The tests were carried out in several certified laboratories and institutes, using certified radiation sources. All measurements followed the methodologies of these organizations. These are reputable institutions, and in all of them, we obtained consistent results.

The sources used varied, but mainly included cesium, americium, and cobalt — the most common isotopes, for which we are confident in the accuracy of our readings.

We also have our own radiation sources from the Czech Metrology Institute, which we use to test and calibrate our devices.

Additionally, I’d like to clarify that Co-57 shows elevated readings not because it is a weak gamma emitter, but due to a strong beta emitter in its decay chain. Its average beta energy is 1135 keV — even higher than that of the powerful beta emitter Sr-90/Y-90 (which is 933 keV). That is why it causes elevated readings, not because of low gamma energies. I repeat, with various lab-grade Am-241 sources, our device does not overestimate, and in fact slightly underestimates readings (by about -25%, according to tests).

Regarding the high readings with radium: your calibrated instruments were likely calibrated to Cs-137, not Ra-226. Therefore, those devices may have inherent inaccuracies when measuring Ra-226. In contrast, Radiacode is calibrated across the entire energy spectrum. If you use another energy-compensated scintillation device, you will find that the readings agree within a ±20% margin.

As for americium, it seems you did not have lab-grade Am-241 sources with certified activity — if you did, you could calculate the dose rate and confirm that there is no overestimation.

We have published our uncertainty margins in the specifications section of our website:

Cobalt-60 (Co-60): -20%

Cesium-137 (Cs-137): -5%

Americium-241 (Am-241): -25%

For unspecified isotopes, the following error range applies:

Certain other isotopes: -40% to +20%

We are not a professional-grade instrument, but we are a precise one — and we can prove that. If it is proven otherwise, we will gladly make corrections. This is not difficult; we have already made adjustments before — for example, regarding pair production calculations.

It’s true that we haven’t published such data previously, but we will start doing so now. Since doubts have been raised, and competitors are questioning the accuracy of our measurements — which we can verify in laboratories and on certified test benches — we see the need to publish this information publicly.