Re[2]: SI units

[Sandy_Perle_at_USFPL201@email.fpl.com]

If one considers the recent confusion with respect to whole body exposure, skin 
exposure and extremity exposure now being reported as deep dose equivalent, 
shallow dose equivalent - skin and maximum extremity and even added lens dose 
equivalent, let's really confuse the 750,000 radiation workers with SI units 
also. The workers already think that we're hiding dose from them .. and this all
on top of TEDE ALARA evaluations whereby NOT wearing a respirator is preferred 
..since it is NOW OK to receive internal exposure. It's really NOT as bad as we 
had been preaching for years. Yup,, sounds like SI units should just about do 
it. 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: SI units
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet-Mail
Date:    6/15/95 2:43 PM


You wrote: 
>
     
>We changed to basic metric (essentially the SI implementation) 
measurements for the general public 20 years ago with very little 
resistance or real difficulties.
>
>
>
>Michael Williamson                              ph +61 7 365 4504 
>Radiation Protection Adviser                    fax +61 7 365 1577 
>Occupational Health and Safety Unit
>University of Queensland
>Brisbane 4072
>Australia
>
>
>
Dear Michael,
     
    While I don't disagree with your premise that the SI units make 
more physical sense, I wonder if your country's conversion 20 years ago 
would have been quite so easy if you had 109 operating power reactors 
with tens of thousands of workers who had been throughly and 
+repeatedly+ trained in "mrem/dpm/microcurie/etc." limits.
     
    I consider this workforce familiarity with the "old" units to far 
outweigh any "scientific" advantage from wholesale conversion to SI.
     
Jim Barnes, CHP
Radiation Safety Officer
Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International 
Canoga Park, CA