Use of active personal dosemeters in interventional radiology and cardiology: Tests in laboratory conditions and recommendations - ORAMED project

Active personal dosemeters (APD) have been found to be very efficient tools to reduce occupational doses in many applications of ionizing radiation. In order to be used in interventional radiology and cardiology (IR/IC), APDs should be able to measure low energy photons and pulsed radiation with relatively high instantaneous personal dose equivalent rates. A study concerning the optimization of the use of APDs in IR/IC was performed in the framework of the ORAMED project, a Collaborative Project (2008-2011) supported by the European Commission within its 7th Framework Program. In particular, eight commercial APDs were tested in continuous and pulsed X-ray fields delivered by calibration laboratories in order to evaluate their performances. Most of APDs provide a response in pulsed mode more or less affected by the personal dose equivalent rate, which means they could be used in routine monitoring provided that correction factors are introduced. These results emphasize the importance of adding tests in pulsed mode in type-test procedures for APDs. Some general recommendations are proposed in the end of this paper for the selection and use of APDs at IR/IC workplaces.

Liberties and constraints of the normative approach to evaluation and decision in forensic science: a discussion towards overcoming some common misconceptions

At a time when disciplined inference and decision making under uncertainty represent common aims to participants in legal proceedings, the scientific community is remarkably heterogenous in its attitudes as to how these goals ought to be achieved. Probability and decision theory exert a considerable influence, and we think by all reason rightly do so, but they go against a mainstream of thinking that does not embrace-or is not aware of-the 'normative' character of this body of theory. It is normative, in the sense understood in this article, in that it prescribes particular properties, typically (logical) coherence, to which reasoning and decision making ought to conform. Disregarding these properties can result in diverging views which are occasionally used as an argument against the theory, or as a pretext for not following it. Typical examples are objections according to which people, both in everyday life but also individuals involved at various levels in the judicial process, find the theory difficult to understand and to apply. A further objection is that the theory does not reflect how people actually behave. This article aims to point out in what sense these examples misinterpret the analytical framework in its normative perspective. Through examples borrowed mostly from forensic science contexts, it is argued that so-called intuitive scientific attitudes are particularly liable to such misconceptions. These attitudes are contrasted with a statement of the actual liberties and constraints of probability and decision theory and the view according to which this theory is normative.

Forensic intelligence framework-Part I: induction of a transversal model by comparing illicit drugs and false identity documents monitoring

Forensic intelligence is a distinct dimension of forensic science. Forensic intelligence processes have mostly been developed to address either a specific type of trace or a specific problem. Even though these empirical developments have led to successes, they are trace-specific in nature and contribute to the generation of silos which hamper the establishment of a more general and transversal model. Forensic intelligence has shown some important perspectives but more general developments are required to address persistent challenges. This will ensure the progress of the discipline as well as its widespread implementation in the future. This paper demonstrates that the description of forensic intelligence processes, their architectures, and the methods for building them can, at a certain level, be abstracted from the type of traces considered. A comparative analysis is made between two forensic intelligence approaches developed independently in Australia and in Europe regarding the monitoring of apparently very different kind of problems: illicit drugs and false identity documents. An inductive effort is pursued to identify similarities and to outline a general model. Besides breaking barriers between apparently separate fields of study in forensic science and intelligence, this transversal model would assist in defining forensic intelligence, its role and place in policing, and in identifying its contributions and limitations. The model will facilitate the paradigm shift from the current case-by-case reactive attitude towards a proactive approach by serving as a guideline for the use of forensic case data in an intelligence-led perspective. A follow-up article will specifically address issues related to comparison processes, decision points and organisational issues regarding forensic intelligence (part II).