Re: New dosimeter for emergency personnel

[Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>]

Philip Hypes wrote:
> 
> Of course more details would be needed before making decisions about
> issuing the dosimeters to any specific organization.  All I'm saying is the
> information from these dosimeters could be useful in a lot of situations
> that don't call for anything complicated enough to support eventual dose
> reconstruction.  Any safety technology used poorly can give a false sense
> of security.  Unless you are going to put a well equipped HP on every
> ambulance, fire truck, and in every police car, there is going to be a
> place for dosimeters like this.  

I disagree.  An HP in every car is certainly not necessary.  What I
did here when I was RADEF chief for the area emergency management
agency was simply to put a rugged, inexpensive GM survey meter in
each first responder vehicle.  I then trained each first responder
driver (shift commander, HAZMAT chief, the various truck drivers and
anyone else interested) in the basic use of the instrument.  It
doesn't take a CHP to be able to pass a survey probe over a surface
and note an upscale reading or to close the shield and note the dose
rate.  This was a go-no-go test.  Upon any significant indication,
they paged one of our team to come do an expert survey.  We've had
to deal with a number of stolen isotope transport vehicles from Oak
Ridge and the system has worked well in each case.

All these guys get annual training in basic radiation protection as
part of their requals.  Nothing magic about it.  Someone else had
the valid concern that a false-positive indication would inhibit a
life-saving operation.  While a possibility, your typical fireman or
rescue person would treat a high nuclear radiation field exactly the
same as a high thermal radiation field after being properly
trained.  They'd charge in to save a life just as they'll charge
into a burning building to save a life.

> It sounds to me like they could be used
> roughly the way pencil dosimeters have been used, but without the fragility
> problems.  There will be other problems, but the cost benefit analysis is
> up to the individual who decides to use these dosimeters instead of another
> technology.  Let's just hope that individual has the knowledge and
> judgement to make a wise choice.

Unfortunately this LANL device, if it ever actually materialized,
would probably be worse than useless.  At least with pocket
chambers, one can get some idea of rate and one doesn't have to
worry about the thing being expired or accidentally activated in the
package or fouled by other chemicals or....  Seems to me like a
small chirper powered by a zinc-air or other long shelf life battery
would be a much better solution for not much more money.  That could
be worn under the turn-outs would not require visual contact to
function.

I'm afraid this was just another one of those content-free feel-good
press releases that seem to come out of the former national labs on
a daily basis these days.  This makes me so sad to see such
legendary operations as LANL and ORNL struggling not to die.  I feel
like I'm reading an obituary every time I read one of these.  I wish
Congress would either find a mission suitable for the caliber of
people and reputation at the Labs or else just kill them off and
stop the dying quivers.

John
-- 
John De Armond
johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
http://neonjohn.4mg.com
Cleveland, TN
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html