FINAL
Assessment of Variations in
Radiation Exposure in the United States
Contract Number EP-D-05-002
Work Assignment No. 1-03
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
1310 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Ken Czyscinski
Work Assignment Manager
Prepared by:
John Mauro, PhD, CHP
Nicole M. Briggs
S. Cohen & Associates
6858 Old Dominion Drive
Suite 301
McLean, VA 22101
July 15,2005
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Summary 1
2.0 Terrestrial and Cosmic Radiation 8
2.1 Terrestrial Radiation 8
2.2 Cosmic Radiation 9
3.0 Indoor Radon 11
4.0 Nuclear Weapons Testing Fallout 13
4.1 Nevada Test Site and Global Fallout 13
4.2 Estimates of Current Fallout Dose to U.S. Population 13
5.0 Internal Exposures 14
6.0 Diagnostic Medical Exposures 15
7.0 Consumer Products 18
References 19
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Cosmic and Terrestrial Radiation Doses by State and Region
Appendix B: Average Indoor Radon Levels and Doses by State
Appendix C: Population and Migration Changes in the United States
i
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
In accordance with Task 4 of Work Assignment 1-02, Contract EP-D-05-002, SC&A, Inc., has
compiled information and developed a database on the nationwide variations in annual radiation
exposures due to various sources of radiation in the environment. These sources include
terrestrial radiation, cosmic radiation, indoor radon, internal emitters, nuclear weapons testing
fallout, diagnostic medical procedures, and consumer products. The radiation exposures
described in this report, along with the databases provided in the appendices, provide
information that can be used to compare the radiation exposures that different segments of the
U.S. population arc experiencing due to background radiation, which, for the purposes of this
report, is defined to include both natural background radiation and ubiquitous sources of man-
made radiation. All exposures are presented in terms of effective dose equivalent (EDE1), as
opposed to individual organ dose, in order to facilitate inter-comparisons among the different
sources of background radiation.
Of particular interest to this report is the substantial geographic variability of exposures to radon
and terrestrial and cosmic radiation. In order to characterize the degree of geographic variability
of exposure to these sources of background radiation, this report draws primarily upon reports
and databases prepared and compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurement (NCRP), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR). These reports provide information that allows comparisons of U.S
exposures among different regions, among states, and, to a degree, among counties and cities. It
is also noteworthy that exposure to indoor radon varies substantially among individual homes
and also within a given home in terms of whether residents reside primarily in the basement, the
first floor, or the second floor of a home. In addition, external exposure to background radiation
also varies significantly depending on the structural material used to build a home, i.e., stone
versus brick versus wood frame.
Because of the variability of background radiation exposures within and among homes, and the
variability of background radiation within a given region, state, and county, generalizations
regarding background exposures within a given geographical location, as provided in this report,
must be used with a degree of caution. Specifically, though a household or group of households
are located within a given geographic region of the U.S., as described in this report, it does not
necessarily mean that those households arc in fact experiencing the indicated radiation
exposures. The geographic variability in background exposures as presented in this report is best
interpreted as generally representative of a given geographical location, but not necessarily
applicable to a given home.
Because exposure to radon and terrestrial and cosmic radiation together account for the majority
of the background radiation exposures in the U.S (i.e., over 70%) and are also responsible for the
geographic variability in exposures, this report emphasizes these sources of exposures. The
contribution from internal emitters, nuclear weapons testing fallout, diagnostic medical
1 The effective dose equivalent is the radiation dose to any organ or by any type of radiation (i.e., alpha,
beta, gamma, neutron) that is equivalent in terms of health risk to a uniform whole-body exposure to external
gamma radiation. For example, a dose to the lung of 1 rem is equivalent to 0.12 rem to the whole body in terms of
health risk.
I
-------
procedures, and consumer products are discussed separately. Doses from these pathways arc not
area-specific and arc not included in the geographic-based tables provided in the appendices.
The accepted value for the average background radiation dose from natural and man-made
sources to people living in the United States is 360-mrcm/year effective dose equivalent (EDE)
(BEIR 1990). Figure 1 presents a breakdown of the sources of background radiation and the
average annual EDEs associated with those sources, as described by the Committee on the
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations in their 1990 publication. This figure illustrates that
the dose from exposure to indoor radon (200 mrem/year EDE) represents over 50% of the total
dose. The "other" section in Figure 1 includes per capita2 doses due to occupational exposures
of radiation workers, exposures to the public from emissions from nuclear fuel cycle facilities,
and fallout. Of these minor sources of background radiation exposures, only fallout is discussed
in this report, due to its ubiquitous nature.
Medical
X-rays
Internal 39 mrem
39 mrem
Nuclear Consumer
Medicine Products
14 mrem 10 mrem
Other
3 mrem
Natural Q]
ManMade I I
Terrestrial
28 mrem
Cosmic
27 mrem
Radon
200 mrem
Figure 1. Sources of Radiation Exposure to the U.S. Population
(derived from Figure 1-1 of BEIR 1990)
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has estimated that the average background dose to the
people living near the proposed site of the Yucca Mountain Repository in Amargosa Valley, Nye
County, Nevada, is slightly above the U.S. average at 400 mrcm/ycar EDE. DOE has also
determined that the maximum dose incurred by people in Amargosa Valley due to the proposed
repository will be an additional 260 mrem/year EDE, bringing the total background dose to
660 mrem/year EDE. This incremental dose is not expected to occur until approximately
300,000 years after the repository has closed. As a means of comparison, DOE notes that there
2 Per capita refers to the doses averaged overall members of the U.S. population.
2
-------
are people living in the northeast region of Washington State who could be receiving 1,700
mrem/year EDE from background radiation (OCRWM 2005).
The background radiation database provided in this report was developed in MS Excel and
includes estimates of the average doses from terrestrial radiation, cosmic radiation, and indoor
radon for different geographic regions in the U.S. and by state. In addition, where the data are
available, comparisons among major cities in the U.S. are provided.3 The dose equivalents for
terrestrial and cosmic radiation for each state obtained from Bogen and Goldin (1981) were
added to the average dose equivalents for indoor radon derived from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for each state (EPA 1993a). The indoor radon data, which were
originally published in units of pCi/L, were converted to dose by assuming 200 mrem/year EDE
per pCi/L of measured indoor radon (NCRP 1987a, Table 2.4). Indoor radon is discussed in
greater detail in Section 3 of this report.
The total average annual doses (in units of mrem/year EDE) for each state from cosmic radiation,
terrestrial radiation, and indoor radon are presented in Table 1. The values for radon exposure
are based on measurements made in 5,694 homes drawn from a survey of 11,423 homes. This
population was drawn from an eligible universe of nearly 72 million households out of the
93 million households in the U.S. (EPA 1993a). The radon concentrations represent the average
concentration in the living space of each home. Whole-body doses to terrestrial and cosmic
radiation take into consideration shielding by the home and self-shielding. Accordingly, the
doses represent realistic estimates of the doses experienced by typical residents in each state.
Figure 2 presents these natural background dose estimates on a map of the United States.
The last row in Table 1 presents the average values. These average values must be used with
caution because they do not represent the average exposures associated with all measurements,
but represent the average of the average values for each state. For radon exposures, two
averages are presented; the average among the state averages for states where we have data, and
the value in parenthesis, which is the average of the average values for the 5,694 homes that
comprised the survey. The averages in Table 1 are in close agreement with the values presented
in Figure 1 for cosmic and terrestrial radiation, but the exposure associated with indoor radon in
Figure 1 is substantially lower than the averages in Table 1. The sources of the information used
by the BEIR Committee to prepare the values in Figure 1 differ from the sources of the data used
to derive the exposures provided in Table 1. As a result, it is not surprising that there are
differences among the values, especially for the radon exposures.
3 The database containing the radon concentration measurements for each home in the survey does not
include identifiers that allow sorting the data by city. Conversations with the authors of the report reveal that the
original database included the zip code for each house, which would allow sorting the data according to city.
However, at the time of preparation of this report, the zip code data was not available, and therefore it was not
possible to provide radon levels in homes sorted by city.
