Evaluation of Ludlum Corporation’s Portable Portal Monitor and Comparison with the HML’S Existing Portal Monitors

Abstract

Since the Human Monitoring Laboratory compared two types of portal monitors (the P3 and the MiniSentry) that could be field deployed in response to an emergency, two more brands have been added to the inventory. This paper summarizes a comparison of the capabilities of the previous portal monitors with the two additions: the Thermo Eberline TPM-903B and the Ludlum 52-1-1. The comparison shows that none of the portals greatly exceed the others in capability, but that each will have their place during emergency deployment; however, when beta radiation or low energy gamma radiation is suspected, then the best choice would be the Ludlum 52-1-1.

Modeling Population Screening Process for Maximizing Throughputs

“…The HML has a small stockpile of handheld radiation monitors, portal monitors, and high resolution portable whole body counters. Over the past years, the HML has carried out underlying research in support of this emergency response function (Kramer et al 2006(Kramer et al , 2007a(Kramer et al , 2007b(Kramer et al , 2009a(Kramer et al , 2009b(Kramer et al , 2012Kramer and Hauck 2011) as have others (Engdahi and Bharwani 2005;Miller et al 2011;Palmer et al 2012) looking at maximizing sensitivity of the screening techniques and the effect of persons carrying substantial contamination (either externally or internally) on the screening equipment. In addition, the HML has also had the opportunity to participate in several large scale exercises that have provided both experience and ideas for improving its field deployable capabilities (Cornett et al 2009;Cornett and Kramer 2010;Kramer et al 2005Kramer et al , 2007cKramer et al , 2009c.…”