{"title":"用托马斯法和库斯奈兹法测量氡子体浓度时,违反计数统计条件的后果并不严重。","authors":"Phillip H Jenkins","doi":"10.1097/hp.0000000000001817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When analyzing samples of radon progeny using the Thomas or Kusnetz methods, we violate one of the conditions of counting statistics because we use counting times that are not short compared with the half-lives of the radionuclides. The result is that we overestimate the uncertainties of the counts if we use counting statistics without correction. In this work, I describe the method by which I adjusted the values of variance of the counts theoretically to values that are more accurate and calculated the amounts by which I overestimate the values of counting uncertainty by using counting statistics without correction. These values are surprisingly small: 4-5% for the Thomas method and 2-3% for the Kusnetz method. Now, I can correct uncertainty values of radon progeny measurements if it is appropriate to do so. The detailed calculations I present here may be used for determining corrections to the counting uncertainty for a method for measuring radon progeny concentration using different sampling and/or counting times than those described here. Further, they may be used for any sample, not necessarily radon progeny, that requires a long counting time to acquire a significant number of observed counts.","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consequences of Violating Conditions of Counting Statistics Are Not Severe When Measuring Radon Progeny Concentrations with the Thomas and Kusnetz Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Phillip H Jenkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/hp.0000000000001817\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When analyzing samples of radon progeny using the Thomas or Kusnetz methods, we violate one of the conditions of counting statistics because we use counting times that are not short compared with the half-lives of the radionuclides. The result is that we overestimate the uncertainties of the counts if we use counting statistics without correction. In this work, I describe the method by which I adjusted the values of variance of the counts theoretically to values that are more accurate and calculated the amounts by which I overestimate the values of counting uncertainty by using counting statistics without correction. These values are surprisingly small: 4-5% for the Thomas method and 2-3% for the Kusnetz method. Now, I can correct uncertainty values of radon progeny measurements if it is appropriate to do so. The detailed calculations I present here may be used for determining corrections to the counting uncertainty for a method for measuring radon progeny concentration using different sampling and/or counting times than those described here. Further, they may be used for any sample, not necessarily radon progeny, that requires a long counting time to acquire a significant number of observed counts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health physics\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001817\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001817","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Consequences of Violating Conditions of Counting Statistics Are Not Severe When Measuring Radon Progeny Concentrations with the Thomas and Kusnetz Methods.
When analyzing samples of radon progeny using the Thomas or Kusnetz methods, we violate one of the conditions of counting statistics because we use counting times that are not short compared with the half-lives of the radionuclides. The result is that we overestimate the uncertainties of the counts if we use counting statistics without correction. In this work, I describe the method by which I adjusted the values of variance of the counts theoretically to values that are more accurate and calculated the amounts by which I overestimate the values of counting uncertainty by using counting statistics without correction. These values are surprisingly small: 4-5% for the Thomas method and 2-3% for the Kusnetz method. Now, I can correct uncertainty values of radon progeny measurements if it is appropriate to do so. The detailed calculations I present here may be used for determining corrections to the counting uncertainty for a method for measuring radon progeny concentration using different sampling and/or counting times than those described here. Further, they may be used for any sample, not necessarily radon progeny, that requires a long counting time to acquire a significant number of observed counts.
期刊介绍:
Health Physics, first published in 1958, provides the latest research to a wide variety of radiation safety professionals including health physicists, nuclear chemists, medical physicists, and radiation safety officers with interests in nuclear and radiation science. The Journal allows professionals in these and other disciplines in science and engineering to stay on the cutting edge of scientific and technological advances in the field of radiation safety. The Journal publishes original papers, technical notes, articles on advances in practical applications, editorials, and correspondence. Journal articles report on the latest findings in theoretical, practical, and applied disciplines of epidemiology and radiation effects, radiation biology and radiation science, radiation ecology, and related fields.