Re: Dose estimates when dosimetry is lost/damaged

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>]

>  A dosimeter processing service just 
> might be to report the average the previous radiation exposures so that the RSO 
> can use this information as a part of his/her assessment of the estimated 
> radiation dose.

The RSO or whomever the facility has assigned the responsibility for 
the rad protection program, including personnel monitoring should 
already be cognizant of this information, and they should have the 
dose reports readily available. If this isn't the case, I would say 
there is a different problem.

>  It is the customer that decides whether this is a valid 
> estimate or not.  It seem irrelevant whether the RSO spends hours and days 
> looking through 3, 6, or 12 months worth of dosimetry reports and then averages 
> the previous exposures by hand, or the processor (who has all of this 
> information in a computer database) provides that information to the RSO for a 
> fee.  

One need not look at 3 or 6 or 12 months of dosimetry records. They 
should first investigate and talk to the individual who either lost 
or damaged their badge and find out what kind of work they were 
involved in, and if anything out of the ordinary occured.
 
> How do you propose to support and document the accuracy of the RSO's 
> investigation of the estimated dose.  Would you require that the RSO submit the 
> investigation for your review and approval before accepting his/her assessment? 

All that is necessary is a statement from the facilities authorized 
representative that they are providing the following estimates for 
their individuals. That covers them as well as us. The important 
point is that the only estimating should be the responsibility of the 
facility, NOT the dosimetry processor.

> And to be nitpicky, the individual that lost or damaged the badge is NOT 
> responsible for estimating the dose.  If your company damaged or lost the badge 
> in processing, would the TLD reader technician at your facility be responsible 
> for estimating the dose?  I hope not. The person responsible for estimating the 
> dose is the person at the employer's institution that has responsibility for the 
> radiation dosimetry program, e.g., the Radiation Safey Officer.

The individual is a key person, and they should be involved with the 
approval of the estimate. I really don't care who makes the estimate, 
just that it not be the processor. The RSO, HP or anyone who is 
cognizant of the program should be involved. If not, how would you 
handle a questionable dose, or, an alleged incident reported to the 
regulatory bodies?

> > "With all due respect, this is marketing and does not belong on
> > RADSAFE.:
> Let me see, you state what your dosimetry processing company will do for its 
> customers while criticizing your competitor's services.  Sounds like marketing 
> to me.  

So, if a dosimetrist, one who also happens to be employed by a 
commercial company asks or writes about a topic that is within his 
professional accountabilities, it is considered "marketing." Does 
that also correlate to a physician who works in a hospital when 
discussing hospital issues is "marketing" for patients, or an HP or a 
technologist? If there are no issues to be reckoned with, or issues 
involving radiation exposure, then maybe your facility could save 
some money since it is also obviosu that your position is nothing 
more than overhead. No risks to be concerned with, no need for 
rofessional staff.

> Kent Lambert, CHP
> lambert@allegheny.edu

I will not respond to any further discussions regarding my original 
post, questions and philosophy. I will be glad to write others in 
private e-mail, as I have already been doing. It is interesting to 
note that Kent is the only objectionable response I have received. I 
believe Kent's aggressive attack stems back to my days with FPL, and 
my comments regarding who should be badged, and what should be 
considered when considering eliminating TLDs. It's too bad that 
previous discussions still cloud current discussions. Time to get 
past that Kent.

Sandy Perle
Director, Technical Operations
ICN Dosimetry Division
Office: (800) 548-5100 Ext. 2306 
Fax: (714) 668-3149

E-Mail: sandyfl@ix.netcom.com    

Homepages:

http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205