A Review of Radon Exposure in Non-uranium Mines—Estimation of Potential Radon Exposure in Canadian Mines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: A worldwide review of radon exposure in non-uranium mines was conducted. Based on the reported radon measurements in a total of 474 underground non-uranium mines, the average radon concentration in underground non-uranium mines was calculated to be 570 Bq m -3 (varied from below detection limit to above 10,000 Bq m -3 ), and the average equilibrium factor between radon and its short-lived progeny was 0.34 (varied from 0.02 to 0.9). Using the average values from the review, annual effective radon doses to workers in Canadian non-uranium mines were estimated. For underground workers, the estimated annual effective radon dose to non-uranium miners was 3.8 mSv with the possibility of varying from 0.22 to 10 mSv depending on ventilation and other operation conditions. In Canada, the majority of mines are open-pit surface mines; only a small portion of the workforce in non-uranium mines physically work underground where radon concentration can be elevated. Averaged over the entire mining workforce, occupational exposure to radon in non-uranium mines is estimated to be 0.9 mSv. The results of this study indicate that there is potential for workers in non-uranium mines to reach or exceed Canadian thresholds for mandatory monitoring and reporting radiation doses, at least for underground operations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".