Search results for: Faraz Nikpour Arani

Authors: Sharib Ahmed, Mansoor Rafi, Kamran Ali Awan, Faraz Khaskhali, Amir Maqbool, Altaf Hashmi

Abstract:

Medical linear accelerators (LINAC’s) used in radiotherapy treatments produce undesired neutrons when they are operated at energies above 8 MeV, both in electron and photon configuration. Neutrons are produced by high-energy photons and electrons through electronuclear (e, n) a photonuclear giant dipole resonance (GDR) reactions. These reactions occurs when incoming photon or electron incident through the various materials of target, flattening filter, collimators, and other shielding components in LINAC’s structure. These neutrons may reach directly to the patient, or they may interact with the surrounding materials until they become thermalized. A work has been set up to study the effect of different parameter on the production of neutron around the room by photonuclear reactions induced by photons above ~8 MeV. One of the commercial available neutron detector (Ludlum Model 42-31H Neutron Detector) is used for the detection of thermal and fast neutrons (0.025 eV to approximately 12 MeV) inside and outside of the treatment room. Measurements were performed for different field sizes at 100 cm source to surface distance (SSD) of detector, at different distances from the isocenter and at the place of primary and secondary walls. Other measurements were performed at door and treatment console for the potential radiation safety concerns of the therapists who must walk in and out of the room for the treatments. Exposures have taken place from Elekta Synergy® linear accelerators for two different energies (10 MV and 18 MV) for a given 200 MU’s and dose rate of 600 MU per minute. Results indicates that neutron doses at 100 cm SSD depend on accelerator characteristics means jaw settings as jaws are made of high atomic number material so provides significant interaction of photons to produce neutrons, while doses at the place of larger distance from isocenter are strongly influenced by the treatment room geometry and backscattering from the walls cause a greater doses as compare to dose at 100 cm distance from isocenter. In the treatment room the ambient dose equivalent due to photons produced during decay of activation nuclei varies from 4.22 mSv.h−1 to 13.2 mSv.h−1 (at isocenter),6.21 mSv.h−1 to 29.2 mSv.h−1 (primary wall) and 8.73 mSv.h−1 to 37.2 mSv.h−1 (secondary wall) for 10 and 18 MV respectively. The ambient dose equivalent for neutrons at door is 5 μSv.h−1 to 2 μSv.h−1 while at treatment console room it is 2 μSv.h−1 to 0 μSv.h−1 for 10 and 18 MV respectively which shows that a 2 m thick and 5m longer concrete maze provides sufficient shielding for neutron at door as well as at treatment console for 10 and 18 MV photons.

Keywords: equivalent doses, neutron contamination, neutron detector, photon energy

Procedia PDF Downloads 449

Authors: Mojtaba Eshraghi Arani

Abstract:

