Talk:Equivalent dose

Physics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The language in this posting is consistent with ICRP Report 60, "1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection." Th'wing 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics or "physics?"

Do physicists consider all this BS about sieverts and rems and heat units to be real physics? This stuff seems so fluffy and full of rules of thumb that it seems more like bastardized engineering (engineering itself being a bastardization of physics).

Merger proposal

I propose you leave fundamental definitions as seperate entities, refer to their citation in any synthesis work, and allow people to find exactly what they want in one snap shot rather than having to scroll down multiple wikipages to find what they want accordint to someone's attempt to show their lack ofexpertise in the field, teaching, adaptive learning, personalized learning. Modularity is king for digestion, convenience, efficacy, attention span, ...don't dilute by convoluting simplified topic matter. Please leave descriptions at newpaper level of reading for general public. Thanks.

I propose to merge this very short article with the equally short Absorbed dose under the title of Radiation dose, and explain the differences between the two there. bd2412 T 09:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise that a merger is fine, but it should be into an article covering radiobiology or health physics terminology. I'd propose that this article would also discuss the various terms and their relation. In health physics we deal with these terms (and others, including the Sv/rem difference mentioned above) as clearly discrete concepts, and it's important to distinguish between them. (Sorry, no Wiki account yet. I will shortly; I wanted to check the health physics-related articles to see if there would be value to having a health physicist help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.213.79 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that there is always a value to having a knowledgeable contributor help out! bd2412 T 08:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran: I think any person wishing to view either of these pages would be equaly interested in the other page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.9.83 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge is a good idea but any merge would also require the effective dose to be merged. There is also a great deal of redundancy between the Sivert, ionizing radiation, and RBE pages - much the same way as there is duplicity between the respective quality factors and weighting factors (which are identical for a reason I've long forgotten).--Dscraggs (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its a good idea to merge the two articles. Absorbed dose has applications outside of biology. It is a real physical unit and precisely defined, measurable with a calorimeter. The other terms, Effective Dose, Dose Equivalent, Equivalent dose etc., are really biological terms, not physical terms. They cannot be measured with physical equipment but by studying death rates or cancer rates in mice, tissue samples, or human populations David s graff (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]