Personnel Dosimetry in the U.S.A.

Data collection, validation, and description for the Oak Ridge nuclear facilities mortality study

“…A disadvantage of the film badge was that the response of the film to photons was energy dependent, and an over-estimation of doses could have occurred because of the over-response of film to photons in the 60 to 90 keV range. An estimate of overall error in film badge readings under ideal conditions is ±10-40 percent for photon monitoring, +21-41 percent for beta monitoring, and +11-MOO percent for monitoring thermal neutron exposure (Chabot, 1978). Thermal heating of material within a TLD causes an emission of light proportional to the radiation exposure that was received.…”

“…Thermal heating of material within a TLD causes an emission of light proportional to the radiation exposure that was received. TLDs are relatively independent of photon energy and are able to measure X and gamma ray doses as low as 0.01 cSv with an estimated accuracy of +20 percent for mixed gamma exposures and +_40 percent for beta exposures (Chabot, 1978). Pocket ionization chambers (pocket meters) were also used in the early days of plant operations, particularly to obtain interim values between film badge readings, and continue to be used even today when high exposure potential is suspected (Parrish, 1982).…”

Characteristics of beta detection and dose measurement at Department of Energy facilities

“…It has been reported (Chabot, Jimenez, and Skrable 1978) that at least one vendor offers a film specifically for beta dosimetry with varying thidnesses of absorbers that provide information about the electron energy spectrum.…”

Beta Skin Dose Determination Using TLDs, Monte-Carlo Calculations, and Extrapolation Chamber

“…Thus, quality skin dosimetry is essential. Chabot et al (1978) reviewed personnel dosimetry in the U.S. and reported that 84% of respondents monitored for p radiation. About 25% used TLDs exclusively, 35% used TLDs in conjunction with film, and the remaining used film exclusively.…”

“…This method is generally unsatisfactory because the p fields are often different from the calibration fields. Since the p factor is a sensitive function of the radiation field characteristics, significant errors may occur in estimating the p doses (Chabot et al 1978;Sherbini and Porter 1985).…”