Re[2]: When does "rem" no longer apply?

[Bates.Estabrooks@rfets.gov (Bates Estabrooks)]

          I believe the original question dealt with the issue of when 
          doses (or rates) are more properly expressed in Rads vs. REM.  
          For instance, the DOE Rad Con Manual shows a Radiation Area as 
          being >5 mrem/h, but a High Radiation Area is shown as >0.1 
          REM/ but<500 rad/h. A Very High Radiation Area is >500 rad/h.
          
          This question has puzzled me also.
          
          Bates Estabrooks
          bates.estabrooks@rfets.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: When does "rem" no longer apply?
Author:  "Gibbs; S Julian" <s.julian.gibbs%vanderbilt.edu@inet.rfets.gov> at 
inet
Date:    3/30/98 2:28 PM


I suppose that if you want to be totally politically 
correct, the rem (along with rad, roentgen, curie, etc.) 
are now obsolete units.  However, a whole bunch of us 
diehards grew up thinking in these old units; we are having 
much difficulty converting.  I'm trying.  I write (and 
teach) in grays, sieverts, becquerels, etc., but still 
think in the rad, rem, and curie.
Seriously, we Americans are the subject of international 
ridicule because of our refusal to adopt SI units.  I guess 
we have to.  I just wish the powers that be would find 
something better to do than to dream up new units.  
*********************************************************** 
S. Julian Gibbs, DDS, PhD               Voice: 615-322-3190 
Professor of Radiology                    FAX: 615-322-3764 
Dept. of Radiology & Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Nashville TN 37232-2670 Email:s.julian.gibbs@Vanderbilt.Edu