RE: Choice of radiation units to use

["Cook, Lew (LCOO)" <LCOO@chevron.com>]

	Ruth Weiner wrote:
	"...  There is, amazingly enough, a connection between the "SI
	units" thread and the "stupid question" thread (or at least I think
there is). "

I kicked over that beehive by linking "stupid" with changing unit systems.
Change for the sake of change is stupid. Sometimes we must do stupid things.

I learned physics in cgs units, and I will always understand cgs better than
mks. c is 3 x 10^10 cm/sec. Always will be. I learned health physics in
curies and rads. I will always understand it better. I have an intuitive
understanding of what 100R/hr means (run away!) 

I went over to Kazakhstan last year and dealt with field measurements of
radiation with Russian speaking colleagues who, also, were using
"meekro-Curie" and "meekro-Roentgen" units. Despite not having a common
language other than radiation units, we got along fantastically. Had they
spoken "SI", it would have been more difficult.

SI isn't bad, neither are the "old fashioned" rad units. What's bad is
trying to unlearn one system and substitute another. There is a whole field
of safety engineering called "Management of change." When you don't get it
right, the plant explodes. We've seen errors in postings here caused by
someone trying to change systems and not getting it right. I don't know when
or how we are going to switch to SI in the field, but I do know there are
going to be mistakes. I hope they won't be costly in terms of human health.
I know they will be costly in dollars.

Lew
Company intranet:   http://people.chevron.com/lcoo/
Off-work internet:      http://home.pacbell.net/cookl/


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html