Talk:Orders of magnitude (radiation): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Davy p - "→Add this chart pls: yes, add this chart, please" |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:::OK, I just read he placed it on the public domain, so no copyvio concern. I however believe the chart should not be used as it is not a reliable source... <font face="courier new"><b>> [[User:RUL3R|RUL3R]]<small><sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>[[User talk:RUL3R|trolling]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-11.0ex;">>[[Special:Contributions/RUL3R|vandalism]]</sub></small></b></font> 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::OK, I just read he placed it on the public domain, so no copyvio concern. I however believe the chart should not be used as it is not a reliable source... <font face="courier new"><b>> [[User:RUL3R|RUL3R]]<small><sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>[[User talk:RUL3R|trolling]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-11.0ex;">>[[Special:Contributions/RUL3R|vandalism]]</sub></small></b></font> 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: The chart at [[xkcd]] is too good to ignore. As for, "it is not a reliable source," he provides references; so it is at least as good as the rest of Wikipedia. If there were to be discrepancies, surely they would rapidly come to notice? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davy p|Davy p]] ([[User talk:Davy p|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davy p|contribs]]) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
:::: The chart at [[xkcd]] is too good to ignore. As for, "it is not a reliable source," he provides references; so it is at least as good as the rest of Wikipedia. If there were to be discrepancies, surely they would rapidly come to notice? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davy p|Davy p]] ([[User talk:Davy p|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davy p|contribs]]) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:::::In that case, it is best to cite those references and draw another chart...this is kind of a gray area on policy... <font face="courier new"><b>> [[User:RUL3R|RUL3R]]<small><sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>[[User talk:RUL3R|trolling]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-11.0ex;">>[[Special:Contributions/RUL3R|vandalism]]</sub></small></b></font> 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Confusing. == |
== Confusing. == |
||
Revision as of 19:23, 21 March 2011
 | Measurement (defunct) | |||
| ||||
.jpg){kind=small} | Physics List‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Only numbers in sortable columns
Table columns must have only numeric characters (0 to 9 and optional decimal point) for wikimedia's sort function to work. For any value that is a range in the cited source, it is best if the lower bound is in the sortable column and the full range in the description. -84user (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Add this chart pls
DoneFulfilling my own request. F (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the chart on copyvio concerns. Also, Randall Munroe is no expert on radiation, and he himself states on that very chart that it should not be used as reference. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I just read he placed it on the public domain, so no copyvio concern. I however believe the chart should not be used as it is not a reliable source... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The chart at xkcd is too good to ignore. As for, "it is not a reliable source," he provides references; so it is at least as good as the rest of Wikipedia. If there were to be discrepancies, surely they would rapidly come to notice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davy p (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, it is best to cite those references and draw another chart...this is kind of a gray area on policy... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The chart at xkcd is too good to ignore. As for, "it is not a reliable source," he provides references; so it is at least as good as the rest of Wikipedia. If there were to be discrepancies, surely they would rapidly come to notice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davy p (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I just read he placed it on the public domain, so no copyvio concern. I however believe the chart should not be used as it is not a reliable source... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the chart on copyvio concerns. Also, Randall Munroe is no expert on radiation, and he himself states on that very chart that it should not be used as reference. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Confusing.
Having some entries be "Acute", some "Hourly" and some "Annual" is confusing.
The layperson coming here to estimate some real risk (eg, should I fly on my next vacation...should I have a chest Xray...is a trip to Chernobyl wise?"), it would be easy to confuse these dosages.
Perhaps we should either:
1) Convert all annual doses to their hourly equivalent and place the annual equivalent into a separate column. This would place entries into a more reasonable order.
2) Make separate tables for acute, short-duration and long-duration dosage levels.
Thoughts?