[ RadSafe ] SI Units

Thu Jan 18 16:16:16 CST 2007

Perhaps all these new nuclear plants that are being planned for will have
their techdoc's written in SI.  I think the HP's would deal well enough with
SI rad units.  The questions will arise with the pumps rated in kw instead
of horsepower (do you know the conversions off the top of your head?),
piping systems measured in meters, coolant temperatures in Celsius, etc. 

Brent Rogers
Leader Commercial Radiation Safety Group
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
PMB 1, Menai NSW 2234
T 61 2 9717 3251
F 61 2 9717 9266
M 0417 231 879
E brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au 
www.ansto.gov.au

-----Original Message-----
From: osuleiman at comcast.net [mailto:osuleiman at comcast.net] 
Sent: Friday, 19 January 2007 1:52 AM
To: sandyfl at cox.net; John R Johnson; nssihou at aol.com
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] SI Units

Important!

To keep threads/discussions more easily readible please observe the
following guideline when replying to a message or digest:

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than &quot;Re: Contents of radsafe digest ... and - rather than enclose an
entire
article that you quote only the germane sentence to which you're
responding&quot;.
_______________________________________________
Et al-

I find it really disturbing when it comes to how US scientists, primarily,
myself included, insist on using older  units.  It's not like the Roentgen
has been around for 2000 years, 1928 if you're interested. SI was introduced
in the 70's.

I do have discomfort using SI units, I will not lie.  However, if we are to
be progressive, and standardizing to minimize confusion is a noble cause,
why do we have an "our way or the highway" attitude?  Fortunately the
professional journals, and other organizations including the government are
moving forward, although at an extremely slow rate. I remember when I was
first introduced to SI in the 70's, that was several decades ago.  As a
scientific professional  I am frankly embarassed. Dissent is a right, and I
exercise it here.

And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen,
it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed
and debated to the extent that it is.  How can one expect to be respected as
open minded and collegial and yet behave in a way that can only be perceived
as bordering on the stubborn?

We have more important things to discuss.

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at cox.net> 

> Hi John, 
> 
> I do not believe that the US will adopt the SI units any time soon. 
> Ideally it would make sense to transition to the SI units, 
> understanding that we are among very few in numbers that continue to 
> use the non-SI unit, and, globalization within the market and 
> scientific community is getting smaller all the time. 
> 
> There are many issues to contend with a transition. It is more than 
> the work-place understanding the units. I do believe, and we have 
> seen, serious incidents occur whereby workers did not understand the 
> data, and, mis-judegements occurred, in some cases with significant 
> consequences. Assuming that these issues are eliminated, there are 
> the significant administrative and economic costs to contend with. 
> Just looking a the NPPs, training programs, revision of all SOPs, 
> postings, manuals and other documents would require revision at 
> substantial cost. There would be the issues with existing 
> instrumentation and read-out devices. 
> 
> I am not implying that all of these issues can't be mitigated to some 
> degree. I recognize that others have had to go through this 
> transition as well, and successfully implemented the new programs. 
> One just needs to be aware of all that must be done and determine the 
> impact as well as the time-frame to accomplish. Again, I just don't 
> see that this transition will occur due to the economic burden, and, 
> more importantly, there is nobody really pushing for this transition. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Sandy 
> 
> On 15 Jan 2007 at 15:47, John R Johnson wrote: 
> 
> > Bob 
> > 
> > Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety
hazard 
> than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think
that 
> having two "systems" is the problem. 
> > 
> > FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost

> completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US
would 
> be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. 
> > 
> > To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? 
> > 
> > John 
> > _________________ 
> > John R Johnson, Ph.D. 
> > ***** 
> > President, IDIAS, Inc 
> > 4535 West 9-Th Ave 
> > Vancouver B. C. 
> > V6R 2E2 
> > (604) 222-9840 
> > idias at interchange.ubc.ca 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Sandy Perle 
> Senior Vice President, Technical Operations 
> Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 
> 2652 McGaw Avenue 
> Irvine, CA 92614 
> 
> Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 
> Fax:(949) 296-1144 
> 
> Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
> Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list 
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the 
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html 
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ 
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/