RE: Choice of radiation units to use

[L_K_II_Les_Aldrich@RL.gov]

To me, its not a matter of not knowing a unit conversion, its the
negative effect of having to use the unit conversion that bothers me.
Reviewing a document written in SI takes longer than reviewing one
written in traditional units because every time I run into one, I have
to stop reading and go through the mental process of saying, "10 mSv;
let's see, that's 1000 mrem or 1 rem."  It takes even more time when the
conversion starts with Bq.  There is an even more serious effect if the
number comes up in a conversation.  During the time it takes to convert
the units, I am disconnected from the conversation and just might miss
something important the speaker is trying to say.  I've known the
conversions for a long time, and after decades of trying, have given up
hope of ever being able to read, listen, or speak in SI without mentally
converting the numbers to units I understand.

If I were to go into the field and talk to any of our several hundred
health physics technicians in SI, I have no doubt I'd be told to go back
to my office and learn proper health physics terminology.  

Someone once told me that to properly learn a foreign language, you have
to start no later than about age 10.  After that, your basic language is
so ingrained that you will always have to mentally convert back and
forth between the new language and the basic language as you converse.
I find that true with SI units, which are still, to me, a foreign
language.

Fortunately, I work at a DOE site where, by law [10 CFR 835], "...the
quantities used in the records ... shall be clearly indicated in special
units of curie, rad, or rem ... The SI units ... are only provided
parenthetically ... for reference with scientific standards.  These SI
units are not authorized for use in records required under this part."

Strictly my own thoughts.

Les Aldrich



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Weiner, Ruth [SMTP:rfweine@sandia.gov]
> Sent:	Thursday, September 09, 1999 7:17 AM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	RE: Choice of radiation units to use
> 
> Understanding units is so fundamental to
> understanding science and the "language" of science that if one
> doesn't know
> a unit conversion, either  working it out or looking it up is an
> experience
> of educating oneself.  
> 
> I cannot see where historical units of radioactivity would be any more
> familiar, except to a long-term professional in the field, than SI
> units,
> and a long-term professional ought to be professional enough that
> familiarity, whatever that is, shouldn't matter.  Certainly rems were
> not as
> familiar to any of my students as quarts, so if going  to metric
> volume
> units poses no problem, why should going to SI units pose a problem?
> 
> 
> Clearly only my own opinion.
> 
> Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
> Sandia National Laboratories 
> MS 0718, POB 5800
> Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
> 505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
> rfweine@sandia.gov
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janzow1@aol.com [mailto:Janzow1@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 8:50 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: Choice of radiation units to use
> 
> 
> Hello:
>      The proper choice of units depends upon the circumstances of use
> of the
> 
> units.  No unit or system of units is intrinsically "better" than any
> other.
>      1.  The units to be used in a particular message or writing
> should be 
> selected  for best understanding by those to whom the message or
> writing is 
> directed.  When talking to radiation workers in my facility (some of
> whom 
> have been such for over 30 years) , I use traditional US units.  Were
> I to 
> tell such a person that a particular task will give them one sievert,
> the 
> most likely response would be "OK" and the person would go off to do
> the
> task 
> unless physically restrained.  But if I tell the same person that the
> task 
> will give him 100 Rem, the response will be much different, and very
> strong.
>  
>         Numerous other examples of use-related unit choices could be
> cited.
>                
>               Ed Janzow
>                 janzow1@aol.com
> **********************************************************************
> **
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 
> **********************************************************************
> **
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html