Re: RE: More Funky Stuff From Landauer in March

[tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de Castro)]

>>Call me a dinosaur, but the chance for strange readins on a 
>>dosimeter is what has stopped us from going over to TLDs.
>>You can always have someone look at a strip of film to
>>see if it appears that something is funky.  One gets
>>less info about directionality and/or contamination
>>from TLDs,  and you lose the sharp absorber pattern
>>indicating a one shot exposure in a fixed geometry
>>that would show that either the person got it from an
>>xray or that they were not wearing it when it was exposed.

You're not the only dinosaur!!

While TLD might be nice for bean counters and you can NEVER be challenged on 
the reading - I still agree with all your points re film!

I bemoan the day we switched to TLD.  I do understand it is nice to have 
something with a flat energy response (giving up the ENHANCED sensitivity to 
low energy x-ray) - so to my mind the ideal dosimeter would be TLD WITH FILM 
- and don't develop the film unless there is a TLD reading and then process 
it with an automatic processor since you are only looking for image data and 
not dosimetery data.

BTW - you left off one other thing that film was very good for that TLD 
won't do ..... finding a lab with sloppy handling practices from those 
"little spots on the film".

It was also easier to weed out non-occupational exposure from airport x-rays 
to - the images of staples or bobby pins was always a dead giveaway!!

And then there is the person that takes a badge to a dentist office to 
"spike" it to get attention - the clear ultra sharp image on film was 
another clear indication!