[ RadSafe ] Subject:TLDs and their Controls
Paul, Tim
Tim.Paul at bannerhealth.com
Thu Aug 25 15:39:50 CDT 2005
Dale,
In my experience one frequent cause of many badges with low ~background readings is simply that the personnel and control badges are not necessarily processed in the same batch by the vendor. As a result, proper control subtraction is not performed on thse batches.
It's a QA problem.
Tim Paul
________________________________
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of radsafe-request at radlab.nl
Sent: Thu 8/25/2005 6:39 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7
Send radsafe mailing list submissions to
radsafe at radlab.nl
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
radsafe-request at radlab.nl
You can reach the person managing the list at
radsafe-owner at radlab.nl
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Re: attn. Landauer Customers (Dale Boyce)
2. Re: Re: attn. Landauer Customers (Sandy Perle)
3. Re: Creating source out of Ra watch hands (BLHamrick at aol.com)
4. Re: Re: attn. Landauer Customers (Dale Boyce)
5. Re: Re: attn. Landauer Customers (Sandy Perle)
6. Re: Re: attn. Landauer Customers (Dale Boyce)
7. RE: Central Dose registry (BRISSON Nicolas)
8. AW: [ RadSafe ] Central Dose registry (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de)
9. TLD Glow Curve Question (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX)
10. Re: TLD Glow Curve Question (Sandy Perle)
11. Re: Central Dose registry (John Jacobus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:09 -0500
From: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <001801c5a8ff$b7620b70$6400a8c0 at TheGateway>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
John's point is definitely a real one. While I have personally seen doses as
high as 300 mrem from intransit, I have seen a report come back for a couple
of thousand badges, several hundred of which had exposures reported between
10 and 50 mrem with most in the 20 to 30 mrem category.
Since these films were all shipped in the same box, one wonders why the
spread in reported exposure. Even though it is a lot of badges when shipped
as the film only the box is pretty small.
Also, what correction could be applied in such a case if the control showed
0, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 mrem?
I guess one solution is to not use carriers that also handle isotopes. The
second best would be to not use the same carrier(s) that deliver isotopes to
your facility, since the most probable place for the badges to be placed
near a source in transit is during final delivery. However, in the case
mentioned different carriers were used, but the one delivering the badges
also does or at least did transport RAM.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wright, Will (DHS-PSB)" <WWright2 at dhs.ca.gov>
To: "Flood, John" <FloodJR at nv.doe.gov>; <sandyfl at earthlink.net>;
<jblute at NITON.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>; "Neill Stanford"
<stanford at stanforddosimetry.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:03 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
i believe i deleted the initial strings, could someone briefly describe the
issue or was this simply a discussion about the inconvenience of maintaining
a control. controls are critical as indicated in all objective science
endeavors/ bench top science as well as others will teach this the hard way.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of Flood, John
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:52 PM
To: 'sandyfl at earthlink.net'; jblute at NITON.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; Neill
Stanford
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
Perhaps I missed a post on this subject, but the discussion seems to be
overlooking the in-transit exposure that a control dosimeter also monitors.
There is no doubt that accurate background subtraction is important to low
dose measurements, but the absence of background measurements can be a
horrifying experience if every dosimeter in the shipment to the processor
shows a few hundred mrem from irradiation in-transit. This is a very real,
modern problem - if your dosimeters sit next to some clinic's radionuclide
shipment on the truck or in the warehouse, expect to see 50-300 mrem on
every dosimeter (how would I know this?). Without control dosimeters, life
certainly gets more complicated.
Bob Flood
Nevada Test Site
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:21:00 -0700
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
To: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <430C9E6C.16856.7C4412 at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Dale,
This all has to do with source geometry, is it a point source, several point sources, or more like a line source. location of source(s), distance, angle, etc. This is not an unusual observation.
