Re: Bq soon:Why this discussion again ?

["Vincent King" <slavak@attbi.com>]

It is kind of funny that these arguments still arise against 'future'

changes to incorporate SI units when so many in the U.S. have already made

such changes - and survived.  Most of us have become fluent ('bilingual'?)

in both SI and non-SI units.



There is no need to speculate about how costly it is to change procedures.

Just incorporate the changes in the next routine procedure revision, which

most facilities are required to do anyway.



And to say that rems and curies are somehow more intuitive or the "right"

size is just plain silly.  There was nothing intuitive about them when I

first encountered them; it was just a matter of learning them. It's no more

difficult to put an "M" in front of Bq than it is to put a "m" in front of

Ci. (And I know a 5.0 liter car engine is big, without having to convert to

cubic inches.)



If your facility or site has no dealings with any outside organization where

SI units are used, then use whatever units make you happy.  But don't

complain about those who DO have to deal with the rest of the health physics

world who want to make life a little simpler by standardizing rather than

having to continue manipulating units back and forth.



In my opinion, a good HP can handle it.



Vincent King

Grand Junction, CO





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/