Skip Navigation


Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on March 4, 2008
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2008 130(3):269-284; doi:10.1093/rpd/ncn052
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
130/3/269    most recent
ncn052v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kenyon, R.
Right arrow Articles by Collison, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kenyon, R.
Right arrow Articles by Collison, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Extremity dosimetry trial: Devonport Royal Dockyard

Rob Kenyon1,* and Roger Collison2

1 Employer during the trial: Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd. (Employer as of January 2007: GE Healthcare, The Grove Centre, White Lion Road, Amersham, Buckinghamshire HP7 9LL, UK
2 Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd, Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth PL1 4SG, UK

* Corresponding author: robert.x.kenyon{at}ge.com

Received October 23, 2007, amended December 10, 2007, accepted January 10, 2008

This trial was undertaken to assess extremity dosemeters, which were made available to Devonport Royal Dockyard and determine the most suitable to the site. The trial included operational and laboratory-based exposures. Operational exposures were within a submarine reactor compartment and a waste storage area. Laboratory exposures were undertaken using 241Am, 137Cs and 60Co sources to compare and contrast the dosemeters energy response. In addition, the low dose response and the response if placed in the incorrect orientation were also assessed. Ten passive and two active dosemeters were tested, with three highlighted as the most technically suitable, DSTL Harshaw DXT-RAD, HPA Harshaw EXT-RAD and the AMEC Panasonic UD-807A. The most technically suitable dosemeter was the DSTL Harshaw DXT-RAD, due to good responses within all aspects of the trial and the user's preference for the ring type design. The John Caunt ED2 electronic dosemeter 2 (ED2) also performed well, but suffered radio frequency interference.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.