Re: Dosimeters and airport security - Relative Response of dosimeters

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

Apparently you misunderstood my comment - unfortunately my mail client

chose this one time NOT to append that to which I was responding.  Sorry



To clarify:



I found the comment in a previous post in this thread alleging that MOST

HPs didn't already realize this very hard to believe AND that if that

were indeed a true statement - it would represent a sad commentary on

the profession!



Yes I know these things and yes it is that way and yes it seems in

nature that linearity is the exception! and yes I did dosimetry for some

time.



Also - even if it were linear - I could see reasons to "do our own".



Rob Gunter wrote:

> 

> Take a look at the difference between NVLAP and DOELAP and ask ANYONE if

> they use the same algorithm for both.  You will find that they don't because

> they would not perform as well on one or the other.  Next take a look at the

> relative response of TLD (LiF, LiBO, etc) to photons of different energies.

> You will see that even TLDs are energy dependant.  And how about those very

> low E photons (less than 30 KeV), you will notice the response of all

> dosimeters tailing off (or not shown in graphs) because they photons don't

> penetrate the dosimeter hanger.  This must be corrected for.  If that isn't

> enough, consider the calculation of Beta dose.  This is highly energy

> dependant and your vendor will have different algorithms for different

> "effective energies".

> 

> Life would be much easier if it wasn't that way, and I can say for certain

> that no entity (nuclear power, national lab, etc) would ever consider doing

> their own dosimetry if this were not the case.  This is why many health

> physicists spend their careers doing dosimetry.

> 

> Yours,

> 

> Rob

> 

> Robert J. Gunter, CHP

> East Tennessee Technology Park

> Operations Support Manager

> Safety and Ecology Corporation

> Bldg 1020, Rm 18

> Oak Ridge, TN 37830

> Ph:  (865) 241-9748

> Cell: (865) 556-4380

> Pager:  (865) 873-0078

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Ted de Castro

> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:28 AM

> To: Rob Gunter

> Cc: Radsafe

> Subject: Re: Dosimeters and airport security - Relative Response of

> dosimeters

> 

> Frankly - I find that very hard to believe and it would be a sad

> statement indeed if it really were true!

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> 

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

************************************************************************

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/