Re[2]: In need of a Liquid Scintillation Counter

[TLPOPP@am.pnu.com]

  Armando & Andrew,
  
  Removing the source from the instrument gets to be another problem.  
  According to 10CFR31.5(c)(3), the source can only be removed in 
  accordance with the instructions provided by the label; or by 
  someone holding a specific part 30 AND 32 license to perform such an 
  activity.  I've reviewed both Packard's and Beckman's NRC license to 
  manufacturer and distribute this generally licensed material in 
  LSCs.  They both include statements about only persons specifically 
  licensed being authorized to install, dismantle or repair these 
  sources.  This same information is usually included on a label on 
  the instrument too.  So, you're stuck having someone, usually the 
  manufacturer, with a part 30 AND 32 license remove the source for 
  you, for a fee usually.  It makes it difficult to donate a LSC when 
  you have to contend with these rules, but it can be done, it's just 
  not as cheap as picking up the shipping fees though.
  
  Tim Popp
  Health Physics Scientist
  Pharmacia & Upjohn
  timothy.l.popp@am.pnu.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: In need of a  Liquid Scintillation Counter
Author:  "Armando Zea" <azea@engr-serv.usc.edu> at INTERNET
Date:    2/12/98 8:57 AM


Tim:

Thank you for the information.  If I find such a Counter, perhaps we
can have the source removed from the instrument, because this
researcher is going to used it only to count tritium, and not dual
labelled samples.

Thank you again for the information.

Armando

=====================
There is also the option of removing the source yourself (this can be hard
or easy depending on the model) with common tools and then just sending
the LSC out without a source. An internal standard is NECESSARY for the LSC
to function.
they can then purchase some vial standards to run for calibration.

my .02

Andrew

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Andrew Buchan Yale University
andrew.buchan@yale.edu
The above is my opinion and does not reflect
on Yale (for good or bad) in any way.
 ----------
Received: from gateway.pnu.com (146.240.56.70) by pw13mg.am.pnu.com with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 00162D11; Thu, 12 Feb 98 11:55:13
-0500
Received: from usc.edu by gateway.pnu.com with SMTP id AA00103
  (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for <TLPOPP@am.pnu.com>);
  Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:54:01 -0500
Received: from engr-serv.usc.edu (engr-serv.usc.edu [128.125.49.10])
     by usc.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8/usc) with SMTP
     id IAA29433 for <TLPOPP@am.pnu.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ENGR-SERV/MAILQUEUE by engr-serv.usc.edu (Mercury 1.11);
    Thu, 12 Feb 98 8:57:34 GMT+8
Received: from MAILQUEUE by ENGR-SERV (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 12 Feb 98 8:57:23
GMT+8
From: "Armando Zea" <azea@engr-serv.usc.edu>
Organization: USC
To: TLPOPP@am.pnu.com
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:57:15 PST
Subject: Re: In need of a  Liquid Scintillation Counter
Return-Receipt-To: "Armando Zea" <azea@engr-serv.usc.edu>
Priority: normal
In-Reply-To: <000CF379.001444@am.pnu.com>
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-Id: <41889F46F3A@engr-serv.usc.edu>