3
-------
Table 1. Total Average Annual Doses (mrem/year EDE) from Cosmic Radiation,
Terrestrial Radiation, and Indoor Radon
State
Dose Equivalent (mrem/ycar)
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Radon
Total
Alabama
27.1
22.5
170
219.6
Alaska
26 6
29.2
97
152.8
Arizona
31.5
29.2
250
310.7
Arkansas
27.5
19.1
142
188.6
California
26.8
23.2
126
176
Colorado
47.5
42.6
610
700 1
Connecticut
26.4
32.7
180
239.1
Delaware
26.3
20.1
112
158.4
District of Columbia
26.4
22.7
no data
Not enough data |
Florida
26.2
14.3
91
131.5
Georgia
27.6
25.7
273
326.3
Hawaii
26.3
29.2
no data
Not enough data
Idaho
36.8
29.2
342
408
Illinois
27.4
26.6
343
397
Indiana
27.6
28.7
401
457.3
| Iowa
28.3
29.2
727
784.5
1 Kansas
29.2
29.2
474
532 4
I Kentucky
27 7
27.8
470
525.5
Louisiana
26.6
14.6
no data
Not enough data
Maine
26.8
29.2
286
342
Maryland
26.4
20 7
476
523.1
Massachusetts
26 4
29.0
228
283.4
Michigan
27.6
29 2
226
282.8
Minnesota
28.5
25.1
383
436.6
Mississippi
26.6
14.6
160
201.2
Missouri
27.6
28.7
350
406.3
Montana
36.3
29.2
no data
Not enough data
Nebraska
29.3
29.2
361
419.5
Nevada
36.6
21.2
164
221.8
New Hampshire
27.3
29.2
378
434.5
New Jersey
26.2
28.0
98
152.2
New Mexico
45.7
33.7
269
348.4
New York
26.5
28.8
223
278.3
North Carolina
27.8
24.4
268
320.2
North Dakota
29.9
29.2
730
789.1
Ohio
27.7
28.0
417
472.7
Oklahoma
29.0
28 8
247
304.8
Oregon
27.4
29.2
99
155.6
Pennsylvania
27.2
23.2
293
343.4
Rhode Island
26.3
27.4
no data
Not enough data
South Carolina
25.9
23.4
no data
Not enough data
South Dakota
30.7
29.2
903
962.9
Tennessee
27.6
25.1
511
563.7
Texas
28.1
18.2
165
211.3
Utah
41.8
29.2
196
267
Vermont
27.3
29.2
no data
Not enough data
Virginia
27.2
21.4
260
308.6
4
-------
Table 1. Total Average Annual Doses (mrem/year EDE) from Cosmic Radiation,
Terrestrial Radiation, and Indoor Radon
State
Dose Equivalent (mrem/year)
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Radon
Total
Washington
26.9
29.2
79
135.1
West Virginia
28.9
29.9
197
255.8
Wisconsin
27.8
29.2
293
350
National Average
29.5
26.6
303
359 (294)
5
-------
Figure 2. Average Annual Natural Background Doses (mrem/year) based on Cosmic Radiation, Terrestrial Radiation,
and Mean Indoor Radon Levels
® B C
Vancouver*^*--:.
SeattTe-" ¦
^Portland
®-*.......... j
ALBERTA SASK.
MOHT.
OREGON y IDAHO \ _
: WYOMING
o /
San Francisco^ .
Pacific
Ocean
NEVADA
UTAH •
MAN.
Wihnipeg^
N. DAK.
QUEBEC
OUT.
C A N A D A
¦ J Superior" ¦
MINN
r'\N.B. *
' s
SOUTH
DAKOTA
NEBR.
[ WIS. " :
Milw^ukee^ i
IOWA
0:.
Chicago :
¦9
UNIT 61 S TT> A TVf S i
^ ILL.„:
E
Los Angeles
San Diego,,, / Phoenix
™ QU
ARIZONA
v. ^
COLO.
HEW
MEXICO
-or
Cnidad \
Juarez ^
KANSAS; M0-
OKLA.
ARK.
:• V "V
Montreal 1
Ottawa / •; '•
J N.Y.t Boston
Hutn-n v®
i TorontQ :.'s
& WNewYork
Detroit ®
pa. ja
@ColunrUiuis;^ > P h i I a d e I p h i a
Indianapolis -Washington,
. J VA. A
KY.
-MdShuiil^ charlotte 0cea,}
hig.. ^ q ^
Atlantic
¦¦
^Dallas •• n
0 "5 -
/ 2
I ALA. i GA.
Jacksonville
Austin ¦¦ la.
| ® Ln.
SanrAntonio,-, ®
SONOR4 ® t ® Houston
Chihuahua \ TEXAS
•ifr
FLA.
CaiiTlohie-rmii^.nrticaii ar.l,V*lfr unplltri . «ll rtnhb itinwd
MEXICO p ^
Alio nie rrey^
GuifofMexxo
.Nassau
THE BAHAMAS
100-200
300-400
500-1000
200-300
400-500
not enough data
6
-------
Table 1 reveals that there is variation in average natural background radiation doses throughout
the United States, ranging from 131.5 mrem/year in Florida to 962.9 mrem/year in South Dakota,
a difference of 831.4 mrem/yr EDE. The estimated average background dose in Nevada of 221.8
mrem/year is toward the low end of this range. Keep in mind that these doses do not include
other sources of ubiquitous natural and man-made exposures (i.e., internal, medical, consumer
products, and other miscellaneous sources of exposure), which would add approximately an
additional 100 mrem/yr to these exposures.
Since the values in Table 1 represent estimates of the average background exposures over each
state, smaller locations within each state and individual households have an even wider range of
values. Appendix B presents estimates of the maximum doses associated with the average
annual radon concentration measurements observed in individual homes. As may be noted, the
maximum doses associated with radon measurements made in individual homes ranged from a
low of 1,034 mrcm/yr for California to a high of 10,581 mrem/yr in South Dakota; a difference
of 9,547 mrem/yr EDE.
In addition to the databases provided in Appendices A and B, as summarized in Table 1, SC&A
compiled nationwide estimates of the average dose to members of the population from internal
emitters, diagnostic medical procedures (including x-rays and nuclear medicine), and Nevada
Test Site (NTS) and global fallout. These sources of background radiation are discussed in detail
in the sections below, but are not included in Table 1 or the appendices. Appendix C presents
population and migration changes in the U.S., and in particular, in the state of Nevada and Nye
County, Nevada. The tables in Appendix C illustrate that population shifts occur between areas
with high and low levels of background exposure.
Not included in these exposures or described in this report are locations where individuals may
be experiencing localized elevated levels of exposures, such as households in the Reading Prong
area in Pennsylvania, where some residents were exposed to highly elevated levels of indoor
radon, or residents in the vicinity of some uranium mines and mills. This report also does not
address the degree to which many locations with elevated exposures to either naturally occurring
or man-made radiation have been mitigated. Radon mitigation is discussed further in Section 3.
It is worth noting that radon mitigation that has been implemented subsequent to the completion
of the National Residential Radon Survey likely reduced the high-end indoor radon
concentrations and doses for individual homes in each state as presented in Appendix B.
However, the statewide average radon concentrations in the living spaces, as presented in
Appendix B, most likely have not been reduced substantially as a result of mitigation, because
the number of mitigated homes is extremely small as compared to the total number of homes.
7
-------
2.0
TERRESTRIAL AND COSMIC RADIATION
This section summarizes the discussion of external terrestrial radiation from UNSCEAR (1993).
Appendix A presents a database summarizing the annual radiation doses in each state in the U.S.,
along with the highest and lowest dose rates for individual cities or locations within each state, as
reported by Bogcn and Goldin (1981). The cosmic radiation doses range from 26 mrem/year in
most coastal regions to 50.4 mrem/year in Wyoming. The terrestrial radiation doses range from
7.4 mrem/year in Orlando, Florida, to 57.4 mrem/year in Denver, Colorado.
EPA has developed a background dose calculator located on their website,4 which includes
location-specific cosmic and terrestrial background calculators. According to this calculator, the
cosmic radiation dose experienced at sea level is 26 mrem/year, with incremental increases in
dose with increasing elevation. The EPA calculator describes the terrestrial radiation dose as
23 mrem/year for the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic Coast, 90 mrem/year for the Colorado Plateau,
and 46 mrem/year for the rest of the country. These values are comparable to the Bogen and
Goldin (1981) doses presented in Appendix A.
2.1 Terrestrial Radiation
Terrestrial radiation is radiation from naturally occurring radionuclides in the soil, which include
K-40, Th-232, U-238, Rb-87, and U-235 and their progeny. External exposures from terrestrial
radiation occur both indoors and outdoors. Houses and buildings provide some shielding from
radiation emanating from the soil. However some structures, like those made from concrete,
brick, and stone, contain radionuclides and emit radiation. In those instances, the dose received
inside the building could exceed that from the outside. The dose from terrestrial radiation is
generally higher in areas with more bedrock, like mountainous regions, and lower in sandy,
coastal areas. Naturally occurring radionuclides in the soil also result in internal exposures,
which are discussed in Section 5 and Section 7.
The data for external terrestrial radiation exposure were obtained from the 1981 Bogen and
Goldin report on natural background radiation. Bogcn and Goldin estimate the doses to the
population of the U.S. from terrestrial radiation by city and also by general region (i.e., non-
urban coastal plains and non-urban non-coastal plains). These data arc based on the
measurements published by Oakley (1972), but corrected for shielding by structures and the
human body. Oakley's estimates of terrestrial dose were based on aerial survey measurements.
It is instructive to note that not only are there substantially large differences in the average
terrestrial doses among states (e.g., 14.3 mrcm/yr in Florida versus 42.6 in Colorado), but there
arc also large differences in the average terrestrial dose rates among cities within a state. For
example, in Colorado, the average terrestrial dose rate in Pueblo is 29.2 mrcm/yr, while in
Denver it is 57.4 mrem/yr. In Las Vegas, Nevada, the terrestrial dose rate is 12.7 mrem/yr, while
in non-urban regions of Nevada it is 29.2 mrcm/yr.
