Which of the following was used as the first measure of exposure for ionizing radiation

There are four different but interrelated units for measuring radioactivity, exposure, absorbed dose, and dose equivalent. These can be remembered by the mnemonic R-E-A-D, as follows, with both common (British, e.g., Ci) and international (metric, e.g., Bq) units in use:

• Radioactivity refers to the amount of ionizing radiation released by a material. Whether it emits alpha or beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, or neutrons, a quantity of radioactive material is expressed in terms of its radioactivity (or simply its activity), which represents how many atoms in the material decay in a given time period. The units of measure for radioactivity are the curie (Ci) and becquerel (Bq).
   
• Exposure describes the amount of radiation traveling through the air. Many radiation monitors measure exposure. The units for exposure are the roentgen (R) and coulomb/kilogram (C/kg).
   
• Absorbed dose describes the amount of radiation absorbed by an object or person (that is, the amount of energy that radioactive sources deposit in materials through which they pass). The units for absorbed dose are the radiation absorbed dose (rad) and gray (Gy).
   
• Dose equivalent (or effective dose) combines the amount of radiation absorbed and the medical effects of that type of radiation. For beta and gamma radiation, the dose equivalent is the same as the absorbed dose. By contrast, the dose equivalent is larger than the absorbed dose for alpha and neutron radiation, because these types of radiation are more damaging to the human body. Units for dose equivalent are the roentgen equivalent man (rem) and sievert (Sv), and biological dose equivalents are commonly measured in 1/1000th of a rem (known as a millirem or mrem).

For practical purposes, 1 R (exposure) = 1 rad (absorbed dose) = 1 rem or 1000 mrem (dose equivalent).

Note that a measure given in Ci tells the radioactivity of a substance, while a measure in rem (or mrem) tells the amount of energy that a radioactive source deposits in living tissue. For example, a person would receive a dose equivalent of 1 mrem from any one of the following activities:

• 3 days of living in Atlanta
• 2 days of living in Denver
• 1 year of watching television (on average)
• 1 year of wearing a watch with a luminous dial
• 1 coast-to-coast airline flight
• 1 year living next door to a normally operating nuclear power plant

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020

1. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:13761–13766. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277–2284. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Amis ES, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4:272–284. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Wintermark M, Lev MH. FDA investigates the safety of brain perfusion CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:2–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Rumack CM. 2010 ACR presidential address: patient-focused radiology: taking charge of radiation dose. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:837–844. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Bhargavan M. Trends in the utilization of medical procedures that use ionizing radiation. Health Phys. 2008;95:612–627. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM, et al. National trends in CT use in the emergency department: 1995–2007. Radiology. 2011;258:164–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Bolus NE. Basic review of radiation biology and terminology. J Nucl Med Technol. 2001;29:67–73. test 76–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Dowd S, Tilson E. Practical Radiation Protection and Applied Radiobiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders;; 1999. [Google Scholar]

11. ICRP. Radiation and your patient: a guide for medical practitioners. Ann ICRP. 2001;31:5–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. NCRP. Evaluation of the Linear Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Bethesda, MD: 2001. [Google Scholar]

13. Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:362–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Ventures IM. CT market summary report. 2006 IMVInfo Web site. Available at: http://www.imvinfo.com. Accessed November 13, 2010. [Google Scholar]

15. Frush DP, Applegate K. Computed tomography and radiation: understanding the issues. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1:113–119. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Pierce DA, Preston DL. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2000;154:178–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Preston DL, Ron E, Tokuoka S, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res. 2007;168:1–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. The National Academies Press Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. Available at: http://www.nap.edu. Accessed November 8, 2010. [Google Scholar]

19. Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2071–2077. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Ron E, Modan B, Preston D, et al. Thyroid neoplasia following low-dose radiation in childhood. Radiat Res. 1989;120:516–531. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Doody MM, Lonstein JE, Stovall M, et al. Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography: findings from the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2000;25:2052–2063. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37((2–4)):1–332. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2078–2086. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology. 2004;232:735–738. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, et al. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248:254–263. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, et al. National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:968–980. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Diederich S, Lenzen H. Radiation exposure associated with imaging of the chest: comparison of different radiographic and computed tomography techniques. Cancer. 2000;89((11 suppl)):2457–2460. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Huda W, Vance A. Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:540–546. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(2):98–107. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV, et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA. 2006;295:172–179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:165–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Wells PS, Owen C, Doucette S, et al. Does this patient have deep vein thrombosis? JAMA. 2006;295:199–207. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Schoepf UJ, Costello P. CT angiography for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: state of the art. Radiology. 2004;230:329–337. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Kline JA, Courtney DM, Kabrhel C, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6:772–780. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Drescher FS, Chandrika S, Weir ID, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of a computerized decision support system using modified Wells criteria for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:613–621. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Fesmire FM, Brown MD, Espinosa JA, et al. Critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:628–652. e75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Buenger RE. Five thousand acute care/emergency department chest radiographs: comparison of requisitions with radiographic findings. J Emerg Med. 1988;6:197–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Greenspan RH, Ravin CE, Polansky SM, et al. Accuracy of the chest radiograph in diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Invest Radiol. 1982;17:539–543. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Stein PD, Kayali F, Olson RE. Trends in the use of diagnostic imaging in patients hospitalized with acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:1316–1317. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2317–2327. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Schoepf UJ, Holzknecht N, Helmberger TK, et al. Subsegmental pulmonary emboli: improved detection with thin-collimation multi-detector row spiral CT. Radiology. 2002;222:483–490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007;298:317–323. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Parker MS, Hui FK, Camacho MA, et al. Female breast radiation exposure during CT pulmonary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:1228–1233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Task Group on Control of Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography. Managing patient dose in computed tomography. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 2000;30:7–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Freeman LM, Stein EG, Sprayregen S, et al. The current and continuing important role of ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in evaluating patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38:432–440. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi T, Reiman RE, et al. Radiation dose to the fetus from body MDCT during early gestation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:871–876. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Teichman JM, Long RD, Hulbert JC. Long-term renal fate and prognosis after staghorn calculus management. J Urol. 1995;153:1403–1407. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Ha M, MacDonald RD. Impact of CT scan in patients with first episode of suspected nephrolithiasis. J Emerg Med. 2004;27:225–231. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, et al. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:97–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Heneghan JP, McGuire KA, Leder RA, et al. Helical CT for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: comparison of conventional and reduced radiation-dose techniques. Radiology. 2003;229:575–580. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, et al. Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:927–933. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, et al. Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:305–311. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ, et al. Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology. 2000;215:51–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Hamm M, Knopfle E, Wartenberg S, et al. Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. J Urol. 2002;167:1687–1691. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Kim BS, Hwang IK, Choi YW, et al. Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: prospective comparative study. Acta Radiol. 2005;46:756–763. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Hyams ES, Shah O. Evaluation and follow-up of patients with urinary lithiasis: minimizing radiation exposure. Curr Urol Rep. 2010;11:80–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, et al. Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology. 2000;217:792–797. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Patlas M, Farkas A, Fisher D, et al. Ultrasound vs CT for the detection of ureteric stones in patients with renal colic. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:901–904. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Ripollés T, Errando J, Agramunt M, et al. Ureteral colic: US versus CT. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29:263–266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Catalano O, Nunziata A, Altei F, et al. Suspected ureteral colic: primary helical CT versus selective helical CT after unenhanced radiography and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:379–387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Svedström E, Alanen A, Nurmi M. Radiologic diagnosis of renal colic: the role of plain films, excretory urography and sonography. Eur J Radiol. 1990;11:180–183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Ripollés T, Agramunt M, Errando J, et al. Suspected ureteral colic: plain film and sonography vs unenhanced helical CT: a prospective study in 66 patients. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:129–136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

63. Wieseler KM, Bhargava P, Kanal KM, et al. Imaging in pregnant patients: examination appropriateness. Radiographics. 2010;30:1215–1222. discussion 1230–1233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. John BS, Patel U, Anson K. What radiation exposure can a patient expect during a single stone episode? J Endourol. 2008;22:419–422. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Katz SI, Saluja S, Brink JA, et al. Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1120–1124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Broder J, Bowen J, Lohr J, et al. Cumulative CT exposures in emergency department patients evaluated for suspected renal colic. J Emerg Med. 2007;33:161–168. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Goldstone A, Bushnell A. Does diagnosis change as a result of repeat renal colic computed tomography scan in patients with a history of kidney stones? Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28:291–295. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Modahl L, Digumarthy SR, Rhea JT, et al. Emergency department abdominal computed tomography for nontraumatic abdominal pain: optimizing utilization. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006;3:860–866. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