Regards,
Sandy
On 24 Aug 2005 at 18:01, Dale Boyce wrote:
> John's point is definitely a real one. While I have personally seen
> doses as high as 300 mrem from intransit, I have seen a report come
> back for a couple of thousand badges, several hundred of which had
> exposures reported between 10 and 50 mrem with most in the 20 to 30
> mrem category.
>
> Since these films were all shipped in the same box, one wonders why
> the spread in reported exposure. Even though it is a lot of badges
> when shipped as the film only the box is pretty small.
>
> Also, what correction could be applied in such a case if the control
> showed 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 mrem?
>
> I guess one solution is to not use carriers that also handle isotopes.
> The second best would be to not use the same carrier(s) that deliver
> isotopes to your facility, since the most probable place for the
> badges to be placed near a source in transit is during final delivery.
> However, in the case mentioned different carriers were used, but the
> one delivering the badges also does or at least did transport RAM.
>
> Dale
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wright, Will (DHS-PSB)" <WWright2 at dhs.ca.gov>
> To: "Flood, John" <FloodJR at nv.doe.gov>; <sandyfl at earthlink.net>;
> <jblute at NITON.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>; "Neill Stanford"
> <stanford at stanforddosimetry.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:03
> PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
>
>
> i believe i deleted the initial strings, could someone briefly
> describe the issue or was this simply a discussion about the
> inconvenience of maintaining a control. controls are critical as
> indicated in all objective science endeavors/ bench top science as
> well as others will teach this the hard way.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
> Behalf Of Flood, John Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:52 PM To:
> 'sandyfl at earthlink.net'; jblute at NITON.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; Neill
> Stanford Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
>
>
> Perhaps I missed a post on this subject, but the discussion seems to
> be overlooking the in-transit exposure that a control dosimeter also
> monitors. There is no doubt that accurate background subtraction is
> important to low dose measurements, but the absence of background
> measurements can be a horrifying experience if every dosimeter in the
> shipment to the processor shows a few hundred mrem from irradiation
> in-transit. This is a very real, modern problem - if your dosimeters
> sit next to some clinic's radionuclide shipment on the truck or in the
> warehouse, expect to see 50-300 mrem on every dosimeter (how would I
> know this?). Without control dosimeters, life certainly gets more
> complicated.
>
> Bob Flood
> Nevada Test Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144
Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:16:20 EDT
From: BLHamrick at aol.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Creating source out of Ra watch hands
To: cary_rdsfe at pacbell.net, radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <20f.7caf72b.303e67d4 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 8/24/2005 2:29:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cary_rdsfe at pacbell.net writes:
It seems to me that consolidating watch hands to make
a check source and then distributing that check source
would be frowned upon by the State of TN.
And, very likely will be soon subject to the NRC's opinion on this matter.
With the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, discrete sources of radium
and accelerator-produced materials are subject to the AEA.
Barbara
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:14:26 -0500
From: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
To: <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <001301c5a912$56358260$6400a8c0 at TheGateway>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Sandy,
Of course I understand that geometry is part of it, but take a box with very
small dimensions, and a radioactive shipment with dose rates high enough to
expose the badges. The radioactive shipment will always have dimensions
large compared to the small box. Even if the badge box was sitting on the
shipment the dose rate across the small box should not vary much.
However, the main point is how can one make a reasonable correction to the
report? Assume a facility where the expected dose is next to nothing, but
that some people really do get exposures. It is awfully hard to justify
either zeroing out the people that are likely to have received the dose, or
to believe the ones that shouldn't have had the exposure. Something that an
automated process at the vendor would have more trouble dealing with
(possibly) than the vendor.
Probably the best solution if this occurs is to treat all the badges as
damaged/lost and to replace them with estimated doses, except in the cases
where the badges receive dose significantly higher than the typical "in
transit" exposure.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
To: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
> Hi Dale,
>
> This all has to do with source geometry, is it a point source, several
> point sources, or more like a line source. location of source(s),
> distance, angle, etc. This is not an unusual observation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sandy
>
>
> On 24 Aug 2005 at 18:01, Dale Boyce wrote:
>
>> John's point is definitely a real one. While I have personally seen
>> doses as high as 300 mrem from intransit, I have seen a report come
>> back for a couple of thousand badges, several hundred of which had
>> exposures reported between 10 and 50 mrem with most in the 20 to 30
>> mrem category.
