For the specific absorbed dose constant for 60Co photons, three values quoted directly in the literature and two derived indirectly from published information are reported. The three publications giving the direct values mentioned no medium of absorption, whereas the other two specify tissue. A database of the specific absorbed dose constant is generated for each of 14 media namely air, water, bone and 11 types of soft tissue. These values are consistent with the three directly quoted values plus one of the indirectly obtained values. Air is found to be unlikely as the medium for the first three; and appropriate media for these are suggested. For the other two values, the generated database suggests that one is too small to be accurate; while the other is correct for tissue (as stated in the publication). An apparent error of 10(3) is identified in one of the values directly quoted.
During the years 1985-2008, the Secondary Standards Dosimetry Laboratory of Malaysia (SSDL Malaysia) has participated 37 times in the IAEA/WHO intercomparison programmes. This paper reports an analysis of the intercomparison data and demonstrates that the quality of the SSDL calibration service is well within the limits required by IAEA.
A cylindrical gamma-ray 60Co source of activity alpha is predicted to produce an exposure rate X at a distance d in vacuum, given by X = gamma(T)(alpha/d2), where gamma(T) is the specific gamma-ray constant. It has been documented that this formula may be used to approximate X with an accuracy of 1% from a source of length l, provided that d/l > or = 5. It is shown that the formula is accurate to 0.1% under these conditions, provided that the distance is measured from the centre of the source. When absorption in the source and scattering in the collimator are considered, the position of the origin d = 0 can shift by a distance of the order of centimetres. Absorption in air between the source and the ionization chamber adds an exponential factor to the formula. It is shown that even when these modifications are included the discrepancy in the results, although generally less than 1%, is still large compared with the measurement errors. Some suggestions are made for the origin of this discrepancy.