Re: Let's hear it for SI units!

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

It is simplistic to move towards complete transition without 
considering all of the appropriate factors. First and foremost, 
consideration of what is to be gained, outweighing the cons, must be 
determined, and accepted by all entities. To say that we must change 
solely for the reason that many other countries have done so, is not 
justification. One only need to speak to many individuals in other 
countries to come away with some of the horror stories they tell, 
based on using SI units. 

If the SI units is required in the USA, the following costs will be 
required. Therefore, a cost justification should be required by all 
regulatory entities:

(1) A significant training program must be implemented in all 
facilities that will use the new units; i.e., nuclear power stations, 
hospitals, industrial facilities, etc. When the fact that many 
professional programs don't address radiation risk, units now, and 
the individuals don't even understand what a dose of 10 mrem means, 
think of what will happen when new units are reported.

(2) All procedures must be revised. In the power reactor world alone, 
this would be a monumental task, at considerable cost.

(3) Text books and other documents would have to be revised to 
incorporate the new units.

(4) Think of the media and the public. I'm not suggesting that the 
media or public understand today's units, and most likely, they will 
still misuse them. However, the public could assume that changing the 
units is simply another means to confuse the public, by the biased 
pro-nuclear forces.

In summary, the cost to what can already be considered as wasteful $$ 
(assuming that LNT is not valid), will be increased exponentially, 
simply by converting to new units. Who are we changing for? To 
appease other countries? Obviously, there is little to be gained for 
the average physicist in a hospital or power reactor facility. In 
essence, their lives will be made even more complicated, at the same 
time there will not be one additional ounce of prevention, reduction 
of dose, etc. There is no justification to convert. If the regulatory 
bodies believed there to be a valid reason, the NRC and others could 
have mandated this conversion years ago. They elected not to. They 
are more perceptive to the catastrophe that would befall many 
facilities if this was mandated. Hopefully, they will continue to use 
common sense when it comes to the documentation of dose, so the 
hundreds of thousands of workers won't be left in the dark.

Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html