Re: Response to Sandy's Response

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

> > while the manufacturers swear that the "electronic dosimeter" is 
> > not a processing dosimeter, such as found with dose determination 
> > from a film or TLD, it is just that. There are built in algorithms and 
> > parameters set and those that are hidden, within the device, and if 
>            > those factors changes, so does the final dose reported."
> 
> It sounds almost conspiratorial.  You also make it sound like an algorithm
> "hidden" within the epd is somehow a bad thing.  I guess it just comes across
> (to me at least) as somewhat self-serving when a person employed by a dosimetry
> vendor makes such sweeping statements about a competing technology when there
> is at least one obvious exception to the one point calibration/algorithm epd
> that you are presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) aware of (i.e. the Siemens 
> EPD).  Maybe I'm being unfair with my last sentence.  If so, I apologize.

Hello John:

If an EPD has internal algorithms, that is good. My point was that 
this dosimeter should then be required to conduct a 
NVLAP/DOELAP or other accreditation evaluation, as is the case 
with other passive dosimeters. In that case, an individual can 
evaluate the various responses to their known spectrum, and 
consider what spectrum their employees may be exposed to "if" 
the facility has an incident whereby the spectrum does change. 
That was my only point.

As far as being a commercial vendor, all I can say is that the 
position I stated has been my position well before I joined the 
commercial ranks, going back to my 22 years at FPL. We have 
never met, and since we have not communicated before, perhaps 
you can arrive at your conclusion that I am biased. However, those 
who do know me that I hold a high degree of integrity and the one 
thing that all of us leave this world with, is our reputation. I am not 
about to destroy that based on commercial factors. I say what I 
believe, and if a competitor's product has qualities that I agree with, 
I so state that. The electronic dosimeter has come a long way in 
that time. But then again, a PIC can do the same thing if only a 
single spectrum is what the individual is exposed to. The electronic 
dosimeter is viable for "dose of record" once it is capable of 
eliminating the negatives and encompasses the positives that is 
found in current conventional dosimetry. 

The Siemens EPD, as well as others, are very good. If you recall, 
we marketed the EPD for awhile. The reasons we are not now had 
nothing to do with its technical capabilities. I am not degrading all 
electronic dosimeters. However, I still maintain that today's TLDs 
are far superior, allowing an individual to enter any area where the 
photon energy is between 15 keV and into the intermediate MeV 
range, where there are low energy as well as high energy beta 
sources, and, where there is also neutron. That being the case, I 
submit that these passive dosimeters are what the electronic 
dosimeter's capabilities must meet to be considered their 
"replacement".

Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html