The average terrestrial radiation exposures in different regions of the U.S also differ
substantially. For example, the EPA dose calculator (see web site cited above) indicates that the
4 httpV/www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html
8
-------
annual dose rate from terrestrial radiation ranges from 23 mrem/yr in the Gulf Coast and Atlantic
Coast to 90 mrem/yr on the Colorado Plateau.
2.2 Cosmic Radiation
Cosmic radiation is radiation that originates from our galaxy (galactic cosmic rays) and from the
sun (solar particle radiation). The radiation from both of these sources is affected by the earth's
magnetic field. The low-energy radiation is usually deflected by the magnetic field, while the
high-energy rays are able to penetrate the atmosphere. The cosmic radiation dose incurred by a
person on the earth is dependent upon altitude, latitude, and shielding. For the most part, the
dose received from ionizing cosmic radiation at a high elevation is greater than the dose at sea
level; and the dose received at high- and mid-latitudes is greater than the dose received at
equatorial areas. This "latitude effect" is due to the fact that more low-energy protons reach the
atmosphere at the poles than at the equator. Buildings offer some shielding from cosmic
radiation. For example, a large concrete building could reduce the cosmic radiation dose by as
much as 58% (UNSCEAR, 1993, Annex A, paragraph 23).
SC&A obtained data for cosmic radiation exposure from the 1981 Bogen and Goldin report on
natural background radiation. As with the terrestrial radiation dose data, Bogen and Goldin
present the doses to the U.S. population from cosmic radiation by city and also by general
region. Bogen and Goldin (1981) state that these values are based on the "long-term average
cosmic dose equivalent rates at various altitudes" estimated by NCRP (1975).
It is instructive to note that not only are there substantially large differences in the average
cosmic radiation doses among states (e.g., 25.9 mrem/yr in South Carolina versus 50.4 mrem/yr
in Wyoming), but there are also large differences in the average cosmic radiation dose rates
among cities and regions with different elevations. A review of the EPA Dose Calculator reveals
that people residing in regions and cities located at sea level experience cosmic ray dose rates of
about 26 mrem/yr. As the elevation increases, the cosmic ray dose rate increases according to
the following look-up table:
Elevation
Cosmic Ray Dose Rate (mrem/yr EDE)
Sea level
26 mrem/yr
Up to 1000 feet above sea level
Add 2 mrem/yr
1000 to 2000 feet above sea level
Add 5 mrem/yr
2000 to 3000 feet above sea level
Add 9 mrem/yr
3000 to 4000 feet above sea level
Add 15 mrcm/yr
4000 to 5000 feet above sea level
Add 21 mrem/yr
5000 to 6000 feet above sea level
Add 29 mrem/yr
6000 to 7000 feet above sea level
Add 40 mrem/yr
7000 to 8000 feet above sea level
Add 53 mrem/yr
Above 8000 feet above sea level
Add 70 mrem/yr
9
-------
For example, in Denver, Colorado, the average cosmic ray dose rate in Pueblo is 46.5 mrem/yr,
while in Leadvillc, Colorado, which is located above 8000 feet above sea level, the cosmic ray
dose rate is 90 mrcm/yr.
10
-------
3.0 INDOOR RADON
This section presents a summary of the data presented in NRC 1999 and EPA 1993a (The
National Residential Radon Survey). Appendix B presents a database summarizing indoor radon
exposures in the U.S derived from the data collected from the National Residential Radon
Survey.
Radon (Rn-222) is a radioactive gas produced from the decay of radium-226, which is a member
of the uranium-238 decay chain. Radon is colorless, odorless, and is found naturally in almost
all types of soil. The amount of radon in the soil is dependent upon several factors, including
concentration of radium in the soil, the soil's porosity and permeability, and moisture content.
Areas with particular types of soil/bedrock (i.e., granite and limestone) have been shown to have
higher levels of radon concentrations.
In order for the radon gas to enter a home, there must be a pressure gradient between the inside
and the outside of the house. This pressure difference most commonly occurs in the winter,
when furnace combustion and rising warm air create a pressure differential, allowing radon to
enter the home through cracks in the foundation. Without ventilation, radon can build up inside
the home, with the highest concentrations usually recorded in the lower and basement levels.
The type and condition of the foundation can also determine if and how much radon will enter
and concentrate inside a home. It should be noted that indoor radon levels in buildings and
homes in the same geologic area could have very different indoor radon levels. The EPA's
safety standard for indoor radon concentrations is 4 pCi/L.
Since the 1980s, the EPA has devoted a tremendous amount of resources to addressing issues of
indoor radon. The first major nationwide indoor radon survey was the State/EPA Residential
Radon Survey conducted between 1986 and 1992, and involved 60,000 indoor radon
measurements taken in 42 states. EPA supplemented this data with measurements taken by
independent state surveys, which included Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Utah. EPA (1993b) states that these surveys are "designed to be
comprehensive and statistically significant at the state level." However due to the design of the
survey, the averages are not considered statistically significant for many counties. For example,
the radon survey performed in New Jersey has thousands of samples for each county, indicating
that the mean radon level calculated is likely close to the true mean. If only one or a few
samples were taken in a given county, those averages are not likely representative of the true
mean for that county. This survey was also limited to measurements collected over a short
period of time and was limited to the lowest levels in homes. As a result, the data collected in
this first major survey did not represent the average exposures experienced by the U.S.
population.
In order to remedy this limitation, EPA performed a supplemental survey that included
measurements made in 5,694 homes drawn from a survey of 11,423 homes (EPA 1993a). This
population was drawn from an eligible universe of nearly 72 million households out of the
93 million households in the U.S. Measurements were year-long and included the lowest living
level for each home, the lowest non-living level, mean radon measurements over all living levels,
and measurements made in the lowest level. The results of the survey are presented by region
and for each state. SC&A calculated the average radon levels for each state and then assumed a
l ]
-------
dose rate of 200 mrcm/year per pCi/L of measured indoor radon in order to determine the
average annual dose for each state (NCRP 1987a, Table 2.4). Appendix B also presents the
maximum-recorded radon values for the lowest living level, the lowest non-living level, and the
mean overall living levels. The maximum values for a given state do not necessarily come from
the same housing unit. For example, the maximum lowest living level reading and the maximum
lowest non-living level reading could come from different homes.
It is instructive to note that, in addition to the variability in the average radon dose rates among
states (e.g., a low of 79 mrem/yr in Washington as compared to a high of 903 mrem/yr in South
Dakota; a difference of 824 mrem/yr), there is large variability in the average radon levels in
different living spaces within states. For example, in Iowa, the average radon concentration in
the lowest living level in the homes surveyed was 4.43 pCi/L (which corresponds to an annual
dose of 886 mrem/yr EDE), while the average radon concentration observed among all the living
spaces among the homes surveyed in Iowa was 3.64 pCi/L (which corresponds to a dose rate of
about 728 mrem/yr); a difference of 158 mrem/yr.
Recently EPA published the report, National Radon Results: 1985 to 2000, by Gregory and
Jalbert (2004), which examines the current state of radon mitigation and public awareness.
Gregory and Jalbert (2004) report that, since the beginning of the EPA radon research effort in
the mid-1980s, the amount of public awareness regarding radon, as well as the number of homes
being mitigated, has increased dramatically. Since the start of the EPA/State Residential Radon
Survey in the mid-1980s, 800,000 homes that had indoor radon levels of 4 pCi/L or more have
been mitigated. Mitigation generally involves installation of a vent fan that removes the radon
gas from the home. In 2003, approximately 80,000 homes have been mitigated. The indoor
radon data presented in Appendix B is taken from the National Residential Radon Survey, which
was completed in 1993. Therefore, the data presented here do not reflect the large mitigation
effort that has taken place during the last 10-15 years.
12
-------
4.0
NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING FALLOUT
4.1 Nevada Test Site and Global Fallout
In recent years, the radiation dose from fallout is only a small fraction of the total background
dose. However, since the historical doses to fallout have been comprehensively studied, a brief
discussion of fallout is presented here. The U.S. population receives radiation doses from fallout
generated from two sources: (1) U.S. nuclear weapons tests performed at the NTS, and (2) tests
performed outside the U.S. The fallout created by these two categories of tests differs in several
important ways. Table 2 summarizes the differences described in CDC/NCI (2001).
Table 2. Characteristics of Nevada Test Site Fallout vs. Global Fallout
NTS fallout
Global fallout
Yield
Low-yield tests
High-yield tests
Radioactive cloud
Lower layers of atmosphere
High layers of atmosphere
Time to fallout deposition
Days
Months to years
Radionuclides
Short-lived, 1-131
Long-lived, Cs-137
Geographical distribution
Decreased with distance from NTS
Evenly distributed over U.S.
