RE: Ion chamber versus GM

["Dunn, Wes" <WDunn@intiso.com>]

Bob,

Let's put it this way, I know which side of the argument I would want to
be on in the event of an administrative hearing that is based on the
concept that an ion chamber does not detect radiation (which is how a
hearing examiner will generally see the question).

Which doesn't mean one shouldn't be wary of the NRC definitions and
strive to get them fixed (whether in your license or the regulation
itself).

Wes

Wesley M. Dunn, CHP, Director, Environmental Health & Safety
International Isotopes, Inc.
3100 Jim Christal Road
Denton, Texas  76207
Wdunn@intiso.com <mailto:Wdunn@intiso.com> 
940-484-9492; 940-484-0877 (fax)



	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Bob Carlson [SMTP:carlson@en.com]
	Sent:	Friday, January 30, 1998 10:04 AM
	To:	Multiple recipients of list
	Subject:	RE: Ion chamber versus GM


	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