>>
>> Since these films were all shipped in the same box, one wonders why
>> the spread in reported exposure. Even though it is a lot of badges
>> when shipped as the film only the box is pretty small.
>>
>> Also, what correction could be applied in such a case if the control
>> showed 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 mrem?
>>
>> I guess one solution is to not use carriers that also handle isotopes.
>> The second best would be to not use the same carrier(s) that deliver
>> isotopes to your facility, since the most probable place for the
>> badges to be placed near a source in transit is during final delivery.
>> However, in the case mentioned different carriers were used, but the
>> one delivering the badges also does or at least did transport RAM.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Wright, Will (DHS-PSB)" <WWright2 at dhs.ca.gov>
>> To: "Flood, John" <FloodJR at nv.doe.gov>; <sandyfl at earthlink.net>;
>> <jblute at NITON.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>; "Neill Stanford"
>> <stanford at stanforddosimetry.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:03
>> PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
>>
>>
>> i believe i deleted the initial strings, could someone briefly
>> describe the issue or was this simply a discussion about the
>> inconvenience of maintaining a control. controls are critical as
>> indicated in all objective science endeavors/ bench top science as
>> well as others will teach this the hard way.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
>> Behalf Of Flood, John Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:52 PM To:
>> 'sandyfl at earthlink.net'; jblute at NITON.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; Neill
>> Stanford Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
>>
>>
>> Perhaps I missed a post on this subject, but the discussion seems to
>> be overlooking the in-transit exposure that a control dosimeter also
>> monitors. There is no doubt that accurate background subtraction is
>> important to low dose measurements, but the absence of background
>> measurements can be a horrifying experience if every dosimeter in the
>> shipment to the processor shows a few hundred mrem from irradiation
>> in-transit. This is a very real, modern problem - if your dosimeters
>> sit next to some clinic's radionuclide shipment on the truck or in the
>> warehouse, expect to see 50-300 mrem on every dosimeter (how would I
>> know this?). Without control dosimeters, life certainly gets more
>> complicated.
>>
>> Bob Flood
>> Nevada Test Site
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle
> Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
> Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
> 2652 McGaw Avenue
> Irvine, CA 92614
>
> Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
> Fax:(949) 296-1144
>
> Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
> Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:28:57 -0700
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
To: <sandyfl at earthlink.net>, "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <430CBC69.23654.51AB1A at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Dale,
A few comments provided below:
On 24 Aug 2005 at 20:14, Dale Boyce wrote:
> Hi Sandy,
>
> Of course I understand that geometry is part of it, but take a box
> with very small dimensions, and a radioactive shipment with dose rates
> high enough to expose the badges. The radioactive shipment will
> always have dimensions large compared to the small box. Even if the
> badge box was sitting on the shipment the dose rate across the small
> box should not vary much.
This still depends on what the source is, what's between the source
and the box of dosimeters, the angle, the self-shielding within the
box of dosimeters, the orientation of each dosimeter in the box, etc.
Recall that the various elemental values are run through an
algorithm. If the pattern is "reasonable" then a dose is usually
assigned. It is not my accountability to second guess whether or not
a dose is "appropriate". What is my accountability is to inform a
client whether or not it "appears" that there was an inadvertent
irradiation of the shipment, and whether or not an assessment can be
made.
> However, the main point is how can one make a reasonable correction to
> the report? Assume a facility where the expected dose is next to
> nothing, but that some people really do get exposures. It is awfully
> hard to justify either zeroing out the people that are likely to have
> received the dose, or to believe the ones that shouldn't have had the
> exposure. Something that an automated process at the vendor would
> have more trouble dealing with (possibly) than the vendor.
