[ RadSafe ] detectability and hazard

Cary Renquist cary.renquist at ezag.com
Wed Jun 8 20:26:29 CDT 2011

There are those in our industry who have a similar affliction.  
Assume that there is no hazard because their method of measurement
doesn't detect it.

I've been in a few facilities where they claim that they don't have any
contamination...  (only to have personnel alarm our portal monitor when
they return to our facility)

What they really mean is that they don't see any contamination via the
method they use to detect contamination.
Sometimes it is pure ignorance -- my GM has a 30+% efficiency for
Tc-99m...   This machine was set-up 15 years ago, we do a 8 second count
and it tells us if it is clean or not...
Sometimes it appears to be willful -- performing wet-wipes with very
absorbent material for alpha and counting while still damp.

Cary Renquist
cary.renquist at ezag.com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, 08 June 2011 14:43
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] detectability and hazard

The tendency to assume the existence of a genuine hazard based solely
upon the 
detectable presence of a toxic or radioactive material  is a sign of 
 technological ignorance, and I believe, is a prerequisite to obtaining 
employment in the news media.
Jerry Cohen

More information about the RadSafe mailing list