Concluding the contract for carriage of cargo with the shipper (through bill of lading or charterparty), the carrier must transport the cargo from loading port to the port of discharge and deliver it to the consignee. Unless otherwise agreed in the contract, the carrier must avoid from any deviation, transfer of cargo to another vessel or unreasonable stoppage of carriage in-transit. However, the vessel might break down in-transit for any reason and becomes unable to continue its voyage to the port of discharge. This is a frequent incident in the carriage of goods by sea which leads to important dispute between the carrier/owner and the shipper/charterer (hereinafter called “cargo interests”). It is a generally accepted rule that in such event, the carrier/owner must repair the vessel after which it will continue its voyage to the destination port. The dispute will arise in the case that temporary repair of the vessel cannot be done in the short or reasonable term. There are two options for the contract parties in such a case: First, the carrier/owner is entitled to repair the vessel while having the cargo onboard or discharged in the port of refugee, and the cargo interests must wait till the breakdown is rectified at any time, whenever. Second, the carrier/owner will be responsible to charter another vessel and transfer the entirety of cargo to the substitute vessel. In fact, the main question revolves around the duty of carrier/owner to perform transfer of cargo to another vessel. Such operation which is called “trans-shipment” or “transhipment” (in terms of the oil industry it is usually called “ship-to-ship” or “STS”) needs to be done carefully and with due diligence. In fact, the transshipment operation for various cargoes might be different as each cargo requires its own suitable equipment for transfer to another vessel, so this operation is often costly. Moreover, there is a considerable risk of collision between two vessels in particular in bulk carriers. Bulk cargo is also exposed to the shortage and partial loss in the process of transshipment especially during bad weather. Concerning tankers which carry oil and petrochemical products, transshipment, is most probably followed by sea pollution. On the grounds of the above consequences, the owners are afraid of being held responsible for such operation and are reluctant to perform in the relevant disputes. The main argument raised by them is that no regulation has recognized such duty upon their shoulders so any such operation must be done under the auspices of the cargo interests and all costs must be reimbursed by themselves. Unfortunately, not only the international conventions including Hague rules, Hague-Visby Rules, Hamburg rules and Rotterdam rules but also most domestic laws are silent in this regard. The doctrine has yet to analyse the issue and no legal researches was found out in this regard. A qualitative method with the concept of interpretation of data collection has been used in this paper. The source of the data is the analysis of regulations and cases. It is argued in this article that the paramount rule in the maritime law is “the accomplishment of the voyage” by the carrier/owner in view of which, if the voyage can only be finished by transshipment, then the carrier/owner will be responsible to carry out this operation. The duty of carrier/owner to apply “due diligence” will strengthen this reasoning. Any and all costs and expenses will also be on the account pf the owner/carrier, unless the incident is attributable to any cause arising from the cargo interests’ negligence.

Keywords: cargo, STS, transshipment, vessel, voyage

Procedia PDF Downloads 121

Authors: Mojtaba Eshraghi Arani

Abstract:

Ship financing is the vital element in the development of shipping industry because while the ship constitutes the owners’ main asset, she is considered a reliable security in the financiers’ viewpoint as well. However, it is most probable that a financier who has accepted a ship as security will face many creditors who are privileged and rank before him for collecting, out of the ship, the money that they are owed. In fact, according to the current rule of maritime law, which was established by “Convention Internationale pour l’Unification de Certaines Règles Relatives aux Privilèges et Hypothèques Maritimes, Brussels, 10 April 1926”, the mortgages, hypotheques, and other charges on vessels rank after several secured claims referred to as “maritime liens”. Such maritime liens are an exhaustive list of claims including but not limited to “expenses incurred in the common interest of the creditors to preserve the vessel or to procure its sale and the distribution of the proceeds of sale”, “tonnage dues, light or harbour dues, and other public taxes and charges of the same character”, “claims arising out of the contract of engagement of the master, crew and other persons hired on board”, “remuneration for assistance and salvage”, “the contribution of the vessel in general average”, “indemnities for collision or other damage caused to works forming part of harbours, docks, etc,” “indemnities for personal injury to passengers or crew or for loss of or damage to cargo”, “claims resulting form contracts entered into or acts done by the master”. The same rule survived with only some minor change in the categories of maritime liens in the substitute conventions 1967 and 1993. The status que in maritime law have always been considered as a major obstacle to the development of shipping market and has inevitably led to increase in the interest rates and other related costs of ship financing. It seems that the national and international policy makers have yet to change their mind being worried about the deviation from the old marine traditions. However, it is crystal clear that the continuation of status que will harm, to a great extent, the shipowners and, consequently, the international merchants as a whole. It is argued in this article that the raison d'être for many categories of maritime liens cease to exist anymore, in view of which, the international community has to recognize only a minimum category of maritime liens which are created in the common interests of all creditors; to this effect, only two category of “compensation due for the salvage of ship” and “extraordinary expenses indispensable for the preservation of the ship” can be declared as taking priority over the mortgagee rights, in anology with the Geneva Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircrafts (1948). A qualitative method with the concept of interpretation of data collection has been used in this manuscript. The source of the data is the analysis of international conventions and domestic laws.

Keywords: ship finance, mortgage, maritime liens, brussels convenion, geneva convention 1948

Procedia PDF Downloads 72