One should never zero out an exposure. As I stated above, the
responsibility for one's dose remains with the individual, and not
the processor. If we note the Controls have been irradiated, we don't
use them for subtracting elemental responses from the individual's
dosimeter elemental responses. We provide information on the report
that states that the controls were irradiated and what process we
used to provide for some subtraction. However, the individual needs
to accept, reject or provide a written estimate as to what they want
used for a dose for the respective period in question. I as a
processor will not make that determination.
> Probably the best solution if this occurs is to treat all the badges
> as damaged/lost and to replace them with estimated doses, except in
> the cases where the badges receive dose significantly higher than the
> typical "in transit" exposure.
If all of the controls have an equal irradiation, and the spare
badges show the same elemental responses, on could consider using
those values as a subtraction for each element. Then the individual
assesses whether or not the result is valid. If there is variation
across the shipment, and nothing is statistically equivalent, then
the results should be rejected and an estimate be provide din lieu of
the dosimeter for that period. That is what we did in the power
reactor in that we had secondary electronic dosimetry worn. In that
most do not in the medical community or university environment, there
are other acceptable methods to derive an estimated dose.
Regards,
Sandy
> Dale
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
> To: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
> Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
>
>
> > Hi Dale,
> >
> > This all has to do with source geometry, is it a point source,
> > several point sources, or more like a line source. location of
> > source(s), distance, angle, etc. This is not an unusual observation.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sandy
> >
> >
> > On 24 Aug 2005 at 18:01, Dale Boyce wrote:
> >
> >> John's point is definitely a real one. While I have personally seen
> >> doses as high as 300 mrem from intransit, I have seen a report come
> >> back for a couple of thousand badges, several hundred of which had
> >> exposures reported between 10 and 50 mrem with most in the 20 to 30
> >> mrem category.
> >>
> >> Since these films were all shipped in the same box, one wonders why
> >> the spread in reported exposure. Even though it is a lot of badges
> >> when shipped as the film only the box is pretty small.
> >>
> >> Also, what correction could be applied in such a case if the
> >> control showed 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 mrem?
> >>
> >> I guess one solution is to not use carriers that also handle
> >> isotopes. The second best would be to not use the same carrier(s)
> >> that deliver isotopes to your facility, since the most probable
> >> place for the badges to be placed near a source in transit is
> >> during final delivery. However, in the case mentioned different
> >> carriers were used, but the one delivering the badges also does or
> >> at least did transport RAM.
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Wright, Will (DHS-PSB)" <WWright2 at dhs.ca.gov>
> >> To: "Flood, John" <FloodJR at nv.doe.gov>; <sandyfl at earthlink.net>;
> >> <jblute at NITON.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>; "Neill Stanford"
> >> <stanford at stanforddosimetry.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005
> >> 5:03 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
> >>
> >>
> >> i believe i deleted the initial strings, could someone briefly
> >> describe the issue or was this simply a discussion about the
> >> inconvenience of maintaining a control. controls are critical as
> >> indicated in all objective science endeavors/ bench top science as
> >> well as others will teach this the hard way.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> >> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Flood, John Sent:
> >> Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:52 PM To: 'sandyfl at earthlink.net';
> >> jblute at NITON.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; Neill Stanford Subject: RE: [
> >> RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps I missed a post on this subject, but the discussion seems
> >> to be overlooking the in-transit exposure that a control dosimeter
> >> also monitors. There is no doubt that accurate background
> >> subtraction is important to low dose measurements, but the absence
> >> of background measurements can be a horrifying experience if every
> >> dosimeter in the shipment to the processor shows a few hundred mrem
> >> from irradiation in-transit. This is a very real, modern problem -
> >> if your dosimeters sit next to some clinic's radionuclide shipment
> >> on the truck or in the warehouse, expect to see 50-300 mrem on
> >> every dosimeter (how would I know this?). Without control
> >> dosimeters, life certainly gets more complicated.
