAR site is within a factor of plus or minus 2-3x you are happy with
> the result? That's quite a spread.
>
> How do you determine "what you think you should be getting" in order to
> compare?
>
Internal dosimetry is fairly complicated and is dependent on a lot of
things such has clearance rate from the body, patient size,
radionuclide, etc. Most calculated tables of radiation doses are
based on calculations using a phantom or model known as Standard Man,
who's characteristics are pretty average (average height, average
weight, average organ masses). Since not everybody is the same as
Standard Man, you get quite a bit of variability in calculated doses
straight off. Factor in patient specific factors like clearance rates
and that can throw things off even more.
Mostly what I think I should be getting is based on previous
experience with doing dose estimates and from reading the literature.
Eugene
> Hmmmmmmmmm...
>
> Are you saying that if the correlation between your value and that given at
> the RADAR site is within a factor of plus or minus 2-3x you are happy with
> the result? That's quite a spread.
>
> How do you determine "what you think you should be getting" in order to
> compare?
>
Internal dosimetry is fairly complicated and is dependent on a lot of
things such has clearance rate from the body, patient size,
radionuclide, etc. Most calculated tables of radiation doses are
based on calculations using a phantom or model known as Standard Man,
who's characteristics are pretty average (average height, average
weight, average organ masses). Since not everybody is the same as
Standard Man, you get quite a bit of variability in calculated doses
straight off. Factor in patient specific factors like clearance rates
and that can throw things off even more.
Mostly what I think I should be getting is based on previous
experience with doing dose estimates and from reading the literature.
Eugene
Fair Enough.
Thanks.
DSH
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d54e0feb-d069-4979-9381-770f80227e60@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 3:57 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> Hmmmmmmmmm...
>>
>> Are you saying that if the correlation between your value and that given
>> at the RADAR site is within a factor of plus or minus 2-3x you are happy
>> with the result? That's quite a spread.
>>
>> How do you determine "what you think you should be getting" in order to
>> compare?
>>
> Internal dosimetry is fairly complicated and is dependent on a lot of
> things such has clearance rate from the body, patient size,
> radionuclide, etc. Most calculated tables of radiation doses are
> based on calculations using a phantom or model known as Standard Man,
> who's characteristics are pretty average (average height, average
> weight, average organ masses). Since not everybody is the same as
> Standard Man, you get quite a bit of variability in calculated doses
> straight off. Factor in patient specific factors like clearance rates
> and that can throw things off even more.
>
> Mostly what I think I should be getting is based on previous
> experience with doing dose estimates and from reading the literature.
>
> Eugene
Thanks.
DSH
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d54e0feb-d069-4979-9381-770f80227e60@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 3:57 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> Hmmmmmmmmm...
>>
>> Are you saying that if the correlation between your value and that given
>> at the RADAR site is within a factor of plus or minus 2-3x you are happy
>> with the result? That's quite a spread.
>>
>> How do you determine "what you think you should be getting" in order to
>> compare?
>>
> Internal dosimetry is fairly complicated and is dependent on a lot of
> things such has clearance rate from the body, patient size,
> radionuclide, etc. Most calculated tables of radiation doses are
> based on calculations using a phantom or model known as Standard Man,
> who's characteristics are pretty average (average height, average
> weight, average organ masses). Since not everybody is the same as
> Standard Man, you get quite a bit of variability in calculated doses
> straight off. Factor in patient specific factors like clearance rates
> and that can throw things off even more.
>
> Mostly what I think I should be getting is based on previous
> experience with doing dose estimates and from reading the literature.
>
> Eugene
