ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Mar 2026
Jan 2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
April 2026
Nuclear Technology
February 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Going Nuclear: Notes from the officially unofficial book tour
I work in the analytical labs at one of Europe’s oldest and largest nuclear sites: Sellafield, in northwestern England. I spend my days at the fume hood front, pipette in one hand and radiation probe in the other (and dosimeter pinned to my chest, of course). Outside the lab, I have a second job: I moonlight as a writer and public speaker. My new popular science book—Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World—came out last summer, and it feels like my life has been running at full power ever since.
L. G. Haggmark, T. H. Jones, N. E. Scofield, W. J. Gurney
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 23 | Number 2 | October 1965 | Pages 138-149
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE65-A28138
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The angular distribution of backscattered dose-rate ratio was measured for ‘semi-infinite’ concrete, aluminum and steel slabs irradiated by plane-parallel beams of Co60 and Cs137 gamma photons. The photons were incident on the slabs at angles, measured from the normal to the slab, of arccos 1.00, 0.75 and 0.50. For the necessary sensitivity, the backscattered dose rate was measured by a digital dosimetry system using a plastic scintillator as the detector. An empirical formula for differential dose-rate ratio was derived from the experimental data. Comparisons are made with two other experiments and a semi-empirical formula fitted to a Monte Carlo calculation. The experiments generally agree to within 20%. The values based upon the Monte Carlo calculation are generally 20% to 35% lower than the experimental values.