> >>
> >> Bob Flood
> >> Nevada Test Site
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:57:24 -0500
From: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
To: <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <004501c5a918$56681c60$6400a8c0 at TheGateway>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
We concur, though our language may fool everyone else.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
To: <sandyfl at earthlink.net>; "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
> Hi Dale,
>
> A few comments provided below:
>
> On 24 Aug 2005 at 20:14, Dale Boyce wrote:
>
>> Hi Sandy,
>>
>> Of course I understand that geometry is part of it, but take a box
>> with very small dimensions, and a radioactive shipment with dose rates
>> high enough to expose the badges. The radioactive shipment will
>> always have dimensions large compared to the small box. Even if the
>> badge box was sitting on the shipment the dose rate across the small
>> box should not vary much.
>
> This still depends on what the source is, what's between the source
> and the box of dosimeters, the angle, the self-shielding within the
> box of dosimeters, the orientation of each dosimeter in the box, etc.
> Recall that the various elemental values are run through an
> algorithm. If the pattern is "reasonable" then a dose is usually
> assigned. It is not my accountability to second guess whether or not
> a dose is "appropriate". What is my accountability is to inform a
> client whether or not it "appears" that there was an inadvertent
> irradiation of the shipment, and whether or not an assessment can be
> made.
>
>> However, the main point is how can one make a reasonable correction to
>> the report? Assume a facility where the expected dose is next to
>> nothing, but that some people really do get exposures. It is awfully
>> hard to justify either zeroing out the people that are likely to have
>> received the dose, or to believe the ones that shouldn't have had the
>> exposure. Something that an automated process at the vendor would
>> have more trouble dealing with (possibly) than the vendor.
>
> One should never zero out an exposure. As I stated above, the
> responsibility for one's dose remains with the individual, and not
> the processor. If we note the Controls have been irradiated, we don't
> use them for subtracting elemental responses from the individual's
> dosimeter elemental responses. We provide information on the report
> that states that the controls were irradiated and what process we
> used to provide for some subtraction. However, the individual needs
> to accept, reject or provide a written estimate as to what they want
> used for a dose for the respective period in question. I as a
> processor will not make that determination.
>
>> Probably the best solution if this occurs is to treat all the badges
>> as damaged/lost and to replace them with estimated doses, except in
>> the cases where the badges receive dose significantly higher than the
>> typical "in transit" exposure.
>
> If all of the controls have an equal irradiation, and the spare
> badges show the same elemental responses, on could consider using
> those values as a subtraction for each element. Then the individual
> assesses whether or not the result is valid. If there is variation
> across the shipment, and nothing is statistically equivalent, then
> the results should be rejected and an estimate be provide din lieu of
> the dosimeter for that period. That is what we did in the power
> reactor in that we had secondary electronic dosimetry worn. In that
> most do not in the medical community or university environment, there
> are other acceptable methods to derive an estimated dose.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sandy
>
>> Dale
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
>> To: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>
>> Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
>>
>>
>> > Hi Dale,
>> >
>> > This all has to do with source geometry, is it a point source,
>> > several point sources, or more like a line source. location of
>> > source(s), distance, angle, etc. This is not an unusual observation.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Sandy
>> >
>> >
>> > On 24 Aug 2005 at 18:01, Dale Boyce wrote:
>> >
>> >> John's point is definitely a real one. While I have personally seen
>> >> doses as high as 300 mrem from intransit, I have seen a report come
>> >> back for a couple of thousand badges, several hundred of which had
>> >> exposures reported between 10 and 50 mrem with most in the 20 to 30
>> >> mrem category.
>> >>
>> >> Since these films were all shipped in the same box, one wonders why
>> >> the spread in reported exposure. Even though it is a lot of badges
>> >> when shipped as the film only the box is pretty small.
>> >>
>> >> Also, what correction could be applied in such a case if the
>> >> control showed 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 mrem?
