RE: Ion chamber versus GM

["Bob Carlson" <carlson@en.com>]

> Date:          Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:10:48 -0600 (CST)
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          "Dunn, Wes" <WDunn@intiso.com>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       RE: Ion chamber versus GM

> Any regulatory agency that would claim that an ion chamber is not
> acceptable for checking HDR sources is on very shakey grounds UNLESS (1)
> the licensee committed to using a GM.  Of course, as mentioned earlier,
> a scintillation probe is wonderful for finding lost sources.  However,
> they tend to be delicate.
> 

Unless you have committed to something other than that of 
10CFR35.300, 10CFR35.400, or 10CFR35.600, they specifiy having
both a "detection" and a "measurement" device.  You can argue the 
point but unless you have something else in your license, by the 
regulations you are stuck with the NRC definitions.
Bob Carlson
Medical Physics Consultant