Fallout from high-yield global tests is evenly distributed over the entire United States and
consists of long-lived radionuclides like Cs-137. The fallout from low-yield detonations at the
Nevada Test Site, however, consisted of short-lived radionuclides, most importantly 1-131, and
were deposited in greater concentrations in the areas surrounding NTS.
4.2 Estimates of Current Fallout Dose to U.S. Population
Estimates of the dose to the U.S. population from nuclear weapons testing fallout have been
presented in two comprehensive studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The 1997 study performed by the NCI titled
Estimated Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the American People from Iodine-131 in
Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests describes the doses to the thyroid
from exposure to 1-131 following the NTS nuclear weapons tests. The 2001 joint effort by the
CDC and the NCI titled A Feasability Study of the Health Consequences to the American
Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations
expands on the 1997 NCI report and presents estimates of cumulative doses incurred by the U.S.
population through the year 2000 from exposures to 43 radionuclides from both NTS and global
fallout. The CDC/NCI report describes the doses on a county-by-county basis from both
external radiation from deposited radionuclides, and internal doses from ingestion of
radionuclides in water and food. Although both of these studies contain a tremendous amount of
research and information pertaining to historical doses to fallout, they do not describe the present
individual dose from fallout exposure. Given all of this information, SC&A has decided that the
best estimate for the current dose from fallout comes from NCRP (1987b). At the time of this
study in 1987, the NCRP estimated that the dose from fallout to the U.S. population was less
than 1 mrem/year EDE.
13
-------
5.0 INTERNAL EXPOSURES
This section summarizes the discussion of internal exposures from NCRP (1987b). Human
beings receive radiation exposures from naturally occurring radionuclides contained in food, air,
and water. This section focuses on ingested radionuclides, since the predominant inhaled
radionuclide is radon, which has already been discussed in Chapter 4. Due to the large amount
of potassium in the body, the major source of internal exposure is potassium-40 (K-40).
Potassium-40 is contained in food, but since potassium is under homeostatic control,5 changes in
diet do not affect the levels of K-40 in the body. Rubidium-87 is metabolically similar to
potassium, but it is not under homeostatic control. Exposures from Pb-210 and Po-210 arc due
to dietary intake and smoking. Smokers have been shown to have 2-3 times higher
concentrations of Pb-210 and Po-210 in their lungs and ribs than non-smokers. Other ingested
radionuclides that cause internal exposures include uranium, Th-232, Th-230, Th-228, Ra-226,
and Ra-228, which are mostly found in drinking water. Table 2 summarizes the doses incurred
from intake of radionuclides. The approximate internal dose equivalent from all naturally
occurring radionuclides is 340 jiSv/year (34 mrcm/ycar). This value is compatible with the
BEIR (1990) value of 39 mrcm/year.
Table 3. Summary of Annual Dose Equivalents from Naturally Occurring Radionuclides
in the Body (from Table 7.17 of NCRP 1987b)
Radionuclide
Dose equivalent in soft tissues
(iSv/ycar (mrem/year)
C-14
10(1)
K-40
180(18)
Rb-87
3 (0.3)
U-238 series
4.6 (0.46)
Th-230
0.1 (0.01)
Ra-226
3 (0.3)
Pb-210 - Po-210
140(14)
Th-232
0.1 (0.01)
Ra-228 - Th-228
1.5 (0.15)
Total
342 (34)
5 Elements under homeostatic control are maintained at constant levels in the body, regardless of the
amount of that element that is ingested or taken into the body.
14
-------
6.0
DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL EXPOSURES
Most of the available epidemiological data on annual patient doses of radiation from diagnostic
procedures in the U.S., which include x-rays and nuclear medicine, comes from data collected
prior to the mid-1990s. NCRP (1989) concluded that the average annual EDE for the U.S.
population is 40 mrem (0.40 mSv) from diagnostic x-ray exposures, and 14 mrem (0.14 mSv)
from diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) estimates in Annex C, Section 305, of its 1993
publication that the per capita EDE from all diagnostic medical examinations to individuals
living in health care level I countries (which include the U.S. and Western Europe) is 1.1 mSv
per year (110 mrem). However, the world of diagnostic imaging has changed dramatically in the
past decade.
In recent years, some smaller studies have looked at current trends in doses for various
procedures, particularly the rapidly increasing use of computed tomography (CT). According to
the National Center for Health Statistics (Robb 2004), an estimated 65 million CT scans were
performed in 2002, representing an increase of about 700% over the past decade. The use of
diagnostic radiological procedures for children has increased, particularly of CT. It is estimated
that children aged 0-15 years accounted for 11% of all CT scans in 1999 (Mettler et al. 2000).
While the use of diagnostic radiological procedures has increased, the dose per examination has
generally remained the same over the past decade for particular procedures, although some
studies have shown variations (both increases and decreases). These variations usually result
from differences in practitioners or facility procedures. Different practitioners may use varying
amounts of radiation for a particular examination based on their training and experience (Robb
2004). For example, a study at the Mayo Clinic (Ngutter et al. 2003) found that the total
collective EDE decreased from 2,030 pcrson-Sv (203,000 person-rem) in 1988 to 1,817 person-
Sv (181,700 person-rem) in 1997, but showed both substantial increases and decreases in EDE
for various procedures. Improvements in technology lowered the EDE for some procedures.
Such improvements include (1) pulsed-progressive fluoroscopy that typically decreases the
radiation dose by a factor of two or more, (2) better detectors, and (3) a change in CT scanners.
Other changes increased the EDE, such as (1) a preference for darker films, (2) a change from
dual emulsion to single emulsion films in mammography, (3) a change from two posterior-
anterior (PA) chest views to one PA view and one lateral view (which gives approximately twice
the radiation dose of a PA) for increased diagnostic value, and (4) a new radiopharmaceutical
resulting in twice the dose. Organizations such as the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors (CRCPD), as well as individual states, are looking to minimize radiation exposure
from diagnostic radiological procedures by publishing guidance on radiation exposure norms for
entrance skin doses that seek to keep the patient dose as low as reasonably achievable, while
obtaining the necessary diagnostic information (CRCPD 2003).
In addition, the proportion of the total collective EDE for all radiological diagnostic procedures
changes based on the mix of procedures. For example, Mettler et al. (2000) notes that while CT
scanning represented only 11% of the procedures in 1997, it accounted for almost 70% of the
total effective dose from all diagnostic radiology procedures for that year. It is estimated that
one abdominal CT scan has a radiation equivalence of 100 or more chest x-rays (Robb 2004).
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, estimates
15
-------
that effective doses from diagnostic CT procedures range from 1 to 10 mSv (100 to 1,000 mrcm)
(FDA 2002), while chest x-rays result in EDEs of approximately 0.1 mSv (10 mrem). Some
procedures, such as cardiovascular, cardiac, tumor, and thyroid scans, may expose patients to
effective doses as high as 30 mSv (3,000 mrcm) (Ngutter ct al. 2003). However, estimates of the
effective dose from a diagnostic CT procedure can vary by a factor of 10 or more depending on
the type of CT procedure, patient size, and the CT system and its operating technique (FDA
2002).
Another new trend in diagnostic radiological procedures is the increase in the number of patients
who have had more than one scan in their lifetime. The University of New Mexico study
(Mettlcr ct al. 2000) found that in 1997, 39% of patients having CT scans of the head had
experienced a prior head CT, and 33% of those having an abdominal or pelvic CT had received
prior examinations.
Table 3 provides data on EDE for various radiological diagnostic procedures from two
representative studies. It should be noted that the doses listed in Table 3 are whole-body EDEs.
The doses to the individual target organs will be much greater.
In the future, new technologies will continue to change the amount of diagnostic radiation to
which patients are exposed. For example, according to CRCPD (2001), CT technologies require
multiple scans to be delivered in preparation for the procedure, adding to the patient's exposure.
As the use of such technologies increases, the impacts from multiple scans in one examination
must be considered. Changes may also come as international studies show exposure differences
between countries. Herzog and Riegcr note that in the U.S., exposure parameters arc generally
set to achieve much higher doses (to reduce image noise) than in Europe, where the emphasis is
on reducing patient radiation exposure (Herzog and Ricger 2004). All of these studies indicate
that present average EDE from diagnostic procedures (x-rays and nuclear medicine) could have
exceeded the previously accepted per capita value of 53 mrcm/year.
It is worth repeating that in the year 2002, 65 million CT scans were performed, which represents
a sizable fraction of the U.S. population. As indicated in Table 4, the exposures associated with
these scans arc on the order of several hundred mrcm EDE per scan, and many people receive
multiple scans. These exposures arc comparable to the exposures due to natural background
radiation, and, in some cases, greatly exceed exposures to natural background.