>> >>
>> >> I guess one solution is to not use carriers that also handle
>> >> isotopes. The second best would be to not use the same carrier(s)
>> >> that deliver isotopes to your facility, since the most probable
>> >> place for the badges to be placed near a source in transit is
>> >> during final delivery. However, in the case mentioned different
>> >> carriers were used, but the one delivering the badges also does or
>> >> at least did transport RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Dale
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Wright, Will (DHS-PSB)" <WWright2 at dhs.ca.gov>
>> >> To: "Flood, John" <FloodJR at nv.doe.gov>; <sandyfl at earthlink.net>;
>> >> <jblute at NITON.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>; "Neill Stanford"
>> >> <stanford at stanforddosimetry.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005
>> >> 5:03 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> i believe i deleted the initial strings, could someone briefly
>> >> describe the issue or was this simply a discussion about the
>> >> inconvenience of maintaining a control. controls are critical as
>> >> indicated in all objective science endeavors/ bench top science as
>> >> well as others will teach this the hard way.
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
>> >> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Flood, John Sent:
>> >> Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:52 PM To: 'sandyfl at earthlink.net';
>> >> jblute at NITON.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; Neill Stanford Subject: RE: [
>> >> RadSafe ] Re: attn. Landauer Customers
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps I missed a post on this subject, but the discussion seems
>> >> to be overlooking the in-transit exposure that a control dosimeter
>> >> also monitors. There is no doubt that accurate background
>> >> subtraction is important to low dose measurements, but the absence
>> >> of background measurements can be a horrifying experience if every
>> >> dosimeter in the shipment to the processor shows a few hundred mrem
>> >> from irradiation in-transit. This is a very real, modern problem -
>> >> if your dosimeters sit next to some clinic's radionuclide shipment
>> >> on the truck or in the warehouse, expect to see 50-300 mrem on
>> >> every dosimeter (how would I know this?). Without control
>> >> dosimeters, life certainly gets more complicated.
>> >>
>> >> Bob Flood
>> >> Nevada Test Site
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:03:38 +0200
From: BRISSON Nicolas <nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr>
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Central Dose registry
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID:
<B6623D26F5792F458B5B9162AFFC1737C83ACE at citron.proton.intra.irsn.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi,
In France, IRSN is responsible for collecting dosimetry data for all classes
of radiation workers.
The department dealing with this is SISERI. You can check our website at
www.irsn.org and do a search on SISERI to get more information.
I'm afraid most of the available texts are in French though.
Feel free to mail me if you want a contact with the head of this department.
Regards,
Nicolas
Nicolas Brisson
IRSN/DEI/SIAR
31, rue de l'Ecluse
78116 LE VESINET
tel : 00 33 (0)1-30-15-42-75
FRANCE
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Sandy Perle [mailto:sandyfl at earthlink.net]
Envoyé : jeudi 25 août 2005 00:35
À : Frikkie Beeslaar
Cc : radsafe at radlab.nl
Objet : Re: [ RadSafe ] Central Dose registry
On 22 Aug 2005 at 12:39, Frikkie Beeslaar wrote:
> How do they do it in other countries?
Hi Frikkie,
Just returned home and can provide you with some information.
(1) Canada and the UK have a Centralized Registry, primarily for
specific class of radiation workers. In the UK they are called
Classified Workers, and in Canada, they are those that come under the
regulatory authority of the CNSC, or the specific Provinces, and, the
individual must exceed a specific dose threshold.
(2) In the USA there is the PADS system (Personnel Access Data
System) and is used primarily for transient nuclear power reactor
workers. This is not used for permanent staff.
There are probably other registries but I don't have that information
for you at this time. I can provide you with contact information for
the UK and Canada if you would like.
Regards,
Sandy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144
Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:31:46 +0200
From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Central Dose registry
To: <sandyfl at earthlink.net>, <beeslar at sabs.co.za>
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID:
<B35C9C2A433DCE43B5CBB7D5207262DE0ED688 at exbe01.intra.dlr.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Frikkie and all:
In Germany the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz BfS) <http://www.bfs.de/bfs/Impressum> (http://www.bfs.de/bfs?setlang=en <http://www.bfs.de/bfs?setlang=en> ) maintains a nationwide registry where occupational exposures of all radiation workers - since 2003 including aircrew - are filed for decades.
