[ RadSafe ] DHS Tests of Radiation Detectors WereInconclusive, Report Says

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

That's cool.  I am all for training.  In fact, I wouldn't object to DHS
establishing a facility where hopeful companies try out their equipment
to see if it makes the grade.  But when it comes test time, the
equipment needs to perform in conditions as close to real world as
possible, which is not compatible with "dress rehearsals" and
"calibration" runs. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DHS Tests of Radiation Detectors
WereInconclusive,Report Says

Mike, that description fits "training" better than "calibration".

George Dowell
NLNL
New London Nucleonics Lab


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] DHS Tests of Radiation Detectors
WereInconclusive,Report Says


I interpreted "calibration" in this case not to be using a known source
to make sure the instrument was operating within expected parameters,
but using the source it was expected to find to make sure it would find
it.  If that is the case, I agree with the auditor that it invalidates
the event as being an actual test of the detector's capabilities.
Unless all smugglers are required to give advanced warning in writing,
so the detectors can be set up for the isotope that will be coming
through.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Sawyer, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:41 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] DHS Tests of Radiation Detectors
WereInconclusive,Report Says

When was the last time you used a radiation monitor that hadn't first
been calibrated?

Jeff

[edit]

>With that certification in mind, the nuclear detection office conducted

>tests in Nevada early last year. Those tests were called into question
when
>GAO auditors found that department officials had allowed contractors to

>conduct "dress rehearsals" and calibrate their machines in anticipation
of
>the tests.
>The review team's report discounted the auditor's findings that the
tests
>were biased. The team also said it found no evidence the test data were

>manipulated.

March 4

         What is the difference between this and outright collusion?
*Is*
there any difference?

Steven Dapra


>****************************************
>No comment.
>
>Clayton J. Bradt
>dutchbradt at hughes.net

_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/