[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Colorado Pocket Dosimeter Requirements



A 20% investigation criteria for pocket ion chambers exceeds the measurement capabilities of the instrument at low doses.  Reference the ANSI standard for pocket dosimeter calibration.

Pocket dosimeters have many inherent errors.  The typical calibration criteria is only +/- 20% at full scale.  A 20% linearity/accuracy criteria is measured at the low and high calibration points (typically around 40 and 160 mR).  Therefore acceptance criteria for the linearity/accuracy evaluation is 40 +/- 8 and 160 +/- 32.   The typical scale for low range is 0-200mR in 10 mR increments.  Many people try to guess in between the lines, but the dosimeter was never designed for that level of accuracy.  At best, each reading is +/- 5 mR accuracy.  This means that for low dose exposures <10, errors could be +/- 500% to 100%.  These errors are compounded by paralax error issues as high as 10 mR with unskilled users.  Drift issues exist if used for long times.  As with any instrument, the degree of accuracy improves with a skilled user and higher dose.   The total error term for a single low dose expos! ure is well over 20%.  Repeated use under low exposure conditions compounds these errors to very high numbers.  It is highly probable that any repetative, low exposure user would exceed 20% error.

Prior to the 80's and 90's (prior to electronic dosimeters), pocket dosimeters were used in power plants as a tool to assist workers  accumulate daily dose estimates so that they did not exceed maximum exposure limits.  TLD versus pocket dosimeter readings were accepted to contain high false positive results well in excess of 20% which were ignored as the accuracy of the detector.  Only the TLD reads that had significant dose and significantly exceeded pocket dosimeter estimates warranted evaluation.  Most plants have now switched to electronic dosimeters because of these pocket ion chamber limitations.


 

>From: Bruce Bristow
>Reply-To: Bruce Bristow
>To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Colorado Pocket Dosimeter Requirements
>Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:52:28 -0800 (PST)
>
>Colorado has recently required that we compare our
>monthly TLD results with our daily pocket dosimeter
>readings, at the end of each month and conduct an
>investigation if the variation between the two exceeds
>20%. Needless to say, if a person "mis-reads" the
>pocket dosimeter by just 1 mrem each day, the variance
>can easily exceed the 20%.
>I was wondering if anyone has heard of any other
>regulatory authority with this requirement and also if
>this is a valid comparison (dose -vs- exposure).
>Thanks
>
>Bruce Bristow
>Radiation Consultants
>e-mail: radcons@yahoo.com
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
>http://mail.yahoo.com/
>************************************************************************
>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.
************************************************************************ You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/