Regards, Rainer
________________________________
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von Sandy Perle
Gesendet: Do 25.08.2005 00:35
An: Frikkie Beeslaar
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Central Dose registry
On 22 Aug 2005 at 12:39, Frikkie Beeslaar wrote:
> How do they do it in other countries?
Hi Frikkie,
Just returned home and can provide you with some information.
(1) Canada and the UK have a Centralized Registry, primarily for
specific class of radiation workers. In the UK they are called
Classified Workers, and in Canada, they are those that come under the
regulatory authority of the CNSC, or the specific Provinces, and, the
individual must exceed a specific dose threshold.
(2) In the USA there is the PADS system (Personnel Access Data
System) and is used primarily for transient nuclear power reactor
workers. This is not used for permanent staff.
There are probably other registries but I don't have that information
for you at this time. I can provide you with contact information for
the UK and Canada if you would like.
Regards,
Sandy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144
Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:16:39 -0400
From: "Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX" <Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] TLD Glow Curve Question
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID:
<357F1A279A378A408DFDF7B82794EF020196CC27 at AMEDMLNARMC138.amed.ds.army.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi all,
These discussions about background subtraction concerning TLDs and so on
got me wondering about other spurious readings on TLDs. Do current TLD
readers analyzed the glow curve itself to detect anomalies that would
indicate and non-radiation related result? I recall some work from the
mid-1980s that showed glow curves from impacts, sweat, soap, etc., but I
don't recall if glow curve anomalies were used to discriminate against
spurious readings.
Thanks,
Jerry
________________________________
The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no
one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve
the right to make mistakes.
Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
Kadix Systems
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health
Physics Program
jerry.falo at us.army.mil
410-436-4852
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:27:57 -0700
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] TLD Glow Curve Question
To: "Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX" <Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil>
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <430D56DD.9359.2AD01E0 at localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On 25 Aug 2005 at 8:16, Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX wrote:
> These discussions about background subtraction concerning TLDs and so
> on got me wondering about other spurious readings on TLDs. Do current
> TLD readers analyzed the glow curve itself to detect anomalies that
> would indicate and non-radiation related result? I recall some work
> from the mid-1980s that showed glow curves from impacts, sweat, soap,
> etc., but I don't recall if glow curve anomalies were used to
> discriminate against spurious readings.
Jerry,
Generally, one would use external software to assess glow curves for
specific anomalies, if that were desired. However, one can generally
determine an anomaly simply viewing the glow curve without the need
for glow curve deconvolution.
Regards,
Sandy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144
Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Central Dose registry
To: sandyfl at earthlink.net, Frikkie Beeslaar <beeslar at sabs.co.za>
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <20050825124527.30532.qmail at web54304.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
One of the largest pool of radiation workers are those
who work in medical facilities. Does anyone know of a
registry for such workers?
--- Sandy Perle <sandyfl at earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2005 at 12:39, Frikkie Beeslaar wrote:
>
> > How do they do it in other countries?
>
> Hi Frikkie,
>
> Just returned home and can provide you with some
> information.
>
> (1) Canada and the UK have a Centralized Registry,
> primarily for
> specific class of radiation workers. In the UK they
> are called
> Classified Workers, and in Canada, they are those
> that come under the
> regulatory authority of the CNSC, or the specific
> Provinces, and, the
> individual must exceed a specific dose threshold.
>
> (2) In the USA there is the PADS system (Personnel
> Access Data
> System) and is used primarily for transient nuclear
> power reactor
> workers. This is not used for permanent staff.
>
> There are probably other registries but I don't have
> that information
> for you at this time. I can provide you with contact
> information for
> the UK and Canada if you would like.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sandy
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle
> Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
> Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
> 2652 McGaw Avenue
> Irvine, CA 92614
>
> Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306
> Fax:(949) 296-1144
>
> Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
> Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing
> list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have
> read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be
> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe
> and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl
http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of radsafe Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7
*************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list