[ RadSafe ] Adopting the International System of Units for Radiation Measurements in the United States: Proceedings of a Workshop

Mon Mar 6 11:58:32 CST 2017

I am glad to hear there was such a sensible presentation.

So everyone cheats for convenience - and my cheat will be to stay with 
what works.

Still I need to address a requirement that cannot be complied with - 
mainly because it simply wrong!

On 3/6/2017 9:56 AM, Jason Meade wrote:
> "I have yet to see an cabinet x-ray leakage limit correctly specified in a
> MEASURABLE 35.8 pico C/Kg.sec - to go COMPLETELY SI (I hope I got that
> right)."
>
> I think the one of best talks there was done by someone who did take the
> time to point out there's no such thing as a "pure SI" system that is
> universally used for absolutely everything and exclusive for all situations.
>
> For example, in "pure SI," there is "no such unit of time besides
> seconds."  Do you see many Europeans researchers/scientists/public figures
> talking about what they did 31 1/5 million seconds or so ago?  And Celsius
> is not the SI unit for temperature, kelvin is, but kelvin is just not
> practical for most "ordinary" purposes.
>
> And even here we tend to play mix 'em up with units.  Especially in
> medicine, where we use (milli)liters and grams for so much but connect them
> to RAM measured in units of Curies or play the Gy and pounds game.
>
> I'd put that talk near the top, as it was an emphasis that this doesn't
> have to be a line in the sand, either/or, pick a side and fight to the
> death kind of battle.
>
> For the record (and in my personal opinion) I'd put the top talk as
> probably the one done by a reporter/author/risk communication expert (David
> Ropeik) who is not an expert in our field at all but gave a fantastic talk
> about how having all the competing rad units covering so many different
> aspects makes it so that even journalists who want to be responsible and
> accurate and thorough have a tough time if they haven't taken college
> classes specifically with regards to radiation and how it is *OUR
> COMMUNITY'S* responsibility to get out there and start clearing things up,
> starting with those who do the communicating and the informing of the
> biggest portions of the population.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Ted de Castro <tdc at xrayted.com> wrote:
>
>> I have yet to see an cabinet x-ray leakage limit correctly specified in a
>> MEASURABLE 35.8 pico C/Kg.sec - to go COMPLETELY SI (I hope I got that
>> right).
>>
>> Haven't seen an IC survey meter yet scaled in pico C/Kg.sec either.  Are
>> they sold that way in Europe??
>>
>> They all say mSv now - and that is incorrect.
>>
>> On 3/6/2017 9:10 AM, Jason Meade wrote:
>>
>>> "Did the workshop have anything to say about the rampant misuse of units
>>> afforded us by SI?"
>>>
>>> Sort of, briefly, and quite indirectly.
>>>
>>> But it was more covered under the confusion and misdirection in
>>> journalism,
>>> in the public arena, and in emergency response communication issues due to
>>> mix and match problems of dual system usage, an not really covered as a
>>> separate issue.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Ted de Castro <tdc at xrayted.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did the workshop have anything to say about the rampant misuse of units
>>>> afforded us by SI?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to an incredibly cumbersome EXPOSURE unit - regulatory exposure
>>>> limits are now being expressed in DOSE units without specifying - dose to
>>>> what.
>>>>
>>>> Back in the back old days when we where just too stupid to know any
>>>> better
>>>> these things were expressed in exposure units.  When a DOSE unit was
>>>> expressed - rad - it was expressed as rad in xxxx. And was seldom
>>>> measured
>>>> but usually calculated.
>>>>
>>>> So I recently encountered a quasi regulatory document called SEMI 2 which
>>>> has among other things:
>>>>
>>>> "Direct doserate measurement with an Ion Chamber {or equivalent)
>>>> calibrated
>>>> to +/- 10% of true doserate at the surface of the equipment (or at the
>>>> closest
>>>> approach) in all areas where the operator may have access with the
>>>> ionizing
>>>> radiation source active.*"
>>>>
>>>> *Sorry - wrong!  An ion chamber is an exposure instrument NOT dose rate -
>>>> and this is for analytical x-ray for which the spectrum from one end to
>>>> the
>>>> other varies considerably and the exposure to dose ratio is spectrum
>>>> dependent and will vary more than the requisite 10% from one end to the
>>>> other.  Let along the body part to which their dose limits apply is not
>>>> specified.  (they give the limits in Sv) I maintain there is in fact no
>>>> survey instrument that can measure this!
>>>>
>>>> So - with their use of SI and misuse of type of unit we are confronted
>>>> with a published imperative which is clearly impossible to comply with.
>>>>
>>>> So - what did the workshop have to say about ion chambers with Sv marked
>>>> on the meter faces?
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>> On 3/3/2017 5:51 AM, Jason Meade wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It was a great workshop and well worth my time, but after it was done,
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> pretty sure it will be done again with almost an identical agenda in 10
>>>>> years time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Entirely too much "but this is the way we've always done it" and "it
>>>>> would
>>>>> be too hard" type talking among those who've always been doing the work
>>>>> and
>>>>> who are largely in charge for any type of shift in thinking, despite the
>>>>> fact that the majority of the scientific and academic portions of our
>>>>> education system have already made the change.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Cary Renquist <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    From the National Academies Press.
>>>>>
>>>>>> One can always download the PDF version for free (might require an
>>>>>> account)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adopting the International System of Units for Radiation Measurements
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the United States: Proceedings of a Workshop
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most countries in the world use the SI (Système International, also
>>>>>> known
>>>>>> as the metric system) units for radiation measurements in commercial
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> technical activities. The United States, in contrast, uses a mix of SI
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> conventional units for radiation measurements, despite 30-year-old
>>>>>> national
>>>>>> and international recommendations to exclusively use SI. Radiation
>>>>>> professionals in the United States are faced with the need to
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> both systems and make conversions between the two.
>>>>>> Short link
>>>>>> http://bit.ly/2mPP5bQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adopting the International System of Units for Radiation Measurements
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the United States: Proceedings of a Workshop | The National Academies
>>>>>> Press
>>>>>> <https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24645/adopting-the-
>>>>>> international-system-of-units-for-radiation-measurements-in-
>>>>>> the-united-states?utm_source=NASEM+News+and+Publications&
>>>>>> utm_campaign=b2788914c1-Final_Book_2017_03_02_24645&utm_
>>>>>> medium=email&utm_term=0_96101de015-b2788914c1-102196093&
>>>>>> goal=0_96101de015-
>>>>>> b2788914c1-102196093&mc_cid=b2788914c1&mc_eid=3ee8f719d6>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Cary Renquist
>>>>>> cary.renquist at ezag.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://health.phys.iit.edu/
>>>>>> radsaferules.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>>>>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/rad
>>>> saferules.html
>>>>
>>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/rad
>> saferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>
>
>