70. Scheinfeld MH, Mahadevia S, Stein EG, et al. Can lab data be used to reduce abdominal computed tomography (CT) usage in young adults presenting to the emergency department with nontraumatic abdominal pain? Emerg Radiol. 2010;17:353–360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Abdullah BA, Gupta SK, Croffie JM, et al. The role of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the initial evaluation of childhood inflammatory bowel disease: a 7-year study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002;35:636–640. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. Hemminki K, Li X, Sundquist J, et al. Cancer risks in Crohn disease patients. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:574–580. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Palmer L, Herfarth H, Porter CQ, et al. Diagnostic ionizing radiation exposure in a population-based sample of children with inflammatory bowel diseases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2816–2823. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

74. Desmond AN, O'Regan K, Curran C, et al. Crohn's disease: factors associated with exposure to high levels of diagnostic radiation. Gut. 2008;57:1524–1529. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Huprich JE, Rosen MP, Fidler JL, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria on Crohn's disease. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:94–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

76. Mann EH. Inflammatory bowel disease: imaging of the pediatric patient. Semin Roentgenol. 2008;43:29–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

77. Miao YM, Koh DM, Amin Z, et al. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging assessmentof active bowel segments in Crohn's disease. Clin Radiol. 2002;57:913–918. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

78. Spalinger J, Patriquin H, Miron MC, et al. Doppler US in patients with crohn disease: vessel density in the diseased bowel reflects disease activity. Radiology. 2000;217:787–791. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

79. Bremner AR, Griffiths M, Argent JD, et al. Sonographic evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective, blinded, comparative study. Pediatr Radiol. 2006;36:947–953. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

80. Maconi G, Sampietro GM, Parente F, et al. Contrast radiology, computed tomography and ultrasonography in detecting internal fistulas and intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn's disease: a prospective comparative study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:1545–1555. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

81. Saibeni S, Rondonotti E, Iozzelli A, et al. Imaging of the small bowel in Crohn's disease: a review of old and new techniques. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:3279–3287. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

82. Sempere GA, Martinez Sanjuan V, Medina Chulia E, et al. MRI evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn's disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1829–1835. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

83. Koh DM, Miao Y, Chinn RJ, et al. MR imaging evaluation of the activity of Crohn's disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:1325–1332. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

84. Schreyer AG, Seitz J, Feuerbach S, et al. Modern imaging using computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) AU1. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2004;10:45–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

85. Rankey D, Leach JL, Leach SD. Emergency MRI utilization trends at a tertiary care academic medical center: baseline data. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:438–443. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

86. Griffey RT, Sodickson A. Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:887–892. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

87. Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, et al. Recent shifts in place of service for noninvasive diagnostic imaging: have hospitals missed an opportunity? J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:96–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

88. Sharp HT. The acute abdomen during pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;45:405–413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

89. Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh AD, et al. MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology. 2006;238:891–899. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

90. Schwartz DA, Wiersema MJ, Dudiak KM, et al. A comparison of endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and exam under anesthesia for evaluation of Crohn's perianal fistulas. Gastroenterology. 2001;121:1064–1072. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

91. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology. 2009;251:175–184. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

92. Larson DB, Rader SB, Forman HP, et al. Informing parents about CT radiation exposure in children: it's OK to tell them. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:271–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

93. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, et al. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology. 2004;231:393–398. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

94. Karsli T, Kalra MK, Self JL, et al. What physicians think about the need for informed consent for communicating the risk of cancer from low-dose radiation. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39:917–925. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

95. Baerlocher MO, Detsky AS. Discussing radiation risks associated with CT scans with patients. JAMA. 2010;304:2170–2171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

96. Takakuwa KM, Estepa AT, Shofer FS. Knowledge and attitudes of emergency department patients regarding radiation risk of CT: effects of age, sex, race, education, insurance, body mass index, pain, and seriousness of illness. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1151–1158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

97. Barnett GC, Charman SC, Sizer B, et al. Information given to patients about adverse effects of radiotherapy: a survey of patients' views. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)2004;16:479–484. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

98. Stein EG, Haramati LB, Chamarthy M, et al. Success of a safe and simple algorithm to reduce use of CT pulmonary angiography in the emergency department. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:392–397. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

What was the first unit used to measure ionizing radiation?

What provides a measure of the overall risk of exposure to ionizing radiation?

Which of the following ionizing radiations have a radiation weighting factor of 1?

Which of the following is a measure of the energy imparted by any type of ionizing radiation to a mass of any type of matter?