16
-------
Table 4. Total Effective Dose Equivalent of Various Types of Diagnostic Procedures
Procedure
Dose in mSv EDE (mrem EDE)
UNM Health Center practices
in 1998 and 1999 (Mettler 2000)
Mayo Clinic practices in 1997
(Ngutter 2001)
Radiography
Head and neck
0.22 (22)
C-spine
0.20 (20)
T-spine
0.80 (80)
L-spine
1.27 (127)
Chest
0.08 (8)
Abdomen
0.56 (56)
Upper GI and SB
2.44 (244)
Barium enema
4.06 (406)
Kidney/bladder
1.58 (158)
Pelvis
0.44 (44)
0.7 (70)
Hip
0.83 (83)
0.6 (60)
Extremities
0.01 (1)
Mammography
0.1 (10) (estimated)
0.7 (70)
Intravenous Pyelogram (for
kidneys, ureters, bladder)
5.7 (570)
Computed Tomography
Head
1.50 (150)
1.6(160)
Chest
5.40 (540)
5.6 (560)
Abdomen/pelvis
3.10(310)
6.8/7.9 (680/790)
Other (neck, spine, etc.)
3.00 (300) (estimated)
Angiography
Neurology
3.5 (350)
Cardiac
27.9 (2790)
Vascular
13.8 (1380)
Fluoroscopy
Chest
6.3 (630)
Gl
2.9 (290)
Iodine contrast
3.7 (370)
17
-------
7.0 CONSUMER PRODUCTS
This section briefly summarizes the discussion of exposures from consumer products from
NCRP 1987c. The U.S. population is exposed to radiation from various products that include,
but arc not limited to, radon in domestic water supplies (usually wells and other ground-water
supplies), building and construction materials, mining and agricultural products, natural gas
heaters and ranges, electronics, and smoke detectors. The estimated total EDE from consumer
products is 60-130 |iSv/year (6-13 mrcm/ycar), with the majority of that dose due to radon in
domestic water supplies (10-60 (iSv/ycar). Radon can enter the home through the water supplies
during activities such as bathing, toilet flushing, dishwashing, and laundering. The National
Research Council's 1999 publication on radon in drinking water states that radon in water tends
to be an issue for those using private wells and those in mountainous regions. SC&A has
determined that any radon released into the home through the water supply would have been
captured by the National Residential Radon Survey.
18
-------
REFERENCES
Bogen, K.T. and Goldin, A.S. 1991. Population Exposures to External Natural Radiation
Background in the Unites States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORP/SEPD-80-12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. (CDC/NCI).
2001. A Feasability Study of the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear
Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations.
Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (BEIR). 1990. Health Effects of
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR V. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD). 2001. QA Collectible:
Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy. Committee on Quality Assurance in Diagnostic X-Ray
(H-7). (March 3, 2005).
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD). 2003. Patient Exposure and
Dose Guide—2003. Publication E-03-2.
< http://www.crcpd.org/Pubs/ESERcPiiblishcd/Apr03.pdf.> (March 3, 2005).
Gregory, B and P. P. Jalbert. 2004. National Radon Results: 1985 to 2003.
Herzog, P. and C. Rieger. 2004. "Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-rays." The Lancet
1363(9406).
Mettler, Jr., F., P. Wiest, J. Locken, and C. Kelsey. 2000. CT scanning: patterns of use and
dose. Journal of Radiological Protection. 20:353-359.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1975. Natural
Background Radiation in the United States. NCRP Report No. 45. Bcthesda, MD.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987a. Ionizing
Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 93.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987b. Exposure of the
Population of the Unites States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation. NCRP Report
No. 94.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987c. Radiation
Exposure of the U.S. Population from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources. NCRP
Report No. 95.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1989. Exposure of the
U.S. Population from Diagnostic Medical Radiation. NCRP Report No. 100.
19
-------
NRC 1999, National Research Council, Risk Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water, Committee
on Risk Assessment of Exposure to Radon in Drinking Water, Board on Radiation Effects
Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. 1999.
Nguttcr, L., J. Koflcr, C. McCollough, R. Vetter. 2001. Update on patient radiation doses at a
large tertiary care medical center. Health Physics. 81 (5):530—535, November 2001. Erratum in
Health Physics, 84(3):388—389, March 2003.
Oakley, D.T. 1972. Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. ORP/SID 72-1.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). 2005. Facts About Radiation.
Yucca Mountain Project Factsheet. DOE/YMP-0403, January 2005.
http://www.OCRWM.DOE.GOV/factsheets/DOEYMP0403.SHTML.
Robb, M. 2004. Like One HundredX-Rays? Study Suggests Many Referring Physicians Don't
Grasp or Explain to Patients the Radiation Exposure Involved with CT. Radiology Today. <
httir/Avww.radiolouvtoday.net/archivc/it 071904D22.shlml> CMarch 3, 2005).
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 1993.
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Report to the General Assembly, with Annexes.
United Nations: New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993a. National Radon Database, Volume 6:
National Residential Radon Survey, EPA 402-R-93-013, January 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993b. EPA Map of Radiation Zones, 402-R-93-
021.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2002. What are the Radiation Risks from CT?
Center for Devices and Radiological Health < htlD:/Avw\v.fda.aov/cidh/ct/risks.lilnil.> (March 3,
2005).
20
-------
APPENDIX A
COSMIC AND TERRESTIAL RADIATION DOSES BY STATE AND REGION
(from Bogcn and Goldin, 1991)
-------
Tabic A-l. Cosmic and Terrestrial Radiation Doses By State and Region
Dose Equivalent (mrcm/year) Shielded |
State*
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Total I
Alabama
27.1
22.5
49.7
NU-NCP
27.9
29.2
57. i
Mobile
26.1
14.6
40.7
Alaska
26.6
29.2
55.7
Arizona
31.5
29.2
60.7
NU
35.5
29.2
64.7
Phoenix
28 5
29.2
57.7
Arkansas
27.5
19 1
41.1
NU-NCP
30.1
29.2
59.2
Pine Blurf
26.5
14.6
41 3
California
26.8
23.2
50.0
NU
28.0
29.2
57.2
San Francisco
26.2
17.7
43.8
Colorado
47.5
42.6
90.1
Denver
46.5
57.4
103.9
Pueblo
42.6
29.2
71.8
Connecticut
26.4
32.7
59.1
Norwalk
26.1
44.8
70.9
Hartford
26.1
26.8
52 9
Delaware
26.3
20.1
46.3
Wilmington
26.3
23.2
49 5
NU-CP
26.2
146
40 8
District of Columbia
26.4
22 7
49.0
Florida
26.2
14.3
40.4
Gainesville
26.4
14.6
41.0
Orlando
26 2
7.4
33.6
Georgia
27.6
25.7
53.3
Atlanta
28.4
36.6
65.0
Savannah
26.1
14.6
40.7
Hawaii
26 3
29 2
55.5
Idaho
36.8
29.2
65.9
Illinois
27.4
26.6
54.0
Bloomington
27.9
29.2
57.0
Chicago
27 3
24 7
52.0
Indiana
27.6
28 7
56.3
Muncie
28.1
29 2
57.3
Evansville
26.9
29.2
56 0
Iowa
28.3
29.2
57.5
NU
28.6
29.2
57.8
Cedar Rapids
27.6
29.2
56.8
Kansas
29.2
29.2
58.4
NU
29.7
29.2
58.9
Kansas City
27 7
29.2
56.9
Kentucky
27.7
27.8
55.6
Lexington
28.2
29.2
57.3
NU-CP
26.8
14.6
41.3
Louisiana
26.6
14.6
40.8
Shreveport
26.5
14.6
41.1
New Orleans
26.1
14.6
40.6
A-l
-------
Table A-l. Cosmic and Terrestrial Radiation Doses By State and Region
Dose Equivalent (mrem/year) Shielded
State*
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Total
Maine
26.8
29.2
55.9
NU
26.9
29.2
56.1
Portland
26.1
29.2
55.3
Maryland
26.4
20.7
47.1
NU-NCP
27.2
29.2
56.4
NU-CP
26.2
14.6
40.8
Massachusetts
26.4
29.0
55.4
Worchester
27.0
34.0
61.0
Pittsfield
28.3
17.9
46.2
Michigan
27.6
29.2
56.7
