A
question for the pro-SI crowd.
How do you reconcile using a standard ion chamber type radiation
detector that reads out in microSv / hr, and recording that reading as the
exposure level? (I hope your
answer doesn’t include a discussion of quality factors. Regardless of what you may know about
beta & gamma radiation, the meter ain’t displaying microSv /
hr)
I
think this is my main discomfort with using SI units in that there is no
useful conversion for Roentgens.
If you are TRULY a proponent of SI, you should have a meter that reads
out in Coulombs / kg-hr (or metric subunits thereof), and then try to work
with that unwieldy number. Or
else only use tissue equivalent meters.
-Brent
Rogers
P.S. How many of you express your weight in
Newtons?
-----Original
Message-----
From: Ivor
Surveyor [mailto:isurveyor@vianet.net.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 April 2003 6:38
PM
To:
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Subject: RE: Bq soon
To a person
living outside of the USA it is a matter of amazement to find the bizarre
combination of units used in American texts. For instance on a single
page of a recently published text on Radiation Protection [ J. Shapiro 4th
Edition] I found the student had to contend with a plethora of
units.
On page
361: Ft; Ft^2; Ft/min; Ft^3/min; cm^3/day;
pCi/cc; microCi/cc; mCi; MBq
Or on page
372: 1 acre = 4,047 m^2; 1km^2 = 247 Acres; pCi/m^2-s
and a reminder
to multiple mCi by 37 to obtain MBq, and pCi by 0.037 to convert to Bq; or Ci
by 37 to obtain GBq.
Though out the book there is a continuous need to
convert Sv to rem(s); Gy to rad(s); length in cm, ft or m and so
on.
By the way in strict SI there is no place for the cm,
cc, or cm^3. or use of "pleural forms for
units.
I
just wonder how this irrational jumble of old and new units is
tolerated. Surely more then one "Mars probe" must have gone
astray, because of this confusing jumble? I suspect that more then
one author has developed a severe "headache" from proof reading of
texts. The high quality of many American texts and publications
are such as to have a great appeal to international
readers What a waste of intellectual effort is
expanded in converting backwards and forwards from one system to the other, as
one reads and studies papers, text books, or regulations.
I am not aware of any real problem in Australia or UK when we adopted
the SI system, except perhaps a feeling of joyous relief.
Ivor
Surveyor [isurveyor@vianet.net.au]