RE: Treatment of Contaminated Personnel

["Earley, Jack" <jack.earley@rfets.gov>]

As I recall, and these are my opinions only, the RO-7 has an extended cable,
while the Teletector has a 13 ft extension probe. Considering the question
of radiography sources, the extended probe (I assume Ludlum's is an
equivalent design) would be the wiser choice.
Jack

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	James.P.Revels%ucm.com@inet.rfets.gov
[SMTP:James.P.Revels%ucm.com@inet.rfets.gov]
	Sent:	Tuesday, March 02, 1999 9:09 AM
	To:	Multiple recipients of list
	Subject:	RE: Treatment of Contaminated Personnel

	The Teletectors are limited to 1000 R/hr.  The Ro-7 is one of the
only
	portable instruments that will measure dose rates up to 20 kR/hr

	> -----Original Message-----
	> From:	Laning, Eric [SMTP:ejlaning@bechtel.com]
	> Sent:	Tuesday, March 02, 1999 9:53 AM
	> To:	Multiple recipients of list
	> Subject:	RE: Treatment of Contaminated Personnel
	> 
	> Eberline used to also market  an extended probe dose rate
instrument named
	> a
	> teletector which as I recall had ability to see >
1000R/hr...Ludlum also
	> makes a similar instrument, Model 77-3 Stretch scope. 
	>  
	> These are my comments/opinions and mine alone. 
	> 
	> EJ Laning
	> ejlaning@bechtel.com
	> > -----Original Message-----
	> > From:	David.S.Villicana@ucm.com
[SMTP:David.S.Villicana@ucm.com]
	> > Sent:	Tuesday, March 02, 1999 9:30 AM
	> > To:	Multiple recipients of list
	> > Subject:	RE: Treatment of Contaminated Personnel
	> > 
	> > The difficulty is: there is no instrument to measure dose rates
>1000
	> R/h.
	> > Since the value is unknown, you cannot estimate a stay time. In
an
	> > official
	> > procedure, I think the advice should be: if your instrument is
off
	> scale,
	> > back away.
	> > 
	> > An RO 7 made by Eberline with its High Range detector could be
used.
	> > The range is 19.9krem/hr and the resolution is 10 rem/hr.
	> > The instrument is normally used for under water work but could
easily be
	> > used for this type of work.
	> > Thanks
	> > David Villicana
	> > David.S.Villicana@ucm.com
	> > 
	> > > -----Original Message-----
	> > > From:	Mike McNaughton [SMTP:MCNAUGHT@lanl.gov]
	> > > Sent:	Sunday, February 28, 1999 4:16 AM
	> > > To:	Multiple recipients of list
	> > > Subject:	Re: Treatment of Contaminated Personnel
	> > > 
	> > > >d) Now let's take into account  the following  remark: If the
dose
	> rate
	> > > is
	> > > >>1000 R/h, back off and do not perform a rescue.
	> > > 
	> > > Note: the "greater than" symbol is confused with the ">"
symbol added
	> by
	> > > the email program. This should read: >1000 R/h. If the dose
rate
	> equals
	> > > 1000 R/h, I agree with the following analysis.
	> > > 
	> > > >This value is a dose rate and should consider the time
necessary for
	> > the
	> > > >rescue. In case of the ICRP and IAEA recommendations, if the
total
	> > > effective
	> > > >dose considered for life saving is 500 mSv (50 R), and
considering
	> a
	> > > >scenario that the dose rate is 1000 R/h,  this means that the
time
	> for
	> > > >rescue should be not more than  3 minutes. It is really a
very high
	> > > balance
	> > > >for decision making.  
	> > > 
	> > > The difficulty is: there is no instrument to measure dose
rates >1000
	> > R/h.
	> > > Since the value is unknown, you cannot estimate a stay time.
In an
	> > > official
	> > > procedure, I think the advice should be: if your instrument is
off
	> > scale,
	> > > back away.
	> > > 
	> > > In reality, perhaps a volunteer would perform a rescue anyway.
Which
	> > leads
	> > > to the following.
	> > > 
	> > > In some existing training (not in Los Alamos) the official
advice is:
	> if
	> > > you measure ANY radiation, wait for the knowledgeable
authorities.
	> This
	> > > official advice is followed during exercises and drills. I am
told: in
	> a
	> > > real situation where life is at risk, we would do it
differently. How
	> > > strange!
	> > > 
	> > > >"Aspects of
	> > > >the Initial and Recovery phases of the Radiological Accident
in
	> > Goiania,
	> > > >Brazil",  Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Recovery
	> > > Operations
	> > > >in the Event of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency
- IAEA,
	> > > Vienna,
	> > > >6-10 November 1989. If you which a copy please give me your
complete
	> > > >address and I will send to you.
	> > > 
	> > > Yes, I would very much like a copy. Please send to:
	> > > Dr M. McNaughton
	> > > J596
	> > > Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
	> > > 
	> > > Thank you for your helpful comments. mike
	> > > 
	> > > "Shlala gashle" (Zulu greeting meaning "stay safe") mike
	> > >
	>
************************************************************************
	> > > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
	> > > information can be accessed at
	> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
	> >
************************************************************************
	> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
	> > information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
	>
************************************************************************
	> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
	> information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
	
************************************************************************
	The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
	information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html