Jackson
28.1
29.2
57.3
Detroit
27.3
29.2
56.5
Minnesota
28.5
25.1
53.6
NU
29.3
29.2
58.5
Minneapolis
27.8
20.0
47.8
Mississippi
26.6
14.6
41.2
Jackson
26.7
14.6
41.3
Biloxi
26.1
14.6
40.7
Missouri
27.6
28.7
56.3
NU-NCP
28.0
29.2
57.2
NU-CP
26.8
14.6
41.4
Montana
36.3
29.2
65.5
NU
36.6
29.2
65.8
Billings
34.9
29.2
64.1
Nebraska
29.3
29.2
58.5
NU
29.8
29.2
59.0
Omaha
28.4
29.2
57.5
Nevada
36.6
21.2
57.8
NU
41.9
29.2
71.1
Las Vegas
31.1
12.7
43.8
New Hampshire
27.3
29.2
56.5
NU
27.6
29.2
56.8
Manchester
26.4
29.2
55.6
New Jersey
26.2
28.0
54.2
NU-NCP
26.7
29.2
55.8
Atlantic City
26.1
14.6
40.7
New Mexico
45.7
33.7
79.4
Albuquerque
44.3
44.5
88.8
NU
46.3
29.2
75.5
New York
26.5
28.8
55.3
Binghamton
27.9
29.2
57.1
Albany
26.1
16.1
42.1
North Carolina
27.8
24.4
52.2
Asheville
31.6
29.2
60.8
Wilmington
26.1
14.6
40.7
North Dakota
29.9
29.2
59.1
NU
30.1
29.2
59.2
Fargo
28.0
29.2
57.2
Ohio
27.7
28.0
55.7
Mansfield
28.6
29.2
57.8
Cincinnati
27.2
19.3
46.5
A-2
-------
Tabic A-l. Cosmic and Terrestrial Radiation Doses By State and Region
Dose Equivalent (mrem/ycar) Shielded |
State*
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Total
Oklahoma
29.0
28.8
57.8
Oklahoma City
28.8
29.2
58.0
NU-CP
27.0
14.6
41.6
Oregon
27.4
29.2
57.6
NU
28.4
29.2
58.8
Portland
26.2
29.2
55.4
Pennsylvania
27.2
23.2
50.4
Pittsburgh
27.7
33.3
61.0
NU
27.7
14.6
42.3
Rhode Island
26.3
27.4
53.6
NU
26.5
29.2
55 6
Providence
26.2
26.8
53.0
South Carolina
25 9
23.4
50.7
Columbia
26.6
43.7
70.3
Charleston
26.1
14.6
40.7
South Dakota
30.7
29.2
59.9
NU
30.9
29.2
60.1
Sioux Falls
29.3
29 2
58 4
Tennessee
27.6
25.1
52.7
Knoxville
28.0
38.4
66.4
Memphis
26.6
14.6
41.2
Texas
28.1
18.2
46.3
El Paso
37.7
29.2
66.9
Galveston
26.1
12.6
38.7
Utah
41.8
29 2
71.0
NU
44.8
29.2
74.0
Salt Lake City
40.2
29.2
69.4
Vermont
27.3
29.2
56.5
Virginia
27 2
21.4
48 7
NU-NCP
28 8
29.2
58.0
Norfolk
26.1
12.5
38.5
Washington
26.9
29.2
56.1
Spokane
28.7
29.2
57.9
Seattle
26.3
29.2
55.5
West Virginia
28.9
29.9
58.8
Wheeling
27.4
44.1
71.5
Charleston
27.3
29.2
56.5
Wisconsin
27.8
29.2
57.0
NU
28.2
29.2
57.4
Green Bay
27.3
29.2
56.5
Wyoming
50.4
29.2
79 6
Source: Table A-2 of Bogen and Goldin 1981
NU = Non-Urban CP = Coastal Plain
NCP = Not Coastal Plain
*For each state, the statewide values are given, followed by the city or region with the highest total cosmic +
terrestrial dose, followed by the he city or region with the lowest.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
AVERAGE INDOOR RADON LEVELS AND DOSES BY STATE
(from U.S. EPA 1993a)
-------
Tabic B-l. Average Indoor Radon Levels and Doses By State
Average annual indoor radon levels
Maximum recorded radon levels
Average Annual Doses (mrem/yr)
(pCi/L per year)
(pCi/L per year)
200 mrcm/year per pCi/L
Lowest
Lowest
Average for state
State
# Housing
level of
level of
Average of all
Lowest
Lowest level
Average of
based on average
Maximum Dose based
units
living
non-living
the
level of
of non-living
all the
value for the entire
on maximum value for
space
space
living space
living space
space
living space
living space
the entire living space
Alabama
156
0.88
0 92
0.85
7 69
7.69
7.69
170
1538
Alaska
31
0.56
0.63
0.48
2.73
2.73
1.98
97
397
Arizona
62
1.27
1.33
1.25
4.12
4.12
4.12
250
824
Arkansas
60
0.71
0.71
0.71
5.25
5.25
5.25
142
1050
California
254
0.67
0.68
0.63
5.17
5.17
5 17
126
1034
Colorado
70
3.39
4.59
3.05
13.14
16.32
13.14
610
2629
Connecticut
88
1.36
1.56
0.90
7.04
7.04
5.52
180
1105
Delaware
62
0.64
1.21
0.56
6 55
8 58
4.48
112
895
Florida
112
0 46
0.47
0.45
2 96
2.96
2.96
91
591
Georgia
141
1.52
2.63
1.37
10.74
105 77
9 28
273
1856
Idaho
65
1.86
1.92
1 71
6.10
6.10
6.10
342
1219
Illinois
365
2.05
2.55
1 72
33.61
33.61
24.29
343
4858
Indiana
254
2.18
3.08
2 00
13.08
24.59
9.68
401
1935
Iowa
87
4.43
5.43
3.64
20.54
20.54
15.83
727
3166
Kansas
99
2.79
3 35
2.37
1 1.17
11.17
9.07
474
1813
Kentucky
118
2.84
3.18
2.35
41.34
41.34
25.12
470
5023
Maine
41
1.60
5.00
1.43
7.51
50.54
6 24
286
1248
Maryland
141
2 82
3.59
2 38
20.05
39.15
19.77
476
3955
Massachusetts
134
1.69
2.18
1.14
21.96
21.96
12.93
228
2586
Michigan
83
1.38
1.94
1.13
9 19
13 61
3.43
226
1086
Minnesota
39
2.26
3.07
1.92
6.20
7.69
5.06
383
1011
Mississippi
142
0.82
0.84
0.80
4.37
4.37
4.37
160
875
Missouri
59
2.06
2.68
1.75
8.66
12.63
7.72
350
1544
Nebraska
69
2.02
2.21
1.81
11 36
11 36
9.22
361
1843
Nevada
74
0 94
0.94
0.82
23 38
23.38
14.53
164
2905
New
Hampshire
92
2.14
4.18
1.89
17.53
68.36
17 62
378
3525
New Jersey
289
0.60
0.84
0.49
10.10
12.24
8.63
98
1726
New Mexico
98
1 36
1.36
1 35
8.36
8.36
8.36
269
1672
B-l
-------
Tabic B-l. Average Indoor Radon Levels and Doses By State
Average annual indoor radon levels
Maximum recorded radon levels
Average Annual Doses (mrem/yr)
(pCi/L per year)
(pCi/L per year)
200 mrem/year per pCi/L
Lowest
Lowest
Average for state
State
# Housing
level of
level of
Average of all
Lowest
Lowest level
Average of
based on average
Maximum Dose based
units
living
non-living
the
level of
of non-living
all the
value for the entire
on maximum value for
space
space
living space
living space
space
living space
living space
the entire living space
New York
343
1.39
2.05
1.12
18.65
19.42
13.41
223
2681
North Carolina
48
1.58
1.70
1.34
8.75
8.75
6.78
268
1355
North Dakota
47
3.96
6.10
3.65
13.65
17.81
13.65
730
2731
Ohio
444
2.35
2.91
2.09
22.39
22.39
21.00
417
4199
Oklahoma
48
1.26
1.28
1.24
5.77
5.77
5.77
247
1153
Oregon
53
0.50
0.50
0.49
1.99
1.99
1.58
99
316
Pennsylvania
426
1.85
2.44
1.47
25.59
55.25
25.59
293
5118
South Dakota
65
5.51
8.01
4.52
83.62
83.62
52.90
903
10581
Tennessee
84
2.74
3.58
2.55
10.56
23 56
8.86
511
1773
Texas
213
0.83
0.82
0.83
11.32
11.32
11.32
165
2264
Utah
53
1.16
1.23
0.98
4.96
4.96
4.18
196
836
Virginia
88
1.40
1.80
1.30
6.13
10.00
5.56
260
1113
Washington
41
0.41
0.41
0.40
5.79
5.79
5.73
79
1146
West Virginia
93
1.08
1.43
0.98
8.14
8.14
5.29
197
1057
Wisconsin
319
1.76
2.57
1.46
10.92
13.62
8.50
293
1701
Wyoming
44
1.56
1.72
1.30
4.64
4.64
4.13
260
826
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
POPULATION AND MIGRATION CHANGES IN THE UNITES STATES
(based on data from the US Census Bureau)
-------
APPENDIX C: POPULATION AND MIGRATION CHANGES IN THE UNITES STATES
The following tables present current population and migration data and patterns for each state in the
country. All of the population and migration data presented in this appendix were obtained from tables
published on the US Census Bureau's website (www.census.gov).
Table C-l presents the total population and changes in the state populations from the 1990 Census, the
2000 Census, and the most recently published estimate for 2004. By far, Nevada has seen the greatest
population increase during the last 14 years, with a 17% increase since 2000 and a 94% increase since
1990. Arizona follows with a 12% increase since 2000 and a 57% increase since 1990. These total
population values include births, deaths, and domestic and international migration. The migration
column in Table C-l presents the domestic net migration, which occurred for each state between the
years 1995 and 2000. These values are a representation of the moving patterns of Americans during
that time. For example, Florida has seen the greatest net infux of people from other parts of the
country (607,023) during this time, followed by North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada. Since we do
not know where these individuals are moving from, we cannot predict their potential change in natural
background radiation dose. Table C-2 attempts to answer that question by presenting the domestic
migration patterns for Nevada and Nye County from 1995 to 2000.
The US Census Bureau has compiled enormous databases that present estimates of the number of
people (over age 5) moving from each region, state, and county to every other region, state, and county
in the country from 1995 to 2000, which can be obtained from their website1'2. Since it would not be
practical to present all of that data in this appendix, Table 2 focuses on Nevada and also Nye County.
Column 2 of Table C-2 presents the number of people moving to Nevada from each state in this time
period. For example, from 1995 to 2000, 1,368 people moved from Alabama to Nevada. Conversely,
Column 3 shows that during that time, 958 people moved from Nevada to Alabama. Column 4
presents the net migration into Nevada. The data reveals a general positive influx of people into
Nevada from almost every state in the county, with the largest influx from California, New York and
Illinois. Columns 5, 6 and 7 present the same data for Nye County. For this county-specific data,
SC&A used the US Census Bureau's database "County-by-County Migration Flow files2." The total
number of people moving into and out of Nye County were summed for each state. This data also
reveals that there is a net influx of people into Nye County, with the largest out-of state influx from
California, Utah, and Washington. Table C-3 presents some additional population and migration data
for Nye County. This table shows that there has been a 112% increase in the total population of the
county since 1990, and there is a net domestic migration increase of 6082 people from 1995 to 2000,
more than half of which were from another state.
Table C-2 also includes the average natural background dose estimates for each state, taken from
Table 1 of the main body of this report. Examination of this data reveals that there is large variability
in average natural background radiation doses when moving from state to state.
1 US Census Bureau table "State of Residence in 2000 for the Population 5 Years and Over by State of Residence
in 1995" imp //www.census.^ov/po|Hikuion/www/ccn2Q0()/phi-t22 inmi released August 2003.
2 US Census Bureau County-by County Migration Flow files
hup //www census uov/populalion/www/ccnZOOO/ctviocMlow.lnmL released August 2003.
C-l
-------
Table C-l. Total Population Changes and Average Natural Background Doses by State
Total Population from Census Bureau
Migration1
Average Natural Background Dose
(mrem/year EDE)
State
2004 Estimate
2000
1990
Change from
2000 to 2004
Percent change
2000 to 2004
Change from
1990 to 2004
Percent
change
1990 to 2004
Domestic 5-yr
net migration
1995- 2000
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Radon
Total
Alabama
4,530,182
4,447,100
4,040.587
83.082
1 9%
489,595
12 1%
25,823
27.1
22 5
170
219.6
Alaska
655.435
626,932
550,043
28,503
4 5%
105,392
19 2%
(30,498)
26.6
29.2
97
152 8
Arizona
5,743,834
5,130,632
3.665,228
613,202
12 0%
2,078,606
56 7%
316.148
31 5
29 2
250
3107
Arkansas
2.752,629
2,673,400
2,350,725
79.229
3 0%
401.904
17.1%
42.116
27 5
19.1
142
188 6
California
35.893.799
33,871,648
29,760,021
2,022.151
6 0%
6.133,778
20 6%
(755,536)
26 8
23.2
126
176
Colorado
4,601.403
4,301,261
3.294,394
300.142
7 0%
1,307.009
39 7%
162.633
47 5
42 6
610
700 1
Connecticut
3,503.604
3,405.565
3,287,116
98,039
2.9%
216.488
6 6%
(64,610)
26.4
32 7
180
239 1
Delaware
830,364
783.600
666.168
46.764
6 0%
164.196
24.6%
17.383
26 3
20 1
112
158 4
District of Columbia
553.523
572,059
606,900
(18.536)
-3.2%
(53.377)
-8 8%
(45,331)
26 4
22.7
no data
Not enough data
Florida
17.397,161
15.982,378
12,937,926
1,414,783
8.9%
4.459.235
34 5%
607,023
26 2
143
91
131 5
Georgia
8,829,383
8,186,453
6,478,216
642.930
7 9%
2.351.167
36 3%
340,705
27 6
25 7
273
326 3
Hawaii
1,262.840
1,211,537
1,108,229
51,303
4 2%
154.611
14 0%
(76.133)
26 3
29.2
no data
Not enough data
Idaho
1.393.262
1,293.953
1.006.749
99.309
7.7%
386.513
38 4%
33,847
36.8
29.2
342
408
Illinois
12.713.634
12.419,293
11.430,602
294.341
2 4%
1.283,032
11.2%
(342,616)
27.4
26.6
343
397
Indiana
6,237.569
6.080,485
5,544.159
157.084
2 6%
693.410
12.5%
21,625
27 6
28 7
401
457.3
Iowa
2.954.451
2,926.324
2.776,755
28,127
1 0%
177,696
6.4%
(33,012)
28 3
29 2
727
784 5
Kansas
2.735,502
2,688,418
2.477.574
47,084
1 8%
257,928
10.4%
(7,792)
29 2
29 2
474
532 4
Kentucky
4,145,922
4.041,769
3.685,296
104.153
2 6%
460,626
12.5%
34,127
27.7
27 8
470
525 5
Louisiana
4,515,770
4,468.976
4,219,973
46,794
1 0%
295,797
7 0%
(75,759)
26 6
146
no data
Not enough data
Maine
1,317.253
1,274,923
1.227.928
42.330
3.3%
89,325
7 3%
3.640
26 8
29 2
286
342
Maryland
5,558,058
5,296,486
4,781,468
261,572
4 9%
776.590
16.2%
(19,723)
26 4
20 7
476
523 1
Massachusetts
6.416,505
6.349,097
6,016,425
67.408
1 1%
400.080
6 6%
(54,708)
26.4
29
228
283 4
Michigan
10.112,620
9.938,444
9,295,297
174.176
1 8%
817,323
8.8%
(91,930)
27 6
29 2
226
282 8
Minnesota
5,100.958
4,919,479
4,375,099
181.479
3.7%
725,859
16.6%
29,169
28 5
25 1
383
436.6
Mississippi
2.902.966
2.844.658
2,573,216
58.308
2 0%
329.750
12 8%
26.930
26 6
146
160
201.2
Missouri
5,754,618
5,595.211
5,117,073
159,407
2.8%
637,545
12.5%
46,053
27 6
28.7
350
406.3
Montana
926,865
902.195
799.065
24.670
2 7%
127,800
16 0%
(5.166)
36 3
29 2
no data
Not enough data
C-2
-------
Table C-l. Total Population Changes and Average Natural Background Doses by State
State
Total Population from Census Bureau
Migration'
Average Natural Background Dose
(mrem/year EDE)
2004 Estimate
?nnn
1990
Change from
2000 to 2004
Percent change
2000 to 2004
Change from
1990 to 2004
Percent
change
1990 to 2004
Domestic 5-yr
net migration
1995-2000
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Radon
Total
Nebraska
1,747,214
1,711,263
1,578,385
35,951
2 1%
168,829
10.7%
(15,353)
29 3
29 2
361
4195
Nevada
2,334,771
1,998,257
1,201,833
336,514
16 8%
1,132,938
94 3%
233,934
36.6
21 2
164
221.8
New Hampshire
1,299,500
1,235,786
1,109.252
63,714
5 2%
190,248
17 2%
27,903
27 3
29.2
378
434 5
New Jersey
8,698,879
8,414,350
7,730,188
284,529
3 4%
968,691
12 5%
(182,829)
26 2
28
98
152.2
New Mexico
1,903,289
1,819,046
1,515,069
84,243
4 6%
388,220
25.6%
(29,945)
45 7
33 7
269
348 4
New York
19,227,088
18,976,457
17,990,455
250,631
1 3%
1,236,633
6 9%
(874,248)
26 5
28 8
223
278.3
North Carolina
8,541,221
8,049,313
6,628,637
491,908
6 1%
1,912,584
28 9%
337,883
27.8
24 4
268
320.2
North Dakota
634,366
642,200
638,800
(7,834)
-1 2%
(4,434)
-0.7%
(25,207)
29 9
29.2
730
789.1
Ohio
11,459,011
11,353,140
10,847,115
105,871
0.9%
611,896
5.6%
(116,940)
27.7
28
417
472.7
Oklahoma
3,523,553
3,450,654
3,145,585
72,899
2.1%
377,968
12.0%
16,887
29
28.8
247
304 8
Oregon
3,594,586
3,421,399
2,842,321
173,187
5 1%
752,265
26.5%
74,665
27.4
29 2
99
155 6
Pennsylvania
12,406,292
12,281,054
11,881,643
125,238
1.0%
524,649
4.4%
(131,296)
27.2
23.2
293
343.4
Rhode Island
1,080,632
1,048,319
1,003,464
32,313
3.1%
77,168
7.7%
3,236
26 3
27.4
no data
Not enough data
South Carolina
4,198,068
4,012,012
3,486,703
186,056
4.6%
711,365
20.4%
132,205
25 9
23.4
no data
Not enough data
South Dakota
770,883
754,844
696,004
16,039
2.1%
74,879
10 8%
(12,468)
30.7
29 2
903
962.9
Tennessee
5,900,962
5,689,283
4,877,185
211,679
3.7%
1,023,777
21 0%
146,314
27 6
25 1
511
563.7
Texas
22,490,022
20,851,820
16,986,510
1,638,202
7 9%
5,503,512
32 4%
148,240
28 1
18.2
165
211.3
Utah
2,389,039
2,233,169
1,722,850
155,870
7 0%
666,189
38 7%
25,296
41 8
29.2
196
267
Vermont
621,394
608,827
562,758
12,567
2.1%
58,636
10.4%
2,254
27 3
29.2
no data
Not enough data
Virginia
7,459,827
7,078,515
6,187,358
381,312
5 4%
1,272,469
20.6%
75,730
27.2
21 4
260
308.6
Washington
6,203,788
5,894,121
4,866,692
309,667
5.3%
1,337,096
27.5%
75,330
26.9
29 2
79
135.1
West Virginia
1,815,354
1,808,344
1,793,477
7,010
0.4%
21,877
1 2%
(10,754)
28.9
29.9
197
255.8
Wisconsin
5,509,026
5,363,675
4,891,769
145,351
2.7%
617.257
12 6%
7,282
27 8
29 2
293
350
Wyoming
506,529
493,782
453,588
12,747
2.6%
52,941
11.7%
(12,527)
50.4
29.2
260
339.6
Sources US Census 2004 estimate; US Census 2000; US Census 1990 (http //www.census gov)
1 Taken from the US Census Bureau's table "Net Migration for the Population 5 Years and Over for the United States, Regions, States, Counties, New England Minor Civil Divisions, and Metropolitan
Areas 2000" ImpV/www census uo\/ix>oulationAvww/ccn2000,nhc-i22 html, released August 2003.
C-3
-------
Table C-2. Domestic Migration from 1995 to 2000 for Nevada and Nye County and Average Natural Background Doses
1
2
3 4
5 6 7
8
9
10
11
State
Domestic Migration from 1995 to 2000 (Persons over 5 years of age)
Average Natural Background Dose
(mrem/year EDE)
To Nevada
From
Nevada
Net migration
for Nevada
To Nye
County
From Nye
County
Net migration
for Nye County
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Radon
Total
Alabama
1,368
958
410
40
2
38
27 1
22 5
170
219.6
Alaska
3.000
1,596
1,404
68
24
44
26 6
29.2
97
152 8
Arizona
23,432
19,374
4.058
318
461
(143)
31 5
29.2
250
3107
Arkansas
1.596
1,789
(193)
10
55
(45)
27 5
19 1
142
188 6
California
199.125
60,488
138,637
2849
693
2156
26 8
23 2
126
176
Colorado
11,365
9.740
1.625
338
203
135
47 5
42 6
610
700 1
Connecticut
1,577
683
894
40
13
27
26 4
32 7
180
239 1
Delaware
329
252
77
0
0
0
26.3
20 1
112
158.4
District of Columbia
345
301
44
0
0
0
26.4
22.7
no data
Not enough data
Florida
14,850
8,222
6.628
259
143
116
26 2
14.3
91
131.5
Georgia
3,297
2,852
445
31
54
(23)
27.6
25 7
273
326.3
Hawaii
12,079
1,853
10.226
132
30
102
26 3
29.2
no data
Not enough data
Idaho
6.116
6,858
(742)
285
193
92
36.8
29 2
342
408
Illinois
17,570
5,184
12,386
129
III
18
27.4
26.6
343
397
Indiana
3.755
2.418
1,337
82
51
31
27.6
28 7
401
457 3
Iowa
2.616
1,528
1,088
62
28
34
28.3
29.2
727
784 5
Kansas
2.354
2,074
280
41
9
32
29.2
29 2
474
532 4
Kentucky
1,371
1.549
(178)
45
26
19
27.7
27 8
470
525 5
Louisiana
2.999
1,780
1,219
19
14
5
26 6
146
no data
Not enough data
Maine
794
324
470
12
0
12
26.8
29 2
286
342
Maryland
2.228
1,054
1,174
0
27
(27)
26.4
20.7
476
523.1
Massachusetts
2,596
1,173
1,423
11
0
11
26 4
29
228
283.4
Michigan
7,867
3,403
4,464
92
52
40
27.6
29 2
226
282 8
Minnesota
4,823
2,414
2,409
54
29
25
28.5
25.1
383
436.6
Mississippi
1,961
1,657
304
23
13
10
26 6
14.6
160
201 2
Missouri
4,770
3,823
947
136
82
54
27 6
28 7
350
406 3
Montana
4.299
2,564
1.735
116
80
36
36 3
29.2
no data
Not enough data
Nebraska
2,504
1,738
766
12
55
(43)
29 3
29.2
361
4195
Nevada
619,598'
619,598 J
-
5987b
3675 c
2312
36 6
21 2
164
221 8
New Hampshire
652
501
151
0
0
0
27 3
29 2
378
434 5
C-4
-------
Table C-2. Domestic Migration from 1995 to 2000 for Nevada and Nye County and Average Natural Background Doses
1
2
3 4
5 6 7
8
9
10
11
State
Domestic Migration from 199S to 2000 (Persons over S years of age)
Average Natural Background Dose
(mrem/year EDE)
To Nevada
From
Nevada
Net migration
for Nevada
To Nye
County
From Nye
County
Net migration
for Nye County
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Radon
Total
New Jersey
6,531
1,699
4,832
18
0
18
26.2
28
98
152.2
New Mexico
6,499
4,796
1,703
260
172
88
45.7
33.7
269
348 4
New York
17,153
3,558
13,595
94
35
59
26 5
28 8
223
278 3
North Carolina
3,134
2,953
181
43
33
10
27 8
24 4
268
320 2
North Dakota
1,108
706
402
24
18
6
29 9
29.2
730
789.1
Ohio
7,263
3,538
3,725
81
20
61
27.7
28
417
472 7
Oklahoma
3,170
3,255
(85)
81
90
(9)
29
28 8
247
304 8
Oregon
10,024
10,299
(275)
298
195
103
27.4
29.2
99
155.6
Pennsylvania
6,171
2,406
3,765
41
73
(32)
27 2
23.2
293
343 4
Rhode Island
618
387
231
4
0
4
26.3
27 4
no data
Not enough data
South Carolina
1.270
1,517
(247)
18
20
(2)
25.9
23.4
no data
Not enough data
South Dakota
1,798
744
1,054
70
6
64
30.7
29 2
903
962.9
Tennessee
1,944
2,902
(958)
35
11
24
27.6
25 1
511
563.7
Texas
17,576
12,351
5,225
228
122
106
28 1
18.2
165
211.3
Utah
14.060
12,739
1,321
566
272
294
41.8
29 2
196
267
Vermont
296
147
149
0
2
(2)
27.3
29.2
no data
Not enough data
Virginia
3,531
3,563
(32)
23
9
14
27.2
21 4
260
308.6
Washington
14,278
11,031
3,247
334
212
122
26.9
29 2
79
135.1
West Virginia
625
569
56
0
0
0
28 9
29 9
197
255.8
Wisconsin
4,651
2,445
2,206
110
34
76
27 8
29 2
293
350
Wyoming
2,785
2,434
351
71
61
10
50 4
29 2
260
339.6
Total
1,085,721
851,787
233,934
13590
7508
6082
' indicates the number of people that moved within and into and out of the state
b indicates the number of people that moved to Nye County from a different county in Nevada
c indicates the number of people that moved from Nye County to a different county in Nevada
Sources* US Census Bureau table "State of Residence in 2000 for the Population 5 Years and Over by State of Residence in 1995" him.//www census ao\/population/www/ccn2000/phc-t22 html
released August 2003. US Census Bureau County-by County Migration Flow files htmi'/www census nov/ponulaiion/www/cen2000/ctvtoctvflo\\ html, released August 2003.
C-5
-------
Table C-3. Summary of Nye County Population and Domestic Migration
Total Population from Census Bureau
Migration: Domestic Immigrants 1995-2000
Migration: Domestic Outmigrants 1995-
2000
Migration
2004
Estimate
2000
1990
Change
from
2000 to
2004
Percent
change
2000 to
2004
Change
from
1990 to
2004
Percent
change
1990 to
2004
Total
From same
state
From different
state
Total
To same
state
To different
state
Domestic 5 year
net migration
1995 to 2000 |
37,714
32,923
17,781
4791
14.6%
19.933
112%
13,590
5987
7603
7508
3675
3833
6082
Sources. US census 2000. US Census 1990: US Census 2004 Estimate. US Census Bureau County-by County Migration Flow files hup //www census «»ov/ponulaiion/w\v\\/ccn2U00 civtoctvflcm html,
released August 2003
C-6
------- |